Change versus Improvement

In the media, I often read or hear about tax 'reform', education 'reform' or health care 'reform' etc. And whenever I see this I think that whoever is pushing this latest reform is confusing their intention or desired outcome with the process. Whatever they are doing isn't a reform unless it results in an improvement by some measure. Until then it is simply a change, no more, no less. And change in itself is not intrinsically valuable. Change always involves costs, so unless there is a counter-balancing benefit, it is actually bad.

This is equally true in business and in the public sector. Managers often think that  there is something praiseworthy just in doing 'something'. A new manager commences and thinks they have to prove themselves so they make a lot of changes and then congratulate themselves on how 'proactive' and 'innovative' they are, regardless of the costs to the business or the paucity of benefits.

Somehow organisations always manage to fill their strategic plans with dozens if not hundreds of different actions (i.e. changes) regardless of the need for them. Activity replaces improvement as a measure of value-added.

However, I contend that the best manager is the one who achieves the best results with the minimum of change and whose major changes are the elimination of unnecessary activity. But such a manager would be unlikely to be rewarded by the organisation for which they work. No-one is likely to be impressed if there is no actual activity they can point to which as led to the results they are  getting.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is often no measurement of the baseline costs and benefits, so if a manager makes a change there is nothing to compare it with to determine whether the change was beneficial or damaging. This means that managers with a propensity for changing things can often point to lots and lots of changes they have made, but would be hard put to demonstrate any actual benefits from those changes. But at least their own bosses are impressed by the flurry of activity.

I have said elsewhere that a prerequisite for excellence in any activity is stability.It is difficult to become a master of anything that is constantly changing, where part of the effort that you could be putting into doing is diverted into learning the latest changes. This doesn't rule out change completely. However what it does highlight is that change needs to be judicious, it needs to be well thought out, it needs to be properly implemented and finally if it doesn't yield the expected results it needs to be scrapped.

It is only when changes are made in this way that they are likely to result in improvements rather than just pointless activity.

Black Box or Diagnosis: how do you improve performance?

Where an employee is not meeting some kind of performance target, there are at least two approaches that can be taken.

One approach could be called the 'Black Box" approach. In this approach, the manager isn't really concerned with why the person isn't performing they are only interested in that the person isn't performing. So if, say, the worker is expected to process one item of work on average every 9 minutes and they are currently taking 12 minutes, the person is monitored and they are pressured to work faster, without any attempt being made to determine why they are not meeting the target. It assumes that the task is a single indivisible unit.There are inputs, there are outputs and what happens in between is solely the responsibility of the worker. If the worker just applies themselves then they can do better.

A second approach is the Diagnostic Approach.

It doesn't make the same assumptions as the 'Black Box' approach. It assumes that the task contains elements, that a person may be more or less skilled in each of those elements and that different workers may differ in their skill level for each component and the time it takes them to complete each component. It assumes that two people may apply the same effort and yet because of their individual differences they may achieve different levels of performance. And it assumes that by identifying what it is that the worker finds difficult and by providing support to the worker in developing their skills in that element then they can improve their performance.

For instance, suppose a worker is assigned a task which requires them to:

• use a computer system to access and process the work they are assigned
• read copies of letters sent by clients and identify the issues they are raising
• make a decision regarding the client's case based on the information provided
• compose a letter to the client advising them of the decision and addressing the issues raised

The worker might have any of the following problems in completing the task:

• they may not be very confident in using the system or may have poor keyboard skills
• their reading-comprehension skills may be poor
• they may find it hard to make the decision due to lack of confidence or a weak knowledge of the guidelines or other information necessary for making the decision.
• they may have trouble in their written communication skills

In the Diagnostic Approach, a manager would talk to the worker, watch them process and find out what problem the worker is actually experiencing in processing the work. And then they would target support to helping the worker to improve in that specific skill.

The 'Black Box' approach is equivalent to talking to someone who doesn't speak English and expecting that they will somehow understand if you speak louder or more slowly. The Diagnostic Approach on the other hand is equivalent to identifying that the problem is lack of English skills and either finding an interpreter or teaching the person basic English.

It doesn't take much effort to speak louder or more slowly, but it doesn't achieve any worthwhile results either. Addressing the actual skills deficit on the other hand may take longer but it results in genuine improvement.

More importantly it empowers the worker since they now see that it lies within their power to improve if only they can identify their barriers to improvement.

Schlimmbesserung - an all too useful word!

Schlimmbesserung is a handy word which means "An intended improvement that instead makes things worse". And it amazing how often the kinds of situations arise to which this word can be applied. Some that I have seen include:

• Someone comes up with an idea to save money, however it is implemented in such a complicated way that it ends up costing money - that's schlimmbesserung!
• A strategy is put in place to reduce sick leave or compensation claims, but instead leads to an increase - that's schlimmbesserung!
• Processes for selecting staff which in the interests of 'fairness' ignore information germane to an applicant's performance, and end up selecting someone who is less than optimal - that's schlimmbesserung!
• Holding a general meeting with staff to discuss increasing productivity, which comes up with no actual strategies, but the loss of time from the meeting itself reduces productivity - that's schlimmbesserung!
• Strategies for increasing staff morale are implemented but result in a further slide in morale - that's schlimmbesserung!

Much of the time Sclimmbesserung happens because insufficient thought or analysis has gone into the change, but sometimes it happens because the change has been over-thought. Sometimes a manager will think they understand a situation without actually checking whether their understanding corresponds to reality.

Ultimately, if you don't understand what is causing a problem, it is hard to find a solution and sometimes the obvious (usually simplistic) solution makes things worse. Even worse is when a reinforcing cycle results where as the situation worsens, more of the same solution is applied, so the situation worsens further, so more of the same solution is applied and so on.

If what you are doing isn't working, maybe it's time to try something different. If an expected solution just increases the problem, maybe it is time to roll back the solution instead of putting more effort or resources into it.

And just maybe, we should find out why the solution made things worse:

• what assumptions did we make about the problem,
• which of them were wrong,
• what assumptions did we make about our solution,
• which of them were wrong.
• what do we do now that we understand the situation better

In other words, reflect on what has happened and try to learn whatever lesson it holds to inform future action.