The results of a ten year research into organisational performance have recently been
published by Sheffield University and the London School of Economics. The findings clearly
indicate that a happy and contented work force is more productive and more profitable and
contradicts the management strategies of many organisations which appear to be based on
the reverse assumption - that productivity and profitability will encourage a happy work
force.
These two ideologies are easily recognised by the very different strategies, which may be
summarised as ‘systems’ or ‘hearts and minds’ approaches. The Systems
approach involves building competitive advantage through 'Total Quality', 'World Class'
and 'Continuous Improvement' type initiatives. The Hearts and Minds route usually focuses
on Culture, Values and Ethics.
The Systems approach is often based around a high profile initiative which is often
introduced with a degree of fanfare in the belief that this will energise the work force
towards adopting new working practices or attitudes. The reality is that employees all too
often feel alienated by the hype and jargon which can accompany such initiatives. The need
to adhere to prescribed routines with apparently little concern for its impact on the
people can quickly lead to the frustration and cynicism which is at the root of
expressions such as ‘Initiative Overload’ and ‘Management Fads’.
Business Process Re-engineering was a systems initiative which failed to deliver the
anticipated improvements largely because employees felt there was little concern or
benefit for them. Far from winning the Hearts and Minds of the employees, BPE alienated
them.
The Hearts and Minds approach on the other hand is rooted in changing attitudes, which is
a holistic process - there's no quick fix because it treats the underlying issues rather
than the symptoms. This makes it unattractive for some organisations precisely because it
requires playing a long game. Another perceived disadvantage of the Hearts and Minds
approach is its lack of clarity. Unlike the Systems approach which by definition is
systematic, the Hearts and Minds route requires a highly responsive approach involving a
process of consultation to encourage participation. Typically this might include
Attitude Surveys followed up by small group meetings or Open Space type discussions.
Clearly it would be unwise to attempt to predict outcomes or to anticipate how one might
respond when adopting such a process.
Champions of the Systems approach often stress that improved relationships are a planned
outcome of a new initiative. However, such outcomes tend to be implicit. The
Hearts and Minds approach on the other hand is explicit in that it states the kind
of workplace that is desired as a central rather than a peripheral theme, for example an
organisation in the food and drinks industry proclaims in its Mission Statement; Our
workers will share in the wealth creation and will operate in an innovative,
non-hierarchical, customer driven, fun workplace committed to continuous learning’
Statements of Values can be helpful. One organisation consulted widely with the work force
to identify a set of Values or Guiding Principles to encourage the preferred culture which
included; "Respect all members" and "Keep Promises" which
are printed on plastic cards. The cards are often used like a referee’s yellow
card when someone feels they've been treated in a disrespectful way. Some organisations
have set out the explicit goal of being the 'Preferred local employer’ on the
basis of its reputation for fairness and staff development opportunities. Such approaches
are not based on woolly sentiment but have proven business benefits. Those organisations
that are devoting energy towards being recognised as a ‘good employer’
for example, recognise the competitive advantage of attracting the best staff while
reducing absence and staff turnover.
The point is not to demolish the Systems approach, rather it is that, by focusing on
organisational culture, one is more likely to win the Hearts and Minds of the employees
and therefore gain buy-in to any Systems deemed necessary. New initiatives are much more
likely to be viewed positively in a Hearts and Minds type organisation, because they're in
tune with the organisation rather than in conflict with it. The Sheffield University /
L.S.E. research indicates that cultural factors are the major contributors to productivity
and profit. The report states that a preoccupation with research and development,
productivity and quality systems are all much less effective than the creation of a
harmonious work environment in which people feel valued.
So in the face of such compelling evidence, why do so many organisations persist with a
systems approach to Organisational Development? The main reason would appear to be that
managing systems seems a lot simpler than managing an organisation’s culture. As
Charles Handy observed, ‘managing people is like herding cats’ The
prospect of attempting to change an organisation’s culture can seem daunting, and so
a systems approach appears to provide a reassuringly logical progression - do
‘X’ and ‘Y’ will follow.
The Investors in People standard is promoted as a catalyst for Organisational Development.
The main thrust of I.I.P. is to encourage a strategic approach to developing people in
line with business objectives. As with other initiatives designed to encourage best
practice however, there is the potential for I.I.P. to become bogged down in bureaucracy.
This is precisely what happened with BS5750, which was designed to encourage high quality
but appeared to be better at measuring consistency. The standard was based around an
administrative approach to quality - tracking parts through the system, for example. The
result of following the procedures was a quality that was consistent, but not necessarily
high - it was possible to achieve consistent mediocrity!
The same potential exists with I.I.P.- the ‘systems’ can dominate and
paradoxically stifle the very culture that I.I.P. is promoting. The greatest danger to
I.I.P. is that it's seen as a bureaucratic exercise and becomes another management fad.
For instance I.I.P. has been accused of encouraging investment in training rather than
people. In addition I.I.P’s preoccupation with training linked to ‘business
objectives’ is unlikely to motivate the work force and is an example of the profit
and productivity leads to happy people ideology mentioned earlier rather than the
reverse.
So how can these concerns be avoided? Opportunities for real learning and development
(through their work) and the ability to positively influence the working environment are
key requirements of a happy workforce. I.I.P. accreditation could therefore focus more on
the organisational culture - how the organisation evaluates the culture, and crucially the
processes for involving and consulting the work force on what changes they think would
help to improve productivity. Instead of a structure that encourages organisations to get
all the ‘systems’ in place prior to IIP assessment, the emphasis could be more
on evaluation, consultation and involvement - in other words process rather than end
results. I.I.P. assessors would then simply need to evaluate the measures identified in
the Sheffield / L.S.E. study - positive shifts in organisation culture, productivity and
profit.The most useful measurements then wouldn't be what Systems the organisation has
implemented, but rather to what degree the organisation has succeeded in winning the
Hearts and Minds of the employees - get that right according to the Sheffield study and
everything else will fall into place.
|