Social Housing: Bridging the trust divide

Trust is fragile and as we are reminded with Covid vaccine hesitancy in certain communities, it often takes decades, if not generations to rebuild. It’s no different with social housing. Four years on since the Grenfell tragedy, the independent enquiry continues to seek answers, and although we now have legislation in place to improve building safety, there is so much more that needs to be done by social housing providers to listen, understand, respect and act on the views of their residents to regain their trust.

Mere token resident representation on boards and a few sparsely attended resident engagement events, generally attended by the same ‘available residents’, is unlikely to ever bridge the trust and transparency divide. Instead, social housing providers would need to courageously climb higher on Arnstein’s citizen engagement ladder[1] towards partnership and perhaps in the not-so-distant future towards delegated power. Indeed some providers are higher up on the ladder than others; I haven’t come across any yet that are right at the top rung of the ladder.

However, one size will certainly not fit all and the Social Housing Charter White Paper recognises the need for appropriate tailoring. Social housing providers have demonstrated their ability to do so and provided invaluable community engagement during the pandemic reaching out to vulnerable, isolated households supporting them as required with phone check-ins, grocery deliveries or rent support[2]. No other agency was better placed to do this. The challenge now is to sustain this level of resident engagement and responsiveness. Social housing providers must build on this foundation to get to know their residents even better, appreciate their needs, aspirations, expectations and be prepared to act upon it. It is only by demonstrating the highest standards of customer intimacy that providers would be able to support residents through the fast paced and irreversible impact of demographic, technological, economic and environmental changes. Simply put, organisational agility is critical to navigate the future requirements of social housing provision and service delivery in a post pandemic world.

The International Labour Organisation 2021 homeworking report[3] outlines the sudden rise in numbers engaged in homeworking through the pandemic and details the implications for employers and workers. Given the millions living in UK social housing it would be facile to believe that for many homeworking residents the expectation of their social housing provider will simply remain confined to the provision of a decent, good quality home and neighbourhood. Resident expectations are likely to extend way beyond the provision of broadband as a utility, electric and fire safety, to addressing provisions for business support, training, wellbeing and other considerations associated with the running of any safe workplace. Understanding these changing expectations and inevitable social implications will be integral to deliver on the social housing charter’s baseline commitment to listen, understand, respect and act on the views and needs of residents. 

Social housing providers are undeniably stretched for resources; eking out resource efficiencies and scrutinising costs to ensure value for money is provided across all social housing activities. Bolting on a renewed emphasis on resident expectations could create unhealthy competition with other urgent demands such as enhanced building safety, complaints resolution and addressing societal issues of loneliness, domestic abuse and anti-social behaviour.

An alternative approach is to place the resident needs at the centre and design the delivery of services around them. Listening and understanding their needs, requirements and changing expectations, harnessing the opportunities presented by new technologies and creating a variety of interaction channels will provide residents with the flexibility and choice to access the services they require.  

Service design isn’t just about doing more for the same or less; it’s about ensuring that the extensive data and information available to social housing providers and the multitude of technology applications are used cohesively to inform and deliver the priorities for different residents. It could be the only way to move up the citizen engagement ladder to effectively rebuild trust and transparency with residents genuinely partnering with them to achieve the elusive self-reliance without the excessive bureaucracy that Octavia Hill[4] envisioned more than a century ago.   

Whilst there are strategic medium to long term benefits of this approach there are also short term benefits that can be realised. These include improvements in Net Promoter Score (NPS), Customer Satisfaction (CSAT), Customer Effort Score (CES) and other Value for Money (VFM) metrics that are required for sector benchmarking and compliance with the new consumer regulatory requirements. Service improvements would be reflected through social media feedback channels recognising the improvements in customer services and sentiment. Good service design to get it right first time not only gives an excellent customer experience but also ensures value for money in service delivery.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dipayan Roy is an experienced organisation design and business transformation consultant with experience in social housing, transportation, policing and technology sectors. He can be reached via LinkedIn.


[1] Sherry Arnstein (1969), A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224

[2] National Housing Federation,  Dec 2020 briefing for housing associations and partners ‘Coronavirus – sector response and current priorities’

[3] International Labour Organisation report titled Working from home – from invisibility to decent work,  2021

[4] Octavia Hill (3 December 1838 – 13 August 1912), one of the driving forces being the development of social housing and the national trust: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/octavia-hill-her-life-and-legacy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavia_Hill

Posted in News |

現代
の VUCA ワールド における事業経営 1 従順の文化とリーダーシップ

はじめに
21
世紀は新しい 概念 やアイデア、技術が次々に登場し、企業や組織にとってこ
れまでになかったチャンスや課題が生まれている。 Airbnb (宿泊仲介 、
BlaBlaCar (ライドシェア 、 Uber (自動車配車 、 Spotify (音楽配信 、 M
Pesa (モバイル送金サービス)などの成功事例 は 、 インターネットがこれらの
業界 において 従来のビジネスモデルにどのような影響を与えたかを示 してい る。
今や、 企業は 後れを取らないようにするだけでは不十分で あり 、 一歩 前に出て
も 企業の 生き残りやビジネスの成功は 必ずしも 保証されない。はっきりと した
明確な問題を解決するため に、 入念に練られた解決策などは、もはや 過去の遺
物である 。
成功するためには、特定のゴールを目指して決められた行動を
取る のではなく、
不安定 Volatility )で 不確実 Uncertainty 、複雑 Complexity )かつ 曖昧
模糊 (もこ Am biguity とした 現代の VUCA ワールドのプレッシャー をうま
く管理する必要がある。
本シリーズでは、
21 世紀の人 的 管理( people management )について 3 部構成
で 取り上げる。 その内容は、われわれが 慣れ親しんだ「やるべきことのリスト」
から ではなく、自覚を生み、思考を促すテクニックを駆使 してい る。読者 の皆
さま がグローバル 化した 環境の中で実際にどのように行動する の か 、 一歩距離
を置いて 俯瞰的に 考えて いただけ れば幸いである。
従順の文化
組織が
いかにして 従順の文化を浸透させ、従業員が何ら疑問を持た ずにやるべ
き仕事をこなすようになるのかは非常に興味深い。従順の文化は 極めて 重要な
ものであり、もし 全ての 判断に異議が申し立てられ議論が起こるとすれば、一
連の 指示 が全く効果を失うであろうこと に は疑問の余地がない。しかし 大抵の
場合、 従業員は上司の命令に従う だけで、 自分の行動に ついて 説明責任を負 う
ことは ない。 それ はまるで自分個人の判断力や分別を 出勤時に 自宅に置いてき
たかのようだ。マネジャーや従業員に職場で は どのように疑問を解決するのか
を尋ねてみるとよい。彼らはほぼ決まっ たように 、直属の上司に確認するか、
社内手続き・方針マニュアルで調べると答える
社内手続き・方針マニュアルで調べると答えるであろうであろう。。しかし、会社のルーしかし、会社のルールブックルブックが間違っていたり、が間違っていたり、内容的に内容的に古古くなっていくなっていたり、たり、あるいはあるいは管理職が間管理職が間違っている場合にはどうなるのだろう違っている場合にはどうなるのだろう??
2015
2015年は年は、、世界世界的な的な優良企業の優良企業の幾つ幾つかがスキャンダルに巻き込まれた。かがスキャンダルに巻き込まれた。そその内の内容はそれぞれ異なるが、スキャンダルによって容はそれぞれ異なるが、スキャンダルによってそれらのそれらの企業の信用は落ちた。企業の信用は落ちた。これらはこれらはほとんどほとんど、、一部の一部の従業員従業員による不正行為による不正行為というより、企業のさまざまというより、企業のさまざまなレベルの人間がなレベルの人間が関わった関わった組織的行為であ組織的行為であるる。こ。このようなのようなスキャンダルスキャンダルについについてては専門家が詳細に捜査し、ほぼは専門家が詳細に捜査し、ほぼ全ての全てのケースで多額ケースで多額の罰金の罰金もしくはもしくは高額な和高額な和解解金の支払い金の支払いにによって解決によって解決に至る。捜査の結果、民事事件または刑事事件とし至る。捜査の結果、民事事件または刑事事件としてて主要主要幹部や幹部や政策政策決定者が起訴されることは決定者が起訴されることはまれまれである。である。
また、
また、20152015年年99月月99日には日には、、企業の不正行為において個人を起訴することを認企業の不正行為において個人を起訴することを認めた「イエーツ・メモ」が発表された。米国司法省副長官のサリー・イエーツめた「イエーツ・メモ」が発表された。米国司法省副長官のサリー・イエーツ氏は、氏は、そのメモで今後そのメモで今後企業に対する罰金企業に対する罰金よりも、よりも、個人や幹部に対する民事訴訟個人や幹部に対する民事訴訟や刑事訴訟や刑事訴訟を優先すを優先すべきであると発表した。イエーツ・メモは「刑事事件と民べきであると発表した。イエーツ・メモは「刑事事件と民事事件のいずれにおいても、捜査対象となった企業が捜査協力による減免措置事事件のいずれにおいても、捜査対象となった企業が捜査協力による減免措置を受ける資格を得るためには、企業の不正に関与した個人に関する所定の事実を受ける資格を得るためには、企業の不正に関与した個人に関する所定の事実を司法省に全て提供しなければならない」ことを明確にを司法省に全て提供しなければならない」ことを明確にうたっうたっている。これがている。これが厳格に実行された場合、幹部は調査しても厳格に実行された場合、幹部は調査しても分からないように分からないように会社組織の陰に隠会社組織の陰に隠れることはできなくなる。これはまさにパラダイムシフトにれることはできなくなる。これはまさにパラダイムシフトに他他ならず、他の国ならず、他の国に対して大胆なに対して大胆な事例事例ととしてのインパクトを与えしてのインパクトを与える。る。
従順の文化がもたらす直接的な影響は、何が正しく
従順の文化がもたらす直接的な影響は、何が正しくてて、何が間違っ、何が間違っているかがているかが定まってしまうことである。それを定まってしまうことである。それを越えれば制裁の対象となる越えれば制裁の対象となる一定の境界線が一定の境界線が設定されてしまう。すると人々は自分で考えることをやめ、本当は何が正しく設定されてしまう。すると人々は自分で考えることをやめ、本当は何が正しくて、何が間違っているのかについて責任を負わなくなる。て、何が間違っているのかについて責任を負わなくなる。従業員は従業員はルール・手ルール・手順や決められた方針に従うことだけに注意を向けるようになり、従わなかった順や決められた方針に従うことだけに注意を向けるようになり、従わなかったことによることによる制裁制裁を回避しようとする。その結果、ルールを定めた当初の目的やを回避しようとする。その結果、ルールを定めた当初の目的や意図を完全に見失ってしまう。それ意図を完全に見失ってしまう。それ故に故に、法規制を執行する法律を作って形式、法規制を執行する法律を作って形式主義的な手続きをさらに増やすのもうなずける。大企業はこの典型主義的な手続きをさらに増やすのもうなずける。大企業はこの典型といえるだといえるだろうろう。大規模。大規模な組織は必ず一連の方針とコンプライアンス(法令順守)上の手な組織は必ず一連の方針とコンプライアンス(法令順守)上の手続きを定めているが、これらは続きを定めているが、これらは全て全て企業文化によって奨励されている。捜査担企業文化によって奨励されている。捜査担当者が明らかにするまでは、当者が明らかにするまでは、20152015年年にに起起ききた企業のスキャンダルがた企業のスキャンダルが、、一部の一部の不不正行為に関与した正行為に関与した従業員が引き起こしたものなのか、従順の文化が引き起こし従業員が引き起こしたものなのか、従順の文化が引き起こし
たものなのかは
たものなのかは判断でき判断できない。ない。
リーダーシップの役割
リーダーシップの役割
イエーツ・メモに関連して必ず
イエーツ・メモに関連して必ずといっていいほどといっていいほど企業が抱く疑問は企業が抱く疑問は「では、「では、どどうすれば従業員が恐怖を感じたり報復を恐れたりすることなくうすれば従業員が恐怖を感じたり報復を恐れたりすることなく、企業、企業の目標との目標と相反することを指摘できる企業文化が醸成されるの相反することを指摘できる企業文化が醸成されるのかか」」というというものものである。序である。序列、従順、忠誠心に重きが置かれ、列、従順、忠誠心に重きが置かれ、個人主義個人主義がが基準基準とされない企業文化においとされない企業文化においては、このことは特に重要である。ては、このことは特に重要である。現在、現在、内部告発の仕組みやホットラインの内部告発の仕組みやホットラインの開設が開設が成功成功する事例する事例は一部にとどまっている。規則・方針や監査を増やしてもは一部にとどまっている。規則・方針や監査を増やしても官僚主義が強まるだけで、革新性や創造性が損なわれるだろう。官僚主義が強まるだけで、革新性や創造性が損なわれるだろう。従って、従って、別の別の方法が必要である。方法が必要である。
この答えは、企業が醸成するリーダーシップの質と力量にある。大半のリーダ
この答えは、企業が醸成するリーダーシップの質と力量にある。大半のリーダーシップモデルはリーダーーシップモデルはリーダーががなすべきことについて説明しており、教室ではリなすべきことについて説明しており、教室ではリーダーシップの多数の側面が熱心に教えられる。こーダーシップの多数の側面が熱心に教えられる。このいずれもリーダーは手本のいずれもリーダーは手本となるような行動を示さねばならないとしているが、私の考えではとなるような行動を示さねばならないとしているが、私の考えでは、、これだけこれだけでは不十分である。リーダーはでは不十分である。リーダーは、、従業員が持っている意見を勘案して意思決定従業員が持っている意見を勘案して意思決定プロセスに関与させることにより、従業員と深い関係性を築プロセスに関与させることにより、従業員と深い関係性を築かかなければならななければならない。なぜなら、これによって今日のい。なぜなら、これによって今日のVUCAVUCAワールドワールドにおける企業の全般的における企業の全般的なな対対応が強化される応が強化されるからからである。である。
成熟した組織においては、
成熟した組織においては、全ての全ての従業員に自分自身の考え従業員に自分自身の考えをを表明表明することすることを促を促すようなすような、、リーダーシップリーダーシップスキルのスキルの確立確立をを検討する必要がある。従業員に対し検討する必要がある。従業員に対してては、社内のは、社内のボトルネックや事業リスクに果敢に挑むことを奨励すべきである。ボトルネックや事業リスクに果敢に挑むことを奨励すべきである。組織のリーダー組織のリーダーたちたちがこのような考えを奨励し、耳を傾けるようがこのような考えを奨励し、耳を傾けるようなな組織組織をを保証保証する必要があるだろう。異なる意見をする必要があるだろう。異なる意見を抑えつけ抑えつけたり、退けたりする選択肢があたり、退けたりする選択肢があってはならない。リーダーシップとはってはならない。リーダーシップとは、、正しいことをするものでなければなら正しいことをするものでなければならない。ない。日本の実業家として有名な日本の実業家として有名な稲盛和夫稲盛和夫氏氏はは「天に恥じない経営」、すなわ「天に恥じない経営」、すなわちち毅然毅然(きぜん)(きぜん)としていることがリーダーのとしていることがリーダーの試金石試金石であり、その理由はであり、その理由は、、正正しいことをしていれば毅然としていられるからだと言っている。意見しいことをしていれば毅然としていられるからだと言っている。意見を表明すを表明することることや既存のものにとらわれないや既存のものにとらわれない発言を奨励することは「言うは易く行うは発言を奨励することは「言うは易く行うは難し」である。特に、指示に従うことが制度的、社会的に奨励されている文化難し」である。特に、指示に従うことが制度的、社会的に奨励されている文化においては「空気を読む」ことや管理者の口に出さない考えや感情を理解するにおいては「空気を読む」ことや管理者の口に出さない考えや感情を理解することが尊ばれことが尊ばれておりており、実行、実行するのするのは一層難しいは一層難しいだろうだろう。。
しかし、難しい
しかし、難しいがが不可能ではない。欧州と米国不可能ではない。欧州と米国ののリーダーは四半期ごとにタウリーダーは四半期ごとにタウンホールミーティングを行うのが通例で、従業員全員が参加して経営幹部の説ンホールミーティングを行うのが通例で、従業員全員が参加して経営幹部の説明を聞く。従業員にはビジネスに関する一般教書演説ともいうべき、入念に作明を聞く。従業員にはビジネスに関する一般教書演説ともいうべき、入念に作成されたメッセージが成されたメッセージが語られ語られ、短い質疑、短い質疑応答応答が行われる。が行われる。
一部の企業は
一部の企業は、、ラージラージグループグループ参加参加の手法を用いて従業員集会を高度にインタの手法を用いて従業員集会を高度にインタラクティブな全員参加型のイベントに変えることに成功している。オープンスラクティブな全員参加型のイベントに変えることに成功している。オープンスペーステクノロジーペーステクノロジー11やワールドカフェやワールドカフェ22といった専門のグループインタラクシといった専門のグループインタラクション形式では、人々が関心を持っている、ョン形式では、人々が関心を持っている、かつかつ自分に自分にとって重要なとって重要なテーマにつテーマについて深くいて深く創造的創造的に関与するための時間と空間をに関与するための時間と空間を準備準備する。これらの手法を用いする。これらの手法を用いると、従業員が確実に参加することになり、従業員同士の協力が促される。タると、従業員が確実に参加することになり、従業員同士の協力が促される。タウンホールミーティングウンホールミーティングでは当初では当初受け身受け身であったであった聴衆が、深く関与するエネル聴衆が、深く関与するエネルギッシュな参加者に変身し、結果に対して集団的に責任を負うギッシュな参加者に変身し、結果に対して集団的に責任を負うようになるようになる。。
リーダーがこれらの手法を使いこなすためには、ある程度のトレーニングとス
リーダーがこれらの手法を使いこなすためには、ある程度のトレーニングとスキルが必要だが、努力に十分見合った見返りが得られる。特にキルが必要だが、努力に十分見合った見返りが得られる。特にリーダーはリーダーは、チ、チーム全員が自分たちの行動の理由をーム全員が自分たちの行動の理由を全体的に全体的に理解し、理解し、各人が各人が自分の役割自分の役割をを適切適切にに果たそうとすることに果たそうとすることに自信自信を得るだろうを得るだろう。。
次回
次回は、組織文化のある側面がは、組織文化のある側面がいかにしていかにしてVUCAVUCAワールドワールドへの対応に悪影響をへの対応に悪影響を及ぼし、組織及ぼし、組織のの正しい選択を正しい選択を妨げるか妨げるかについて取り上げる。について取り上げる。



1
1 オープンスペーステクノロジーはオープンスペーステクノロジーはラージラージグループに有効な手法で、実際にグループに有効な手法で、実際に会合を開き、自分たちで準備して複雑かつ困難なトピックについて短時間で議会合を開き、自分たちで準備して複雑かつ困難なトピックについて短時間で議論する。参加者は自分の興味に従ってさまざまな議論に参加し、自分が議論に論する。参加者は自分の興味に従ってさまざまな議論に参加し、自分が議論に寄与したら速やかに関心のある別のトピックに移動する。セッションの終わり寄与したら速やかに関心のある別のトピックに移動する。セッションの終わりまでには、参加者は議論されているトピックに深く関与している。までには、参加者は議論されているトピックに深く関与している。
2
2 ワールドカフェもワールドカフェもラージラージグルグループ向けのエンゲージメント形式であり、ープ向けのエンゲージメント形式であり、参参加者は関心のあるトピックを一定時間、議論する。グループは全てのトピック加者は関心のあるトピックを一定時間、議論する。グループは全てのトピックを順番に回り、セッションの終わりまでには協力的な対話によって合意した結を順番に回り、セッションの終わりまでには協力的な対話によって合意した結論を共有している。論を共有している。

Posted in News | Tagged |

Managing in today’s VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity) business world

Published in Japanese in April 2016 in MUFG’s Biz Buddy

INTRODUCTION

The increasing frequency of new concepts, ideas and technologies in the 21st century has created novel opportunities and challenges for businesses and organisations. Airbnb, BlaBla Car, Uber, Spotify, MPesa are examples which demonstrate how the internet has impacted the traditional model of business in these industries.  Keeping pace is no longer enough; survival and business success cannot be assured by keeping one step ahead. Carefully designed solutions that solve clear and well defined problems are a luxury of the past.

To succeed it is necessary to manage Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) pressures rather than following a defined course of actions to achieve specific goals.

In this three part series we explore aspects of people management in the 21st century. In contrast to the more familiar ’to do’ list, we use techniques that generate awareness and provoke thought. We hope our audience is encouraged to step back and consider how they actually act in a global environment.

PART 1: Culture of Obedience and Leadership

Culture of Obedience

It is fascinating how organisations instil a culture of obedience so that employees come to work and perform their tasks without any questions. Without doubt, a culture of obedience is crucial and no chain of command would be effective if every decision is questioned and debated. Yet, all too often employees take no accountability for their actions other than blindly following orders from above. It is almost as if they have left their individual sense of judgement and consciences at home. Ask any manager or employee how they clarify their doubts at work and they will almost always, check with their immediate supervisor or search the company procedures and policies manual. What happens if the rule book is wrong, out of date or the manager is incorrect?

2015 has been a year where some of the world’s largest and most respected companies have become embroiled in corporate scandals. Although each case is unique and different, these scandals make a mockery of corporate integrity. They are most likely the result of a collective effort involving people across different levels of the business, rather than the work of a rogue employee. As always, these scandals will be thoroughly investigated by professionals and almost all will involve hefty fines or expensive settlements. Very few of these investigations will involve any civil or criminal prosecution of key managers and decision makers. 

2015 has also seen the emergence of the Yates memorandum on 9th September 2015 which allows for the prosecution of individuals in corporate fraud cases. Sally Yates, the US Deputy Attorney General announced that fining businesses will take second place to pursuing civil and criminal charges against individuals and executives. Her memo makes clear that ‘to qualify for any co-operation credit whatsoever, in both criminal and civil cases, corporations under investigation must provide the Department of Justice with all relevant facts about the individuals involved in corporate misconduct’. If implemented rigorously, this will ensure managers cannot hide behind an inscrutable corporate entity. It would be nothing short of a paradigm shift and a bold example to other countries.

A direct consequence of the culture of obedience is that it codifies what is right and what is wrong. It sets fixed boundaries that invoke sanctions if they are crossed. We stop thinking for ourselves and no longer take responsibility for what is actually right or wrong. All we remain focused on is following the rules, procedures or laid down policy, thus avoiding sanctions for disobedience. As a result, we completely lose sight of the initial purpose and intentions of the rules. It is not surprising therefore that we have laws to enforce laws and regulations which lead to more red tape. Big business typifies this; every large organisation has its own set of policies and compliance procedures, all encouraged by its organisational culture. Until investigators tell us otherwise, we will not know if it was just a few rogue employees or the culture of obedience that led to some of this year’s corporate scandals.

Leadership Role

The inevitable question in the context of the Yates memorandum for organisations is how to create a corporate culture where its employees are encouraged to highlight areas that may conflict with the company’s goals without any fear or retribution. This is especially important in those cultures where hierarchy, conformity and loyalty are valued and where individualism is not considered the norm. Whistle-blowing arrangements and hotlines have had limited success. More regulations, policies and audits would only lead to more bureaucracy and innovation and creativity would be affected.  There needs to be another way.

The answer in my view lies in the quality and calibre of leadership that such organisations create. Most leadership models talk about what a leader needs to do and there are numerous aspects of leadership that are laboriously taught in class room settings. All require leaders to demonstrate behaviour that succeeds in generatingfollowers. I believe that this is insufficient. Leaders should be able to engage with employees by involving them in their decision making process by considering any inputs they may have as this will strengthen the overall business response in today’s VUCA environment.

Mature organisations need to think about creating leadership skills that encourage every employee to express their view. Employees should be encouraged to challenge bottlenecks and business risks. Organisations would need to ensure that its leaders encourage and listen to these views. Stifling and dismissing different opinions should not be an option. Leadership must be about doing the right thing; as the legendary Kazuo Inamori has pointed out, the acid test of a leader is the ability to hold one’s head high because one did the right thing. Encouraging opinion and alternative voices is much easier said than done and more so in those cultures where its people are systematically and socially encouraged to follow orders, where ‘reading the air’ and understanding unspoken thoughts and feelings of the manager are valued.

Though difficult, it is not impossible.  Leaders in Europe and USA are familiar with quarterly town hall meetings where every employee participates in a briefing from their senior leadership. Employees are provided a carefully prepared presidential state of the nation address about the business followed by a brief question and answer session.

Some companies have successfully used large group intervention methods to transform such gatherings of its employees into highly interactive and participative events. Specialist group interaction formats like Open Space Technology[1] and World Café[2] physically create time and space for people to engage deeply and creatively around issues that interest and matter to them. These methods ensure participation and enhance collaboration across employees. Passive audiences of town hall meetings are transformed into highly engaged and energetic participants who take collective responsibility for outcomes.

For leaders, mastery of these methods may need some training and skill; the returns however would be well worthwhile the effort. Above all, they would provide confidence to leaders that everyone in their team understands the overall rationale of their actions and commits appropriately to their role.

In Part 2 of this series we will explore how certain aspects of organisational cultures can adversely affect a VUCA response and prevent organisations from making the right choices.


[1] Open Space Technology is an effective format for large groups to physically meet and self-organise to discuss complex and difficult topics in a short period of time. Participants follow their interests and participate in different discussions, swiftly moving across different topics of interest once they have contributed.  

By the end of the session participants have committed to the topics in the discussion.  

[2] World Café is another large group engagement format where participants spend a fixed time discussing their topics of interest. Groups rotate across all topics and by the end of the session a collaborative dialogue with shared and agreed outcomes has taken place successfully.

Posted in News | Tagged |

Accountability – separating milk out of a cup of tea

This article examines the concept of ‘accountability’ and explores its impact on organisational culture and business responses. But first, let’s baseline our understanding of organisational culture. Easiest described as a set of values, beliefs, norms, customs, rules, codes of conduct that are shared by its members and demarcates a business from others, organisational culture can at times appear woolly and hard to pinpoint.

Even the smallest well-intentioned action contributes to organisational culture. For instance, faced with stiff competition, examples of businesses that have tightened decision making by signing off investments at head office are increasingly common. Rigorous scrutiny of supporting information and multi layered approvals inevitably create bottlenecks and slow decision making. Front line sales forces are left powerless to negotiate and achieve closure; often losing out to competition that arrive better empowered to agree terms and sign off commercials.  Sales force morale inevitably gets dented and with it an overall absence of initiative and drive. Such examples abound in every functional area and shapes organisational culture at most businesses.

The scope of culture is significant and enormous; numerous aspects of an organisation contribute to its culture and these moving parts ensure that organisational culture is forever evolving. Effective and efficient organisational cultures encourage new ideas and practices which rapidly become essential differentiators to retain and attract a discerning 21st century workforce. The concept of ‘Accountability’ is one such example. It is an important aspect of organisational cultures but remains one of the lesser understood aspects of organisational culture.

Accountability

Many of us love our tea with milk. Anyone who’s ever tried to separate milk out of a cup of tea would know the futility of this task. Once the brew is prepared and milk added, the only way to separate the two is to throw it away and start afresh. For many businesses this is an apt metaphor to describe their organisation structures. Clear separation at the top of the organisation dissolves into an indistinguishable blend from which a precise separation of who does what becomes impossible. As long as everything goes well, its fine, but the moment a customer account is dropped or errors in service delivery emerge, questions about who to hold accountable and responsible become difficult to answer.

Too many Japanese and European businesses have grown organically and in the polite atmosphere at work, employees focus on getting work completed and through the door. Practicalities of day to day work execution and good camaraderie lead team members to fill in for each other. But who is ultimately accountable or responsible?

Our recent recessionary business environment has brought this into sharp focus. Losing key accounts puts entire supply chains at risk of employment as customer fulfilment traditionally required numerous touchpoints from order processing, billing, payment collection and so on. The disruption, insecurity and uncertainty this creates affect all customers including those who are the mainstay of the business during these difficult times. Stopping an entire product category or withdrawing from a market magnifies the disruption and trauma considerably.

Conversely, who does a business reward if something goes exceedingly well – an entire team including those who are passengers or just deserving individual contributors? Such confusion enables poor performers to conceal themselves, secure in the knowledge that there is little they can be held responsible for and even less that they can be held accountable for.    Every business and organisation has its share of non performing employees and the activation effort to deal with them is often so high that many businesses prefer to leave them unidentified and endure their poor performance in silence.

Creating accountability and ownership requires some effort and method. At a minimum clear job descriptions expressing unambiguous accountabilities and responsibilities create a visible and transparent culture of who does what. Obvious as this may seem, it is common to come across Japanese organisations where job descriptions do not exist or are unclear. The sharp contrast of the idea of accountability of a Japanese employee with no clear job description and an European employee bound by his/her job description in the same company working for the same goal is frequently pointed out as a challenge in cross cultural workshops. Many Japanese companies, especially manufacturing companies love talking about ‘mieru‐ka’ (bringing visibility about their business) especially in the area of production processes, planning, logistics, marketing, IT and accounts. These companies often boast how well this is managed to bring effectiveness to the business. However when it comes to people management, my impression is that ‘mieru‐ka’ is somewhat lacking.

Designing organisations that ensure accountability across all levels is neither impossible nor difficult; it does however need careful thought and design.  Accurate workload and capacity forecasting, clear responsibilities and accountabilities in job descriptions, key performance indicators, RACI[1] matrices aligning to business strategy are just some of the essentials that ought to be in place. The magic though is to ensure that every role is clearly accountable for something, however large or tiny, with a clear purpose that helps realise the business strategy, much like the fabled conversation between US President John F Kennedy and a NASA janitor in 1962, who, when asked by the President what he was doing, said that he was helping put a man on the moon.

1 RACI: Responsible, those who do the work to achieve the task; Accountable, final approval authority responsible for the correctness of the work and delegates to those Responsible; Consulted, subject matter experts or other stakeholders who are consulted with; Informed, those who are kept informed of the progress of the task through one way communication only.



 

Posted in News |

Obedience Cultures and Leadership

Culture of Obedience

It is fascinating how organisations instil a culture of obedience so that employees come to work and perform their tasks without any questions. Without doubt, a culture of obedience is crucial and no chain of command would be effective if every decision is questioned and debated. Yet, all too often employees take no accountability for their actions other than blindly following orders from above. It is almost as if they have left their individual sense of judgement and consciences at home. Ask any manager or employee how they clarify their doubts at work and they will almost always, check with their immediate supervisor or search the company procedures and policies manual. What happens if the rule book is wrong, out of date or the manager is incorrect?

2015 has been a year where some of the world’s largest and most respected companies have become embroiled in corporate scandals. Although each case is unique and different, these scandals make a mockery of corporate integrity. They are most likely the result of a collective effort involving people across different levels of the business, rather than the work of a rogue employee. As always, these scandals will be thoroughly investigated by professionals and almost all will involve hefty fines or expensive settlements. Very few of these investigations will involve any civil or criminal prosecution of key managers and decision makers.

2015 has also seen the emergence of the Yates memorandum on 9th September 2015 which allows for the prosecution of individuals in corporate fraud cases. Sally Yates, the US Deputy Attorney General announced that fining businesses will take second place to pursuing civil and criminal charges against individuals and executives. Her memo makes clear that ‘to qualify for any co-operation credit whatsoever, in both criminal and civil cases, corporations under investigation must provide the Department of Justice with all relevant facts about the individuals involved in corporate misconduct’. If implemented rigorously, this will ensure managers cannot hide behind an inscrutable corporate entity. It would be nothing short of a paradigm shift and a bold example to other countries.

A direct consequence of the culture of obedience is that it codifies what is right and what is wrong. It sets fixed boundaries that invoke sanctions if they are crossed. We stop thinking for ourselves and no longer take responsibility for what is actually right or wrong. All we remain focused on is following the rules, procedures or laid down policy, thus avoiding sanctions for disobedience. As a result, we completely lose sight of the initial purpose and intentions of the rules. It is not surprising therefore that we have laws to enforce laws and regulations which lead to more red tape. Big business typifies this; every large organisation has its own set of policies and compliance procedures, all encouraged by its organisational culture. Until investigators tell us otherwise, we will not know if it was just a few rogue employees or the culture of obedience that led to some of this year’s corporate scandals.

Leadership Role

The inevitable question in the context of the Yates memorandum for organisations is how to create a corporate culture where its employees are encouraged to highlight areas that may conflict with the company’s goals without any fear or retribution. This is especially important in those cultures where hierarchy, conformity and loyalty are valued and where individualism is not considered the norm. Whistle-blowing arrangements and hotlines have had limited success. More regulations, policies and audits would only lead to more bureaucracy and innovation and creativity would be affected.  There needs to be another way.

The answer in my view lies in the quality and calibre of leadership that such organisations create. Most leadership models talk about what a leader needs to do and there are numerous aspects of leadership that are laboriously taught in class room settings. All require leaders to demonstrate behaviour that succeeds in generating followers. I believe that this is insufficient. Leaders should be able to engage with employees by involving them in their decision making process by considering any inputs they may have as this will strengthen the overall business response in today’s VUCA environment.

Mature organisations need to think about creating leadership skills that encourage every employee to express their view. Employees should be encouraged to challenge bottlenecks and business risks. Organisations would need to ensure that its leaders encourage and listen to these views. Stifling and dismissing different opinions should not be an option. Leadership must be about doing the right thing; as the legendary Kazuo Inamori has pointed out, the acid test of a leader is the ability to hold one’s head high because one did the right thing. Encouraging opinion and alternative voices is much easier said than done and more so in those cultures where its people are systematically and socially encouraged to follow orders, where ‘reading the air’ and understanding unspoken thoughts and feelings of the manager are valued.

Though difficult, it is not impossible.  Leaders in Europe and USA are familiar with quarterly town hall meetings where every employee participates in a briefing from their senior leadership. Employees are provided a carefully prepared presidential state of the nation address about the business followed by a brief question and answer session.

Some companies have successfully used large group intervention methods to transform such gatherings of its employees into highly interactive and participative events. Specialist group interaction formats like Open Space Technology[1] and World Café[2] physically create time and space for people to engage deeply and creatively around issues that interest and matter to them. These methods ensure participation and enhance collaboration across employees. Passive audiences of town hall meetings are transformed into highly engaged and energetic participants who take collective responsibility for outcomes.

For leaders, mastery of these methods may need some training and skill; the returns however would be well worthwhile the effort. Above all, they would provide confidence to leaders that everyone in their team understands the overall rationale of their actions and commits appropriately to their role.



[1] Open Space Technology is an effective format for large groups to physically meet and self-organise to discuss complex and difficult topics in a short period of time. Participants follow their interests and participate in different discussions, swiftly moving across different topics of interest once they have contributed.

By the end of the session participants have committed to the topics in the discussion.

[2] World Café is another large group engagement format where participants spend a fixed time discussing their topics of interest. Groups rotate across all topics and by the end of the session a collaborative dialogue with shared and agreed outcomes has taken place successfully.

Posted in News |