Counterproductive Creativity
Management frequently stifles team effort.

H. James Harrington
jharrington@qualitydigest.com

As quality programs, TQM, Six Sigma, total improvement management and quality circles are designed to increase quality and morale while reducing the resources required to provide outputs. The programs are also supposed to increase employees' involvement in activities that affect them. A fundamental assumption is that employees will feel better about themselves--and be more productive and creative--if they're given opportunities to contribute their ideas. It's also assumed that the employee doing a job has the best understanding of it and, therefore, the capability to improve the work process better than anyone else. This approach allows organizations to remove much of the bureaucracy that's built into operating procedures while giving employees more control over the work in which they're involved.

Another concept fundamental to quality systems is that two people will produce a better solution than one person working alone. This belief underlies team problem solving: Teamwork between people, departments and functions is critical to an organization's success.

Such concepts of empowerment and team effort have yielded tremendous benefits in organizations worldwide. Unfortunately, equally prevalent is management's tendency to misuse the process. Management empowers teams but still expects them to work in accordance with its views. Teams solve problems, but management doesn't accept their recommendations. Management tends to rewrite proposals in its own words but adds little value to the idea.

I recently worked with an organization that asked a team of executives, managers and employees to prepare a set of value statements. After weeks of focused effort, during which the team reviewed hundreds of organizations' value statements, it developed a comprehensive list, including "respect for the individual," "a fair return to the investor" and "The customer is the focus of everything we do." The team scheduled a meeting with the executive body to review the statements and get its approval, but a number of executives didn't show up. Consequently, management said it would send the proposed value statements to all the executives for their comments.

Weeks slipped by, and eventually the team was told that the value statements didn't reflect the organization's true values. The team requested feedback about which value statements weren't appropriate and how they should be reworded. This time months flew by, and eventually an executive prepared a list of key words that reflected management's understanding of the organization's values and sent it to the team leader.

What did this process do to the team's morale?

To start with, the team was very excited to be assigned this important task. I pointed out to the team members that the organization was very advanced in allowing a cross-section of employees to develop the value statements. Normally, this job is the sole responsibility of the executive body.

As team members researched the project using the Internet, library, friends and acquaintances, they became well-informed about the best practices relative to value statements for similar organizations. When they crafted the statements, they discussed each word, each comma and each phrase until the statements took on a personal meaning for every team member.

Then they presented the value statements to the executive body. They were proud of their creative work and expected management to appreciate the effort involved and endorse the statements. Needless to say, they were very disappointed when some executives didn't show up for the meeting.

When the executive body took weeks to comment on the team's work, only to say that it was unacceptable and didn't reflect the organization's values, the team was deflated and demoralized. When the executive body took months to define what it wanted in value statements, the team realized the project was just a make-work assignment and that the executives weren't really interested in the team's opinions.

This isn't a unique situation. I see the same blunders made by management in IT projects, reengineering projects and Six Sigma activities. Individuals are empowered but not allowed to do their work the way they believe it should be done. Teams come up with solutions that management ignores until the problem goes away--only to return six, 12 or 24 months later.

The failure rate for quality initiatives is extremely high not because the methodology is bad but because management is unwilling to set the direction and then get out of the way and let employees do their thing. As Gen. George S. Patton put it: "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."

About the author

H. James Harrington is CEO of the Harrington Institute Inc. and chairman of the board of four other companies. He has more than 45 years of experience as a quality professional and is the author of 22 books. Visit his Web site at www.harrington-institute.com. Letters to the editor regarding this column can be sent to letters@qualitydigest.com.