|
Creating
a Culture Change – A Pathway to Improved Reliability
By
Stephen J. Thomas
The contents
of this paper were extracted from
Improving Maintenance and Reliability Through Cultural
Change by Stephen J. Thomas with permission from
Industrial Press, Inc.
This paper
was presented for the first time at
IMC-2005
- The International Maintenance Conference
Introduction
One of the
major areas of focus in industry today is that of
improving equipment reliability. Why? To insure that
production is always available to meet the demand of the
marketplace. One of the worst nightmares of any company
and those who manage it is to have a demand for product
but not be able to supply it because of equipment
failure. Certainly this scenario will reduce company
profitability and could ultimately put a company out of
business.
For some
firms, poor reliability and its impact on production are
far more serious than for others. For those that
operate on a continuous basis – they run 24 hours per
day seven days per week – there is no room for unplanned
shutdowns of the production equipment; any loss of
production is often difficult or even impossible to make
up. For others that do not operate in a 24/7 mode,
recovery can be easier, but nevertheless time consuming
and expensive, reducing profits.
Many
programs available in the industry are designed to help
businesses improve reliability. They are identified in
trade literature, promoted at conferences and over the
web, and quite often they are in place within the plants
in your own company. Most of these programs are what I
refer to as “hard skill” programs. They deal with the
application of resources and resource skills in the
performance of a specific task aimed at reliability
improvement. For example, you decide that you want to
improve preventive maintenance (PM). To accomplish this
you train your workforce in preventive maintenance
skills, purchase the necessary equipment, and roll out a
PM program accompanied with corporate publicity,
presentations of what you expect to accomplish, and
other forms of hype in order to get buy in from those
who need to execute it. Then you congratulate your team
for a job well done and move on to the next project.
Often at
this juncture, something very significant happens. The
program you delivered starts strongly, but immediately
things begin to go wrong. The work crews assigned to
preventive maintenance get diverted to other plant
priorities; although promises are made to return them to
their original PM assignments, this never seems to
happen. Equipment that is scheduled to be out of
service for preventive maintenance can’t be shutdown due
to the requirements of the production department;
although promises are made to take the equipment
off-line at a later time, this never seems to happen.
Finally, the various key members of management who were
active advocates and supporters at the outset are the
very ones who permit the program interruptions, diminish
its intent, and reduce the potential value. Often these
people do make attempts to get the program back on
track, but these attempts are often half-hearted.
Although nothing is openly said, the organization
clearly recognizes what is important, and often this is
not the preventive maintenance program.
I have
simplified the demise of the preventive maintenance
program in our example. Yet this is exactly as it
happens, although much more subtle. In the end, the
result is the same. Six months after the triumphant
rollout of the program, it is gone. The operational
status quo has returned and, if you look at the business
process, you may not even be able to ascertain that a
preventive maintenance program ever existed at all.
For those of
us trying to improve reliability or implement any type
of change in our business, the question we need to ask
ourselves is why does this happen? The intent of the
program was sound. It was developed with a great deal
of detail, time, and often money; the work plan was well
executed. Yet in the end there is nothing to show for
all of the work and effort.
Part of the
answer is that change is a difficult process.
Note that I didn’t say program, because a program
is something with a beginning and an end. A process has
a starting point – when you initially conceived the idea
– but it has no specific ending and can go on forever.
Yet the
difficulty of implementing change isn’t the root cause
of the problem. You can force change. If you monitor
and take proper corrective action, you may even be able
over the short term to force the process to appear
successful. Here, the operative word is you. What if
you implement the previously-mentioned preventive
maintenance program and then, in order to assure
compliance, continually monitor the progress. Further
suppose that you are a senior manager and have
the ability to rapidly remove from the process change
any roadblocks it encounters as it progresses. What
then? Most likely the change will stick as long as you
are providing care and feeding. But what do you think
will happen if after one month into the program you
are removed from the equation. If there are no other
supporters to continue the oversight and corrective
action efforts, the program will most likely lose
energy. Over a relatively short time, everything will
likely return to the status quo.
The question
we need to answer is why does this happen to
well-intentioned reliability-driven change process
throughout industry? The answer is that the process
change is a victim of the organization’s culture. This
hidden force, which defines how an organization behaves,
works behind the scenes to restore the status quo unless
specific actions are taken to establish a new status quo
for the organization. Without proper attention to
organizational culture, long-term successful change is
not possible.
Culture
Defined
The starting
point of our discussion is to define organizational
culture in a way that is understandable. In his book
Organizational Culture and Leadership, E. Schein
defines organizational culture as follows:
A pattern of
shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to
those problems.
If you think
about this definition, it clearly describes that
sub-foundation upon which an organization’s behavior is
built. It also paints a clear picture of how ingrained
these basic assumptions are which in turn allows you to
understand how difficult they can be to change. Let’s
look at the component parts:
·
“A pattern of
shared basic assumptions”
The
operative word here is that the culture is constructed
upon shared basic assumptions. Because they are
shared, when you try to change the assumptions you need
to change them in everyone.
·
“The group
learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation
and internal integration”
The next
part of the definition explains that these assumptions
are not new creations. They have been tested over time
as the organization learned how to solve both the
internal and external problems that quite often were
serious threats to their very existence.
·
“That has
worked well enough to be considered valid”
Furthermore,
these assumptions worked well for the organization,
which has collectively considered them valid. Think
about the problems you will face trying to implement
change where the new initiative is in conflict with a
basic assumption that has been validated over time.
·
“Taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel
in relation to those problems”
This last
part locks the assumption into the culture because it is
taught to all new members as the “way we work around
here if you want to succeed.”
This is a
very powerful definition if you think about its
far-reaching impact on new change initiatives. It
essentially says that if a new initiative conflicts with
a basic assumption that was learned over time, has
worked well enough to be held as valid, and is taught to
the new members so that everyone believes it as true,
then changing things is going to be a very difficult
task.
The
Elements of Culture
In their
book Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of
Corporate Life, authors T. Deal and A. Kennedy
describe the four components of a corporate culture –
values, heroes, rites and rituals, and the cultural
network. Their concept that organizational culture is
composed of four key parts is a valid one; with some
alterations, I will use the four-part model in my
discussion of culture and how you can change culture in
order to implement reliability-focused change in your
organization.
These four
elements, working in conjunction with one another, make
up that rather elusive thing that we refer to as
organizational culture. The important thing to
recognize is what people really mean when they talk
about cultural change. They mean that they wish to
alter the value system, displace people who are
emulated, but are not in line with the new values,
change the rites and rituals, and reframe the cultural
infrastructure. Think about the implication of this
change effort. It certainly is a major step for any
firm to take; which is why it is so difficult to
implement and make stick over the long term.
Organizational Values
Organizational Values are the beliefs and
assumptions that an organization believes to be true and
uses as a set of guiding principles for managing its
everyday business. They are what collectively drive
decision making within a company. For instance, an
organizational value may be that production is the only
thing of importance and, when things break, they need
rapid response in order to return them to service.
Another example of an organizational value is that
equipment should never fail where the failure was not
anticipated through proactive maintenance work
initiatives. Although these two examples are very
different, in each case, the value described drives the
collective decision making process for the
organization.
What are
your organization’s values? Thinking about and
identifying them may not be as easy as you think; the
true values of a firm are not always written down.
Instead, they reflect how the members of the firm
collectively behave, how they conduct their business,
and what they believe are the true measures of success.
Organizational values for our discussion can be defined
as:
A company’s
basic, collectively understood, universally applied and
wholly accepted set of beliefs about how to behave
within the context of the business. They also describe
what achieving success feels like. These values are
internalized by everyone in the company and therefore
are the standard for excepted behavior.
When faced
with a problem, those within the organization will
invariably make a decision that reflects the
organizational values of that business. These decisions
are often not made consciously because organizational
values are internalized and taken for granted. When you
make a decision supported by the values, you feel
comfortable. When you don’t, you sense that something
is just not right with your world.
Role
Models
Role
models are people within the company who perform in
a fashion that the organization can and wants to
emulate. They are successful individuals who stand out
in the organization by performing in line with the
corporate value system. Role models show people that if
you wish to be successful you need to follow the values
set up for the organization. These role models are then
copied by those who work within the business because
they show how to perform within the culture. In
addition, the role models are used as an example for
newcomers to clearly show how to behave if you wish to
succeed.
Let us
discuss further the three key components of a role
model.
Top
of the organization
Most people
who are used as role models are at or near the top of
the organization’s hierarchy. These are the people we
view as the most successful. They are the managers of
our departments, the leaders, the ones who set the
direction for the business. The key word here is
success. Because those at the top are perceived as
successful, we tend to use them as role models.
There is
another reason why we often choose our leaders as role
models. They set the expectations of what we are to
accomplish at work. In most cases, these expectations
are in line with their expectations for themselves. As
a result, we emulate and assume their style because we
are all working towards the same end. In addition,
failure to achieve these expectations usually has severe
negative outcomes. Therefore, modeling the manager to
achieve the desired results makes sense.
Successful within the
organization’s culture
The second
component is that role models are not just successful,
but they are successful within the existing culture.
This is very important. Since role models are those
whom we emulate and since they have shown that they can
be successful in the existing culture, the existing
culture is continuously reinforced.
A style we
can identify with and adopt
Even though
some people are successful within the culture, there
still may be reasons why we would not choose them as
role models. If we truly want to use people as role
models, we need not only to view them as successful, but
also to feel comfortable adopting their style of
management. Suppose you are the type of person who
firmly believes that all people within the workforce
have unique value and should be treated with dignity and
respect. Further suppose that your manager (who is a
successful part of the organization) has achieved this
position by acting and behaving in exactly the opposite
fashion. Could you accept this person as a role model?
Your answer would probably be no. Although you want to
behave in a manner that will provide you a successful
career, the behavior of your manager could never fit
your personal beliefs and manner of conducting
business.
Bad Role
Models Also Have Value
The role
model that is in conflict with our personal value system
is worth further discussion. This type of person is the
most difficult to work with. This is the person whose
beliefs and actions are so opposed to our own that it is
virtually impossible to adopt his or her style of
management or behavior without violating who we are.
There are alternatives when you are confronted with this
type of situation. You can leave the organization and
seek work elsewhere. You can attempt to transfer to
another department. Or you can try to stick it out and
survive, hoping that the individual will leave before
you do.
Not everyone
is a positive role model. We are often presented with
what I will refer to as “good bad examples.” These are
people who we can look at and say “here is someone who I
do not wish to act like.” If you examine why you feel
this way and adopt behaviors that are opposite and more
in line with how you feel you should behave, then they
will have done you a great service. They will have
shown you a model that you will choose to reject for a
more positive (and opposite) behavior when you become a
role model later in your career.
Rites
and Rituals are the work processes that go on
day-to-day within a company. They are so ingrained in
how people conduct business that they are not actually
visible to those within the company. Rituals are “how
things are done around here.” Rites are a higher level
of rituals. They are the events that reinforce the
behavior demonstrated in the rituals.
Rituals
A ritual is
a rule or set of rules that guide our day-to-day work
behavior. Rituals are taken for granted because they
are an integral part of what our jobs are and how we do
them. As they are repeated daily, rituals become an
accepted part of how business is conducted; over time,
they become invisible to those who follow them. Yet
they are extremely important not only because they
define what we do and how we do it, but also because
they represent our culture and the value system in place
in our plant.
Furthermore,
rituals are taught to new employees so that they
understand "how work gets done around here." Rituals
guide how people communicate and interact. Because they
are so ingrained in our work, an outsider might say they
were blindly followed – often even if they made little
or no sense. In addition, they are often fiercely
defended simply because “that is how things are done.”
This viewpoint explains to some degree why new programs
or processes that conflict with the plant rituals
encounter such strong resistance when they are
implemented.
Every one of
us has had this experience. The first thing we are
given on our first day of work is training in how the
work is conducted — the rituals of the job or department
and, what is more important, the culture in which we now
reside. As a new employee, this training is highly
important because we are being told not only how to act
but also what is needed to be successful.
Many years
ago, I received my first supervisory opportunity as a
foreman at my plant. Before the foreman who I was
replacing left for another area, we spent an entire week
together. I learned how work was assigned to the
workforce, how to interact with production, how to order
materials, and many other tasks.
At the time,
our plant was totally reactive in the way we conducted
maintenance. When things broke down, our most important
task was to repair them as quickly as possible and
return them to service. Still I was surprised when
after lunch on Friday the entire crew was not assigned
additional work but stayed at their staging area. I
questioned the foreman I was replacing and was informed
that they were waiting for things to break so that they
could rapidly respond to the problem, make the needed
repair, and avoid weekend overtime. Being naïve I asked
why they couldn't be assigned jobs that could easily be
interrupted. That way, we could get some work
accomplished while at the same time be available to
respond to plant emergencies. I was told in no
uncertain terms not to “rock the boat” because "this was
how things are done around here." This was the ritual
followed by each foreman. The culture was not about to
let me change it!
In our
context, therefore, a ritual is an invisible day-to-day
work practice that is accepted as how work is performed
within the organization's culture. The ritual provides
everyone with a foundation for how work is handled.
Processes outside of the accepted rituals are considered
alien. The organization will feel extreme discomfort
when new rituals outside of the accepted norm are
introduced, even though it may not know exactly why.
When I suggested an alternate solution to waiting for
things to break, I was reprimanded even though the
outcome would have been the same — we could have still
responded to productions emergency needs.
Rites
A rite is a
company ceremony or event that reinforces our rituals.
In a sense, they provide a stage for those involved to
dramatize the culture and organizational values to those
in attendance. Rituals and rites go hand in hand
because without accepted rituals, rites do not exist.
Rites can
cover a large spectrum of an organization's events.
They include performance reviews, training, conferences,
service awards, and departmental and group meetings, all
the way down to a pat on the back for a job well done.
Let us look
at a simple example. Consider the foreman who kept his
crew in their staging area on Friday afternoon waiting
to respond to the emergency needs of production.
Several rites were associated with this single ritual.
The first of the rites is the "pat on the back." When
production called, maintenance was available to make the
quick fix. If successful, the foreman would get a pat
on the back for a job well done — a rite positively
reinforcing a plant ritual. This sort of success would
eventually translate into another rite — a positive
performance review, better salary, and a chance for
promotion.
Conversely,
if the ritual was not followed, the associated rite
would have a severe negative connotation. In this case,
production would complain about the foreman's
performance, resulting in other potential problems for
the foreman who was out of compliance. My idea of
having the crews work on interruptible jobs on Friday
afternoon not only violated a maintenance ritual, but
also seriously threatened an established set of rites
for the foremen — the pat on the back and others of more
significance.
The
Cultural Infrastructure
Cultural
Infrastructure is the fourth part of the
organizational culture model. This is the informal set
of processes that work behind the scenes to pass
information, spread gossip, and influence behavior of
those within the company.
The various
components of an organization’s structure can be
represented as blocks on an organization chart.
Although the blocks each represent a function within the
company, they can’t stand alone. They need the
connecting lines that tie them together, providing a
linkage for all of the individual parts. This linkage
is the cultural infrastructure.
For our
discussion, we will focus on people and communications
as the key elements of the cultural infrastructure.
These components are the glue that binds the
organizational culture together and promotes
sustainability of the firm. Thus, our definition of
cultural infrastructure is as follows:
Cultural
infrastructure is the hidden hierarchy of people and
communication processes that binds the organization to
the culture and sustains it over time.
In their
book Corporate Cultures, Deal and Kennedy
describe the various aspects of the cultural
infrastructure. I have modified their list and added
two more. Whereas Deal and Kennedy have taken a generic
approach, my focus is on how the cultural infrastructure
affects plant reliability. The cultural infrastructure
includes:
-
Story
Tellers – promoting the culture through war stories
-
Keepers
of the Faith – mentors and protectors of the culture
-
Whisperers – passers of information behind the
scenes
-
Gossips
– the hidden day-to-day communication system
-
Spies –
passers of sensitive information to those who may or
may not need to know
-
Symbols
– mechanisms for conveying what and who is important
-
Language
– terminology that describes what is done and often
how
Why Is
the Cultural Infrastructure So Important?
Each of the
cultural infrastructure components that we have listed
above can be used to promote cultural change or,
conversely, to disrupt it. Figure 1 below identifies
each component, providing a brief indication of what and
how you need to use them to successfully support your
change initiatives.
Figure 1
Components of the cultural infrastructure
Changing the
cultural infrastructure is not an easy task. Great care
and patience must be taken if you are going to make the
attempt. However, you must understand that the cultural
infrastructure is a hidden force that, if not dealt
with, will most assuredly work to undermine whatever
changes you are attempting to implement.
Cultural
Change and Reliability
Figure 2
describes a reactive repair-based work scenario. First,
something breaks down (block 1); then the problem is
identified, a maintenance crew dashes in, makes the save
and order is restored (block 2). As a result, the crew
receives praise from production for a job well done
(block 3). The praise is most often immediate and the
reactive behavior is, therefore, immediately
reinforced. Maintenance is now ready for the next
emergency (block 4).
|
 |
As you can
see in figure 1, the organizational values dictate the
response from the maintenance organization. In this
case it is “drop what you are doing and fix the
equipment that has broken down.” In many cases this
type of response is required. However all too often the
quick fix or “emergency job” is not really an emergency
at all – just someone’s desire to get their job worked
ahead of others. Nevertheless when the call comes in
maintenance responds and is summarily rewarded. This
response and the related reward are the rituals and
their reinforcing rites at work. Over time the rapid
responders are rewarded for their efforts and become the
role models for the organization.
What you see
at work here is the perpetuation of the reactive
maintenance model. Since we wish to change the culture
to one focused on reliability we need to alter the
culture. To accomplish this we need to change the four
elements of culture that we have addressed in this paper
as follows:
-
The
organizational values must be altered. If the
values support a reactive behavior it is impossible
to change the culture. This is the role of the
leadership team.
-
Once the
values have been altered work processes, structure,
communication and other basic operational processes
must be changed. The rapid response can no longer
be tolerated unless it truly is necessary.
Additionally a new reward structure must be put in
place to provide those you wish to change with
reinforcement for the new set of behaviors you wish
them to learn. This is the way you can modify your
rituals and their supporting rites.
-
The role
models of the reactive process need to adopt the new
reliability process or they need to be removed from
role model positions. It is critical that you have
the people in place to model the new behavior as it
is being implemented. This will work on two
levels. First the organization will see that as
work takes place there are people in place showing
them a new way that “things are going to be done
around here.” Second, it proves to the organization
that you are serious about the change.
-
Lastly
you need to pay careful attention to the key members
of the cultural infrastructure. Remember that these
individuals are the behind-the-scenes communication
network. You need their support. This can often be
accomplished by including them in the effort.
Last
Thoughts
Implementing
long lasting change is an extremely difficult task.
Five hundred years ago an Italian philosopher and
statesman Nicolo Machiavelli said:
“There is
nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to
conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take
the lead in the introduction of a new order of things,
because the innovator has for enemies, all of those who
have done well under the old conditions, and luke-warm
defenders in those who will do well under the new.”
However as
difficult as change can be, if you focus on your
organizational culture, you can vanquish your enemies
and make luke-warm defenders into staunch supporters.
Check out the Steve Thomas Change Management Distance
Learning Course
|
