Control Freak Much?
Transformation requires a fundamental shift in how the organizations collaborate to make real change happen.
When it comes to guiding an organization through transformative change, control is the determining factor. How much design and direction is pushed down from the top and how much discretion is left to theÂ rest of the organization will make or break any initiative. Â The best outcomes are achieved by striking the right balance between two approaches: Top-down command and control versus autonomous decision making. Moving the organization off their status quo means certain things must be directed and enforced, yet many organizations fail because so much of their energy is focused on controlling the wrong things.
Successful transformation efforts demand collaboration up, downÂ and across the enterprise. They establish ways for people doing their work to be continuously involved in the optimization of processes they control. When significant design changes (processes, procedures, work standards, etc.) are foisted onto the organization, resistance mounts and the game is over before itâ€™s even started.
- Autonomy and recognition are at the top of every single study ever conducted about what motivates people in their work. Without these elements, engagement dies and performance suffers. Self-regulating systems provide these attributes naturally.
- People know more about what is going on in their process or work area than anyone else. It is impossible to optimize any process without direct input and frequent feedback from those doing the work.
- People will not naturally form themselves into a structure of engagement that focuses on process efficiency. Instead, they will form personal networks that minimize conflict. Correcting this tendency is where leadership focus is critical in helping to drive process ownership and improvement through cross-functional teams.
Culture Is No Excuse
The culture of the organization and individual leadership styles will impact how transformation efforts go. Itâ€™s usually difficult to tease one out from the other since they are the product of their collective and often mutual experiences. Even so, it is a mistake to use culture as an excuse for poor progress. There are ways for leaders to adjust their approach within the context of the existing culture. In top-down environments, unless there are real changes in the fundamentals of collaboration, it soon becomes evident that the â€śtransformedâ€ť enterprise looks and operates as it always has.
The Systems are Easy to Recognize
Self-Regulating Systems â€“ Feedback, input and action at the work-group level are the hallmarks of good performance systems. Self-regulating systems engage the organization to do three things:
- Self-monitor current performance
- Independently generate ideas about how to improve
- Take autonomous actions to improve outcomes
These systems integrate those doing the work in the design of the process and ask what needs to be done to optimize performance. These systems are less bureaucratic and faster to react.
Command and Control Systems â€“ Here, process design and work standards are developed away from the work processes. Command and control systems:
- Externally monitor and report current performance back to those doing the work
- Mandate what to do to improve â€“ often more systemic in nature
- Authorize actions that are compliant with the control function
These systems are less efficient and less effective. Those who embrace them believe that autonomy betrays standardization. In fact it is the opposite. Autonomy animates standardization by allowing the organization to react to a dynamic environment. The point that is most often missed is that standardizing how the organization engages as a self-regulating system is where control will yield the greatest long-term benefit.
Loosen Your Grip
Command and control styles dominate because they are more traditional and more familiar. For bosses and managers, giving up control is tough, especially when under stress. Self-regulating systems donâ€™t require any less work, but in them the direction from the top shifts. Itâ€™s less about the specific work or process and more about expectations and requiring people to own their performance.
For those control freaks out there who must control something, fear not â€• moving into a more autonomous environment requires plenty of leadership and direction. No organization comes together one day and says, â€śHey, letâ€™s all take some control and regulate ourselves and own our performance!â€ť Getting to this place requires a transition of power that requires a lot of work for both traditional leaders and their organizations who are used to being told exactly what to do. People are smart though, and they will find the best ways to optimize processes, enable standards and share learnings if they are given the chance and a mandate. Start by describing a structure that accelerates engagement, collaboration and autonomy and then make sure people are fully subscribed.