When will the Q-PROJECT finally be
finished?!
Willem Mastenbroek
Holland Consulting Group, Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics, Free University of Amsterdam
Working paper, published in 2000
Change management in TQM is organized fundamentally
wrong. It forces line management into irresponsible
behavior.
| This article argues in favor of firmly anchoring TQM in the line organization. It is remarkable that this is always recommended, but in practice every effort is made to keep TQM disconnected. Reasons: 1) The force of habit. 2) `System errors' in the areas of steering ability and self-organization. 3) Commercial motives: at first sight an extensive program leads to more results than when the line organization does the job. |
Recently I was told by a clearly pleased manager of a large production department that the quality project was as good as dead. Work could finally return to normal. He felt that for years he had been pressured by all kinds of requests (i.e. orders) to have employees participate in project groups. A merry-go-round of training and education courses had put impossible strain on planning. Everyone had been forced to improvise and work overtime to keep things going. In addition there were countless research activities by external characters who kept getting in the way. The report on avoidable quality costs in particular had gone down very badly with him and his people. "As if we don't work like crazy here!!" Anyway, the training courses were over, the project groups had done their jobs. There were just going to be some meetings to pass on the results. "Well, let them figure it out, maybe the coordinators will know what to do with it." By then most of the Q-coordinators had chucked it in. The man presently in charge did not have to be taken seriously, and his assistant was still a rookie!
back to top
The medium is the message
We see here that the way in which TQM is organized breeds irresponsible behavior. Numerous automatisms that evoke this response creep into the approach. Take for example the following methods of managing Q-projects:
- working with steering groups and project groups;
- having specially appointed employees or external consultants do thorough research;
- appointing special project leaders, improvement managers, task forces and quality coordinators;
- using training programs to get quality and customer orientation off the ground.
These may be accepted and familiar methods, but no matter how we look at it, they take away responsibility from line management. The line is excluded from the search for improvements. Steering and commitment from the top are pushed into the background, the line organization is not made accountable. Project groups start to work on it or people learn about it outside the normal work situation, for instance during a training course. No wonder that implementation then causes problems. Paradoxically, these methods are intended to support the line organization.
Can it be done differently? We can go in an entirely different direction. The core of such an approach is to have every manager together with his/her people devise and execute improvements. As simple as that! This approach brings to the surface company culture, personal attitudes and skills. For example:
"Well yes," people say, "but our organization is not ready for this yet." Or: "We as the management haven't quite figured it out yet." Or: "Middle management can't handle such a process.' Or: "If you leave that kind of responsibility to the people, nothing much will come of it." If that is true, we must not skirt around these issues with all kinds of auxiliary constructions! These are the problems that deserve to be solved. First of all by leaving responsibility where it lies and subsequently giving substance to it. It is better to build this up step by step than eventually being stuck with major implementation problems.
back to top
Cases
How does this approach operate in practice? Two examples:
The management of a company (approx. 750 employees) that installs and supplies food-dispensing machines concludes that increasing competition demands improved customer orientation. The management team develops an approach to this end in two meetings. It is decided that all the units in the organization will work systematically on four questions. These questions are:
- Who are our (internal) customers?
- On what points can we 'score' with these customers?
- What actions do we take to that end?
- How do we make our results visible?
All units start off with a brief work conference lasting half a day/one day. Progress of the process becomes a fixed item on the agenda for the team meetings of all units in the organization. Every three months meetings of all managers are organized to exchange up-to-date information on the state of affairs. Progress is reported in an internal periodical. Every unit makes its progress visible through a simple reporting system. Departments with outstanding perfomance records are publicly acknowledged.
After one year 150 improvement projects have been started. Countless tangible results have already been achieved: reduced lead times on orders, reduction of the number of complaints, improved financial results, improved control of the work flow, reduction of temporary labor.
In this project there were no project groups. The steering group was the top team, and that was it. No studies were conducted, except by departments and teams themselves. The line organization was included every step of the way. Each manager remained responsible for the (internal) customers of his unit. Issues on the inter-unit level were the responsibility of the higher manager in question. Every unit in the company was expected to show results. Does this approach mean that projects always go smoothly and without any problems? Not quite; nothing is automatic. Solid steering and a strong determination are required from the top team.
A case where the process went much less smoothly:
It concerns a company in the chemical industry aiming to achieve 'quality improvement' and 'cost leadership'. After a promising start, it turns out that concrete improvement actions are slow to get off the ground. There is some progress, but only sporadically. Examples:
- Considerable reduction of re-setting times between particular types of products.
- Reduction of rejection rates for two products.
- Reduction of production breakdowns thanks to improved cooperation between operators and the technical department.
An elaborate program of kick-off meetings and work conferences for the regular work teams (about improvement meetings and working with indicators) provides important impulses. However, it takes two years to get to the point that improvement is discussed on a regular basis at both the company and the team level. Even then, the results are few and the meetings are beginning to cave in. Apart from occasional actions as described in the examples, there is little movement. Mentality and company culture have an obstructing effect. Also, there is a growing dount about management's motivation. Management declares its maximum commitment over and over, but they are unable to translate it into action. Furthermore, other issues, including many operational problems, distract attention. Two interventions eventually put the project back on the rails. (1) All managers are obliged to put the improvement project on the agenda of every meeting they have with their people. (2) Each unit must report on the results using performance indicators. These indicators are usually kept up to date by the people involved, and they are displayed in such a way that all can see and examine them. These two powerful stimuli, consistently maintained, even enforced, by management, prove to work.
What causes the different pace in these two examples? In both cases the essence of the approach is that the units come up with improvement actions and that the regular line organization remains responsible. The difference lies in the steering capacity. In the first case management steers more powerfully. They are able to do this because they are more of a team. Also, this steering is responded to better by the organizational units. They have the ability to extract the message and go to work. In the second case managers are enticed into getting involved with operational details time and again. One might say: the managers in the first case are better able to delegate and coach. But also: their job is much easier, because the lower echelons are quicker on the uptake and better able to develop a plan for their own unit.
back to top
Core of the approach
The core of the approach concerns two types of activities:
- For the entire organization:
- The top indicates: what to improve.
- Mutual exchanges and progress reports on the action plans of the units are organized.
- All units participate. "If you're not with us, go and do something else."
- Each unit:
- Formulates improvement goals within the strategy of the company.
- Agrees on actions.
- Makes results visible.
- Improves communication and team performance.
Support is available to the units, and they also have the opportunity to decide their own pace and make their own choices. The core is always the same: steering and self-organization. Put concisely: policy down, concrete improvements up. Many organizations encounter impediments on the way. These appear to have a slowing effect. Yet it only seems that way, because development of the abilities to achieve continuous result improvement is of primary importance. Working on quality improvement helps clarify shortcomings in management style and social effectiveness, which subsequently can be developed all the more effectively. "More effectively" because they can be focused directly on the behavior and attitudes necessary for improvement. Steering capacity and self-organization, the appropriate management style and communication skills all these are highlighted while working on better results. Interventions in these areas continue to take place in the context of arriving at concrete actions to reduce costs, improve quality and increase customer orientation.
back to top
Responsibility in the line
Placing the responsibility in the line organization from the start commands the required changes in management style and team performance. The line organization must steer and cultivate self-organization. Teams must develop their own improvement actions within the overall vision. They should make their own results visible and take responsibility for their own (internal) customers. To make sure this actually happens, the line organization must monitor and steer. Project or steering groups would only put them on the wrong track. Training courses should take the form of short work conferences with existing teams; they should be about solving actual problems in the work situation and about concrete actions to improve team results.
Steering ánd self organization are the core of this approach. They operate as a propelling force towards continuous improvement on all levels of the organization (Mastenbroek, 1993).
The tension balance steering-self organization
The responsibility and accountability of organizational units have to be raised. Specific steering is needed for this. How this can be done is clarified above under the headings 'Cases' and 'Core of the approach'
back to top
Resistance
Can line management steer as indicated above? Apart from the already discussed fact that inappropriate instruments are frequently applied, management style is also an important factor. Unfortunately, managers are often put on the wrong track. They are taught discussion skills, to keep asking questions, provide support, coaching leadership, how to cope with resistance. The end result is increased resistance. Take the following examples:
| 1 An employee: |
"If they want me to do better, they had better start by telling me exactly what it is I do wrong." |
| 2 A manager: |
"If this company wants quality, they should go after department X first." |
| 3 An employee: |
"I can name ten things that can be done better in this department. But hey, we don't get to pick our bosses or co-workers, do we?" |
| 4 A manager: |
"Quality is all well and good, but as long as they don't give us the resources and the authority, there's nothing we can do." |
Common remarks, aren't they? Managers have a hard time with statements such as these. They feel such utterances should be taken seriously. They are right, but in a different way than they often think.
The remarks touch upon the essence of quality, namely the degree in which people take responsibility for their situation. The common factor in the above statements is that the people involved pass responsibility for their situation to other people, preferably the management. The line organization extends to include the workers. They also have responsibility. A truism if ever there was one! But do we also act upon it? Taking resistance seriously surely does not mean that we let people get away with their slogans and irresponsible behavior? What do we do about the 'system error' of irresponsible behavior? Compare your reaction to the following possibilities.
- How often does this man discuss his quality with his (internal) customers? What does he mean when he says 'exactly'? Isn't half a word enough? Why does he say: "If they want it done better"? Isn't improvement always possible? Does this company need such an apathetic attitude?
- Does the performance of department X really affect this department's quality? If not, then what kind of nonsense is this? If it does, then how is this manager handling department X to improve his own performance? Why does he leave that to 'them'? That's not what he is being paid for!
- What actions does this employee take to get support from his boss and co-workers? Is not he himself responsible for the quality of his work relations? What is he doing right now to realize improvement? "What's the point!?" Why is this person, who is obviously not motivated, still there?
- 'The resources and authority'. Empty slogans! If a person feels responsible, let him start with the resources he has. Besides, what does he mean "well and good"! Does this man believe in better quality? Obviously not! What kind of message does that send out? This person causes damage by his very attitude. Is he aware of that? What is he going to do about it?
Are these common reactions? I don't think so. We have learned to swallow our disappointment or irritation and to keep asking questions. We search for the sources of resistance and bottlenecks. And there are plenty of those. You can be sure that a truckload of bottlenecks will surface. "A good discussion!" If you are not able to solve these bottlenecks quickly, disappointment on the other side will follow this 'good discussion'. "You see, nothing is possible in this company. Now I have explained everything clearly, and what does the man do? Nothing. Just fancy talk!" Result of the good discussion: increasingly irresponsible behavior.
back to top
Summary
"Responsibility for improvement belongs in the line!" Everybody always agrees with this statement. Subsequently every effort is made to systematically undermine that responsibilty. First the change process is organized apart from the line-organization, and then the management style is such that it opens the door for claptrap. This applies to TQM and many other change programs. The core of an approach that links up directly with the line organization is summarized here and clarified by two cases.
back to top
More information
Underlying concepts and more information on methods and techniques are discussed in two books: Mastenbroek, W.F.G. (ed) Managing for Quality in the Service Sector, Blackwell, 1991, and Mastenbroek, W.F.G. Conflict Management and Organization Development, Wiley, 1993.
back to top
About the author
Willem Mastenbroek, Ph.D., is professor of Organizational Culture and Communication at the Department of Economics of the Free University of Amsterdam. He has authored numerous articles and books, including Conflict Management and Organization Development (Wiley, 1993) and Managing for Quality in the Service Sector (Blackwell, 1991).
Mastenbroek is partner of Holland Consulting Group in Amsterdam. He is engaged in improvement of results (quality, profitability, client orientation, innovative capacity) often in relation with structural and cultural changes.
