Trust Is an Action, Not a Concept
Pat Townsend & Joan Gebhardt
ptownsend@qualitydigest.com
Words can be pretty. Words
can be nice. Words are almost always powerful. But, when
it comes to long-lasting change, action is more certain
to have a permanent effect on people’s behavior.
In short, for an executive to announce that he or she
trusts the enterprise’s employees is a dandy idea;
but over the long haul, such a declaration is only academically
interesting. It will take a sustained demonstration of that
professed faith--with or without the literal announcement--to
bring about change in the amount of trust employees have
in their senior managers. It’s only when the majority
of the employees trust the senior management staff that
any notable number of improvement ideas will be put forward.
How can senior management convince employees that their
talk of trust has substance? The best way is by establishing
a set of mechanics that makes this point obvious and that,
in fact, makes it difficult for them not to follow up on
their promises.
This is where the idea of 100-percent employee involvement
comes in. One of the reasons that most employee-involving
quality efforts engage a limited number of employees is
that such an approach makes it possible for senior management
to remain in control. Recall, for instance, that when quality
circles were first being touted as the sure-fire way to
achieve quality, the number of employees allowed to be on
circles was 10 to 15 percent of the staff. Every idea was
reviewed by a senior management committee before being approved
and implemented. Thus, control was carefully retained by
senior management.
If, however, every person in the organization is on a
quality team (or whatever name is chosen), the number of
ideas for improvement will overwhelm any senior management
committee. The choice is simple: improvement on a grand
scale or a stranglehold on power at the top.
This is not to recommend that an announcement be made
that, “Everybody should do whatever he or she thinks
might be a good thing to do.” The recommendation is
that some sort of team structure be employed, not that people
be encouraged to do their own thing. Teams are wonderfully
self-policing. Ideas might look very promising from one
person’s perspective, but they will be subjected to
the evaluation of coworkers and may be either rejected or
thoroughly modified. The good news is that a person who
might withdraw from generating improvement ideas if turned
down by a senior manager is far more likely to listen to
a “no” from his or her peers and continue to
be an active thinker and participant.
There needs to be some sort of clearinghouse for improvement
ideas. A relatively small number of quality analysts (the
title is open to change) must be established to review all
ideas after their implementation. The reasons for this review
are:
* To ensure that the idea benefits one part of the organization
without handicapping another
* To ensure that any calculations of impact (e.g., hours
saved or money saved) is correct and consistent across the
company. It’s important that when one team claims
credit for saving the company 1,200 hours of work on an
annualized basis, it means the same as when another team
makes the same claim
* To determine if the idea is worth broadcasting to other
parts of the company for possible emulation/duplication
* To determine what recognition is due
The number of quality analysts needed is relatively small.
At the insurance center (where Pat is the director of the
quality effort), there are two quality analysts and just
more than 1,000 employees divided into 92 quality teams.
When an approach like this is begun, senior management
will have to carefully define what is meant by a “quality
idea” and exactly what is meant by the phrase, “We
trust our employees.” The much-abused word “empowerment”
is the key. Quality teams are trusted and empowered to exercise
authority equal to their responsibility. No more. No less.
If a team is to be held accountable for the results of
a particular process--that is, if they’re responsible
for getting from point A to point B--then they have the
authority to change how they get from point A to point B.
“I trust you” can be a stirring statement.
But if it isn’t backed up by ceding the freedom to
act and wield appropriate power, it will be a step backward
in a company’s quest for improvement.
Pat Townsend and Joan Gebhardt have written more than
200 articles and six books, including Commit to Quality
(John Wiley & Sons, 1986); Quality in Action: 93
Lessons in Leadership, Participation, and Measurement
(John Wiley & Sons, 1992); Five-Star Leadership:
The Art and Strategy of Creating Leaders at Every Level
(John Wiley & Sons, 1997); Recognition, Gratitude
& Celebration (Crisp Publications, 1997); How
Organizations Learn: Investigate, Identify, Institutionalize
(Crisp Publications, 1999); and Quality Is Everybody's
Business (CRC Press, 1999). Pat Townsend has recently
re-entered the corporate world and is now dealing with “leadership.com”
issues as a practitioner as well as an observer, writer
and speaker. He is now chief quality officer for UICI, a
diverse financial services corporation headquartered in
the Dallas area. Letters to the editor regarding this column
can be sent to letters@qualitydigest.com.
|
