Putting Theory Into Practice

Five root causes hamper improvement efforts.

I frequently hear and read comments that TQM, reengineering and Six Sigma are failing. Many people claim these methodologies don’t produce the required or promised results. It’s interesting to note that organizations which are unhappy with their progress have many things in common. When companies show little progress in their improvement initiatives, at least some of the following are usually also true:

Top management (i.e., new people directing the company) changes.

Top management changes its priorities and/or direction.

Initiatives are understood but not put into practice.

A slow economy requires companies to discontinue their efforts.

Middle manage-ment doesn’t buy into the process.

Other, higher priorities take peo-ple’s attention away from the initiative.

Hired consultants don’t understand the company’s business.

Companies aren’t improving as fast as their competition.

No measurable results are available to justify the investment to management.

Teams aren’t solving meaningful problems.

The improvement process interferes with getting the job done.

There’s no focused strategy to integrate all efforts.

Quality efforts aren’t reflected in the bottom line.

There’s no organized-labor support.

Methodologies used don’t work.

Layoffs kill improvement activities.

Nevertheless, these are all symptoms, not root causes. There are five root causes for these failures. The first is that upper management doesn’t believe that it needs to change and so, consequently, doesn’t lead the improvement effort. This usually occurs when top management accepts the improvement activities in a blind leap of faith, a business case isn’t developed first, and/or a viable improvement plan isn’t proposed or embraced by the entire top management team. If the CEO doesn’t lead the initiative, it won’t produce the desired results.

The second root cause is distrust between management and employees. In nearly 65 percent of the organizations I work with, I find that lack of employee trust in management--and vice versa--are the most critical problems that must first be addressed. Years of secrecy, suspicion and apparent disinterest in employees has caused distrust of upper management. Most employees believe that top management knows about the organization’s future and purposely keeps employees in the dark.

An organization’s improvement champion is the third root cause of failure. This is the person within the organization selected to lead the improvement process. Too often, management selects the wrong person for the wrong reasons. Frequently, a senior executive who’s about to retire is chosen. Top management deduces that this veteran executive has the needed prestige and has earned the right to oversee what it perceives as a low-stress assignment. Management often believes that there’s no need for the improvement champion to have any knowledge of improvement methodologies.

A fourth root cause is misguided consulting. Unsuccessful organizations often base their improvement processes on a consultant’s methodology that someone in the company read about in a book or heard about at a conference. Others hire consultants who have limited skills in converting theory into practice for different types of organizations.

Often, organizations select the wrong consultants or terminate their relationships too soon. Many teachers consider themselves consultants, although this is far from true. It’s much easier to teach a class and discuss a theory than actually implement it. A consultant who teaches subjects such as Six Sigma, quality function deployment or SPC has done only 15 percent of the job. Helping to implement the theory represents the other 85 percent of the job. Other consultants have only limited understanding of the total improvement process, which prevents them from looking at the total picture and making the best suggestions.

Root cause five is forgotten middle management, the group most affected by improvement processes. Middle managers are the ones who’ve felt the pinch of cutbacks, layoffs and flatter organizations. The percentage of middle managers during the last half of the 20th century who were pushed, pressured or fired--or retired to save face--from their jobs was twice as high as employees, supervisors or top management. Is it any wonder that this group is the most suspicious of improvement processes? In most organizations that have failed, top management didn’t prepare middle management for its new role in a participative environment.

All the well-known improvement methodologies are good and work if they’re applied correctly. If TQM or Six Sigma has failed or is failing in your organization, don’t blame it on the methodology. The problem is likely the way you’re using it.

About the author

H. James Harrington is CEO of the Harrington Institute Inc. and chairman of the board of Harrington Group. 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.