How We Get Hooked on Overusing Antecedents

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Tom Werner

Work hard and be nice sign Consequences have a greater effect on behavior than antecedents. You can urge me to do something, but what I experience when I actually do it is the determining factor.

Organizations tend to over-rely on antecedents. Goals, kick-offs, training, directions, mission statements, instructions, posters, requests, reminders, etc., all urge people before-the-fact to do things. (Correspondingly, many organizations tend to underuse positive consequences following behavior.)

But why is that the case? If antecedents are not as powerful as well as consequences, why do we use them so much? Why do organizations rely so much on antecedents?

The answer has to do with natural consequences. Natural consequences are the built-in consequences that follow behavior automatically. You don’t have to pat me on the back for eating ice cream; eating ice cream has positive consequences built-in.

You can provide antecedents-only as long as the natural environment provides the consequences. If you tell me how to do something on the computer that I’m trying to do (antecedent), you don’t have to compliment me afterward; the computer itself will reinforce my points-and-clicks by letting me accomplish the task (natural consequence).

The same can be true in more complex situations. If I’m dreading a social engagement, you might give me advice (antecedent): “Just smile and try to have a good time.” In response, I smile and people respond warmly (natural positive consequences). Your advice worked! The situation itself provided me with positive consequences; you didn’t have to.

Notice that your behavior of providing an antecedent-only (advice) was also naturally reinforced. It works often enough to become a habit. And so we learn to be advice-givers, direction-providers, goal-tellers, mission-staters, change-explainers, and so forth.

The problem comes when the natural environment doesn’t cooperate, when the natural consequences work against the antecedents! You urge me to work safely (antecedent), but working safely takes more time and trouble for me (negative natural consequences). You tell me to provide great customer service, but giving great customer services takes extra effort on my part (negative natural consequence).

So the big take-away is to ask: “What do people actually experience when they do the things that we’re directing them to do? What are the natural consequences that they encounter?”

The need to add positive consequences for the desired behavior – and not rely just on antecedents-only – becomes obvious when we see that the natural environment isn’t providing them.

4 Things Good Consultants Do

Posted on October 17, 2013 by Tom Werner

I’ve had the privilege this year to talk to some very good performance improvement consultants about how exactly they do what they do. These consultants use a variety of improvement approaches, but in all cases they get results, move numbers, and have success stories to tell.

Even though these consultants use different bodies of knowledge as their thoughtware (behavior, process, problem solving, teams, and so forth), I notice four steps that they all take. I think these four steps set the stage for each consultant’s particular doctrine to operate successfully.

A comment: These consultants have to push – both themselves and the client – to do these steps. They don’t get invited to do them, and it’s easier not to do them.

They start by talking about the business, not about their improvement methodology. They don’t just start talking about their models and acronyms and tools and techniques. They talk business first. They talk to the client about the key opportunity or challenge in the business. They seek to aim their improvement methodology at the core work, not at a side-project.
They identify one or more key metrics to be the measure of success. They don’t think of the improvement effort as a typical project that is judged simply by the accomplishment of action steps. They identify a business outcome as a quantitative scorecard. They frame the improvement effort as a means of moving a key business number.
They look at the current influences on key behaviors and rearrange them. They don’t expect speeches and goals and training (antecedents) to change behavior. They know that the problem with changing behavior is that immediate natural consequences rule. You can urge me to eat healthy, but potato chips taste good right now. They expect that the current workplace is like a room filled with bowls of potato chips – set up to reinforce the wrong behavior. They make specific plans to change the moment-by-moment antecedents and consequences in the workplace, changing the kinds of conversations and meetings people have. This inevitably involves getting out of the classroom and meeting room and coaching people in the workplace.
They get the executives to change too. They don’t assume that the executives are leading flawlessly and that the only problem is with front-line performance. They expect that each level of leadership, including the executives, will need to provide positive consequences for new behavior in the level below.

Lean + Behavior Management at SSF

Posted on October 16, 2013 by Tom Werner

There are a lot of good things to notice in this video about the morning meeting at Specialty Silicone Fabricators. If you’re implementing lean, it’s definitely worth five minutes to watch.

Three huge take-aways are:

They are applying lean/quality practices to managing the business and not just to projects. One reason that some lean implementations don’t become a way of life is that the tools and techniques are applied to individual improvement projects, but how leaders manage the actual business day-in and day-out doesn’t change.
The frequency of the meeting (daily) matches the rhythm of events in their operation. They discovered that meeting less frequently made their discussions and actions out of sync with issues as they arose; they were always behind the curve. This is a pillar of effective Team Management: match the frequency (the “heartbeat”) of team meetings to the pace of events so that the discussion can be about influencing situations in real-time and not just post-mortems.
They build positive reinforcement into the standard work of how they manage. They start every meeting with items to celebrate (called “Wow moments”), safety issues, and customer issues. They put a gold star on the whiteboard to indicate outstanding effort by an employee in taking care of a customer or team. Another reason that some lean implementations don’t sustain is that people are expected to behave in new ways but encounter no positive consequences for doing so. (See Michael McCarthy’s excellent book Sustain Your Gains for more on this.)

Other take-aways are:

The meeting is stand-up to keep it succinct and on track. (They connect remote locations into the daily meetings by video conference.)
The meeting is visual: there are charts on the walls and a large “action board” whiteboard.
They look at daily metrics and color-code trends: positive trends as green, negative trends as red, and no change as black.
For a negative trend, they put an action item on a sticky note and put it on the whiteboard on the day it is due.
On a rotating basis each department once every two weeks talks in detail about its operations and issues.
They put a purple star on the whiteboard when a problem solution results in an actual process improvement.
They document the daily-meeting practices as standard work to sustain it and inform participants who attend as back-ups.

4 Risks in Process Redesign and What to Do

Posted on October 1, 2013 by Tom Werner

In a Process Redesign project a Design Team, usually guided by a facilitator, maps the current-state workflow of a key process, analyzes it, and then redesigns it to improve quality and speed and reduce waste and frustration. The Design Team then proposes the redesigned process to a Steering Committee. After approval, an implementation plan is created and the new process is implemented.

What can go wrong? Here are four common risks of a Process Redesign Project and what to do about them:

Risk #1: The Design Team is locked in its thinking and cannot imagine a new process. What to do to minimize this risk:

Select creative and open-minded Design Team members.
Have multiple levels of the organization (a “diagonal slice”) represented on the Design Team.
Have the Steering Committee suggest possible big ideas for redesign for the Design Team to explore.
Provide Design Team members with fresh perspectives and before-and-after examples of other redesigned processes.

Risk #2: The Design Team’s recommendations are too radical for the Steering Committee. What to do to minimize this risk:

Have the Steering Committee provide the Design Team with a charter that includes any boundaries or constraints.
The outside Consultant should serve as a liaison between Design Team and Steering Committee so that communication is maintained.
The Steering Committee should retain its right to modify recommendations to stay within constraints.

Risk #3: The organization resists the implementation of the redesigned process. What to do to minimize this risk:

Have the Design Team members themselves explain to the organization their thinking behind the new process.
Have the Steering Committee and Design Team develop a thorough implementation plan that includes direction, procedures, training, and so forth.
The implementation plan should include (a) a “consequence analysis” to identify what the workers will actually experience when they behave in the new process, and (b) a plan providing positive consequences for the new behaviors required by the new process.

Risk #4: The new process does not sustain; people revert to the old process. What to do to minimize this risk:

Articulating in the implementation plan that human behavior in the new process requires ongoing positive attention (versus “one-and-done” steps such as installing new equipment.
Avoiding process audits which only report process failures, and thus drive “just enough to get by” behavior.
Building feedback and positive reinforcement permanently into the standard work/standard operating procedures of the new process.

10 Learnings from Process Redesign Projects

Posted on September 1, 2013 by Tom Werner

Working with a Design Team to redesign a process can be anxiety-provoking.

You are relying on the Design Team to (a) draw the current-state process clearly and honestly and (b) imagine a significantly improved future-state process.

Here are ten tips from the trenches for making a Process Redesign project work: situations:

The management team that owns the process starts by creating the Design Charter. The Design Charter links the process to the needs of the business. Creating the Design Charter requires the managers to sort out the exact size of the process, problems in the current state, impact on the business, desired characteristics of the future state, and expected deliverables of the Design Team. This ensures that the Design Team has a relevant, do-able task and that the managers and Design Team members are aligned.
A good project manager is essential. The project manager sets the intellectual and emotional tone of the Design Team, provides overall knowledge of the process, and updates the process owners and sponsors. In addition to project management, the project manager needs great listening skills, the ability to relate to other functions, and the ability to assess hour-by-hour (with the process facilitator) how best to use the Design Team’s time. The project manager is part of the Steering Committee.
Maximize the value of Design Team time with “synthesis time.” Periodically the project manager and consultant need time to synthesize the Design Team’s outputs and “tee up” the Design Team’s next work. This can minimize the amount of time that the Design Team is away from work.
Pacing the Design Team is better than pushing it. Although putting the Design Team in a room all-day-every-day may seem like a good idea, the resulting “design fatigue” is counterproductive. (Besides, it’s hard to free up the best people to work full-time.) Three partial days of focused, inspired work is much better than five full days of exhausted struggle. (This is particularly true if the project manager and facilitator are using “synthesis time” (#3 above) to organize and structure the Design Team’s efforts.)
Analyze the Current State process (even though you know it’s broken). Analyzing the current state ensures that the Design Team focuses on the facts and understands the drivers and paradigms in effect today. The Design Team must answer the question: “If the process is so broken, what unintentional forces in the system keep it going?” Those unintentional forces have to be addressed in the future-state design.
Invite knowledgeable visitors to meet with the Design Team. People who know the current-state process can visit with the Design Team and add tremendously to its work. Often a visit of only one hour is extremely helpful. The key to using visiting experts effectively is to have them react to specific questions or ideas.
Have large-group sessions for input and communication. A half-day large-group session for those who touch the process can explain the design charter and obtain input on the current state. A second half-day large-group meeting can obtain input on the “wet-cement” Future State recommendations. These sessions can serve to educate the Design Team and to communicate to the whole organization about the need for change and the status of the effort.
Design Team members bring different strengths to the Design Team. Some Design Team members excel at describing the current state honestly and vividly, others are good at imagining different visions of the future state. Some are concrete, others are conceptual. The Design Team needs the diversity — the key is taking advantage of the right strengths at the right time.
Select Design Team members based on ability to collaborate, knowledge of the process, creativity, and diversity of perspective. First, Design Team members have to have the interactive skills for group inquiry. Second, they should have first-hand experience with the process. Third, they should be able to think creatively about the process. Fourth, there should be both management and non-management people on the team. The Design Team needs both a managerial perspective and a front-line perspective.
Have Design Team meetings on-site. Having easy access to information about the process (and letting members to do other work before and after Design Team meetings) offsets the occasional distractions of meeting on-site.

How to Redesign a Process

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Tom Werner

What is Process Redesign

A cross-functional Design Team of employees, guided by a facilitator, maps the current-state workflow of a key process, analyzes it, and then redesigns it to improve quality and speed and reduce waste and frustration.

The redesign can be a streamlining of the process (“fix it up”) or a radical reengineering (“blow it up”), depending on how big an improvement is needed and how much change the organization can handle.

The Design Team presents its recommendations to a Steering Committee. After approval, an implementation plan is developed and executed.

The implementation plan should include a consequence analysis, i.e., identify what the workers will actually experience when they behave in the new process. It is important that the implementation plan includes providing positive consequences – on an ongoing basis – for the new work behaviors required by the new process.

Implementation then begins.

The Steps

The steps involved in a Process Redesign project are:

Charter from Steering Committee. The Steering Committee drafts a document that defines the target process, goals for improvement, design principles, and any boundaries or constraints.
Current-state analysis. The Design Team maps the flow of the process in its current state, “warts and all,” showing all steps, hand-offs, and decisions, and indicating where and how problems typically occur. The Design Team also identifies the existing mindsets, habits, and systems that drive and maintain the current-state process.
Review of current state. The Design Team reviews its map and analysis of the current state with the Steering Committee to establish a consensus understanding of “what is reality today.”
Future-state design. The Design Team maps a new, future-state process designed to be better, faster, cheaper, and less frustrating. The future-state design typically also includes new people systems, such as new roles, team formations, or incentives.
Recommendation to Steering Committee. The Design Team presents its new design and recommendations to the Steering Committee for its approval and feedback.
Implementation plan. The Design Team creates an implementation plan to put the approved workflow into practice. The implementation includes ensuring that the consequences of new-process behaviors are positive. Implementation then proceeds based on the implementation plan.

Why Process Redesign Works

Posted on July 15, 2013 by Tom Werner

In a Process Redesign project a cross-functional Design Team of employees, guided by a facilitator, maps the current-state workflow of a key process, analyzes it, and then redesigns it to improve quality and speed and reduce waste and frustration.

The process approach can be extremely powerful, and is arguably the best first step to get out of firefighting mode. Why does it work?

A Process Redesign project works because it is different than day-to-day problem solving or fixing just a part of the process:

Holistic look. The Design Team looks at the whole end-to-end process, rather than trying to fix just a piece.
Horizontal view. The Design Team looks at the horizontal flow of work across functions, avoiding a siloed, single-function perspective.
Cross-functional members. Design Team members represent the different functions that touch the process and educate each other about all of its aspects.
Step-change mindset. The Design Team challenges conventional thinking by aiming for dramatic, step-change improvement, not just tweaks or fixes.
Process principles. The Design Team redesigns the workflow according to principles of effective process design (such as reduce waiting, moving, hand-offs, and checks, work in parallel rather than in sequence, simplify forms and procedures, etc.).
Data-based. The Design Team assembles and reviews all data related to the process to avoid functional biases and urban myths.
“Massively-applied common sense.” The Design Team continuously applies common sense to the process, i.e., “if we were starting fresh today, how would we do this?”
Internal expertise. The combination of job experience and Design Team participation makes the members true in-house experts on the process.

These characteristics of the process-redesign approach make it powerful.

10 Ways You Know a Process Is Broken

Posted on July 1, 2013 by Tom Werner

A consulting colleague recently asked me how you know it’s time to redesign a process (aka workflow improvement). Here’s my answer. You know it’s time for process redesign when:

The process is essential…and frustrating. The process is essential for obtaining key business results, and at the same time, frustration with the process has been growing.
The numbers are not good. Whatever numbers you have — errors, rework, cycle time, cost — say that the process isn’t working.
The process has mutated over time. No one starting fresh today would build a process that looks like this.
Many touch it, nobody owns it. The process is touched by many different functions, but no one function owns the whole process.
The process involves people. The process involves human discretion, and the decisions, habits, and mindsets of the people that touch the process affect its operation.
Standard fixes haven’t worked. Ordinary efforts to improve the process (meetings, memos, training, greater effort, etc.) have not worked.
People go around the process. Fixes and workarounds have become commonplace in the process. People who know how to short-cut or avoid the process are seen as heroes.
Everyone sees the gaps. Even casual observers can see multiple hand-offs, redundancies, and rework in the process.
People complain and fingerpoint. People complain about the process, and each function thinks that another is the problem.
The logic of the workflow is historical. The steps made sense in the past, but not today.

If most or all of these are true, the process is broken. Propose to leadership that process redesign is needed. Create a charter. Form a design team. Map the current state. Design a faster, easier, better process.

Does Your Organization Practice Team Management?

Posted on June 15, 2013 by Tom Werner

Team Management is a set of high-commitment, high-capability management practices.

At first glance, Team Management seems to be just common sense. So a common first reaction to Team Management is, “We do that already.” (Because we always do common sense, don’t we? Don’t we?)

The key, of course, is to turn common sense into common practice.

Does your organization really practice Team Management? Take this self check to find out.

Team Management Self Check

Think about your organization’s management practices and rate each item on a scale of 1 (Rare in the Organization) to 5 (True Everywhere in the Organization):

Teams as a System

____ 1. Throughout the organization, there is a consistent set of management practices and routines that everyone expects and knows how to do.

____ 2. Teams exist throughout the organization and everyone is on at least one team.

____ 3. All of the teams are formed around the work so that each team owns a meaningful workflow.

____ 4. Each team has asked itself: what is our mission, what outputs are we expected to produce?

____ 5. Teams are interconnected vertically; teams at each level have translated strategy and goals into the unique work that they must do.

____ 6. Teams are interconnected horizontally; each team receives exactly what it needs and produces exactly what the next team needs.

____ 7. Each team has regular, frequent team meetings that are interactive discussions about managing the team’s work.

____ 8. The frequency of management routines, such as team meetings, matches the rhythm of the business so that teams can act in time to influence results.

____ 9. Each team captures and reviews its action items to maintain accountability for action.

Continuous Improvement

____ 10. The management culture is proactive and preventive, rather than reactive and crisis-to-crisis.

____ 11. Most problems are addressed and solved by teams at the levels at which the problems occur.

____ 12. Teams follow problem-solving methods so that discussion is both rigorous and creative.

____ 13. Each team uses tools and techniques to ensure that problem solving is data-based.

____ 14. Each team uses tools and techniques to identify and address the root causes of problems.

____ 15. Each team maps its workflows to identify opportunities for streamlining.

____ 16. Each team documents its learnings to avoid facing the same problems over and over.

____ 17. Teams interact easily with other teams about problems and workflows because they have common language and approaches.

Balanced Scorecards

____ 18. There is a mindset of using forward-looking data to take early action to influence results.

____ 19. Each team has a set of performance indicators that reflect all of its results expectations.

____ 20. Each team’s performance indicators include measures of behaviors and interim outputs that ultimately link to key results.

____ 21. Each team uses graphical displays to visualize performance trends.

Leader as Coach

____ 22. Team leaders at all levels see their role as developing the capability of team members.

____ 23. Team leaders build time for coaching into their schedules.

____ 24. Team leaders work with people in the moment; giving frequent, on-the-spot feedback is the norm.

____ 25. Team leaders catch people doing things right, not just when they make mistakes.

Items scored 3 or below are opportunities for improving the organization’s basic, foundational management practices.

(Bob Lynch’s and my book Team Management: Achieving Business Results Through Teams is on Kindle.)

What Is Team Management?

Posted on June 1, 2013 by Tom Werner

Team Management is both a philosophy and a set of high-commitment, high-capability management practices.

The philosophy of Team Management is that an interlocking system of high-functioning teams is essential for achieving optimal results. The practices of Team Management include clear team definition, effective team meetings, root-cause problem solving, horizontal workflow improvement, future-facing measures, pinpointed coaching, and positive reinforcement.

Team Management is based on four core ideas:

Teams as a System.
Continuous Improvement.
Balanced Scorecards.
Leader as Coach.

Teams as a System. In Team Management teams are connected vertically and horizontally, producing a coordinated system of teams. The leader of a team is a member of the team above, ensuring vertical connection. Teams are connected horizontally by what they receive from and deliver to each other. Each team is confident that its outputs are the required inputs of the next team in the workstream.

Continuous Improvement. In Team Management each team is united around a mission, owning a flow of work and a set of outputs. Each team pursues continuous improvement by monitoring performance, solving problems, improving workflows, and managing action. The approach is data-based, interactive, anticipatory, and action-oriented. Teams run their own businesses, identifying and addressing issues at their level.

Balanced Scorecards. In Team Management each team monitors a dashboard of indicators that measure its performance against results expectations. The indicators are balanced between end results and “leading indicators” that give early warning about likely final results so that corrective action can be taken before the fact. Teams look at indicators that reflect their own work in real time.

Leader as Coach. In Team Management each team leader embraces the role of improving the skills of team members through coaching. Team leaders observe team members in action and give them feedback in the moment to strengthen the behaviors that produce the team’s results. Team leaders create an environment of learning and improvement.

Team Management is the essential set of management practices and routines for organizational excellence.

(Bob Lynch’s and my book Team Management: Achieving Business Results Through Teams is on Kindle.)