We get results because we are that unique combination of business savvy and science that you won’t find elsewhere. We tell the truth and make a difference quickly. We challenge practices that are not effective and replace them with those that lead to success. Here are three case studies that are typical of our impact.
Effectively Addressing A Changing Marketplace
When the foundation of the marketplace shifts unexpectedly, the resulting quake in your organization can leave your business sprawling. Here is one example of stumbling that led to new heights.
June 2010
Several years ago, regulatory changes caused a dramatic shift in the marketplace of a regional financial institution. Its competitive positioning became tenuous. During this same time, the long-term CEO left. His customer connections had played a major role in the organization’s past success.
The new CEO faced the equivalent of a start-up organization, with a pre-existing infrastructure that struggled to support the current organization and was clearly inadequate to support future growth.
| Action:Working with the existing senior executive team, it became clear that people were focused primarily on all the things that were going wrong. In weekly team sessions, the disconnect between what people said and what they actually did began to surface. There was a good deal of resistance to accepting that focusing on problems at the expense of a customer service message was the key. People saw their focus on problems associated with customer service. “We are responding to unhappy customer complaints – how is that wrong?”The fear of change escalated at one offsite meeting in particular, where team members began to understand the effect – on their own behavior and on others – and consciously began to seek alternative approaches to the business.
A series of off-sites were then conducted to create and hone a differentiating service strategy in the new market. In addition, the team worked to define the functional alignment required to implement the new strategy. As part of these efforts, specific executive skill building was conducted at the individual level in the form of coaching; and, at a group level in the form of team effectiveness building. Several people moved to different positions for greater success. A few outside players were recruited to complete the team. |
Our Unique PerspectiveTeam members at the executive level here had not yet recognized the impact of Old Brain behavior.
When pushed, the team members responded normally – in fight or flight mode. Once the behaviors associated with Old Brain energy became clear, the team could move forward. |
Results:
The executive team members created a powerful customer focus and integrated it into their overall culture that was transformational for the institution. Business results included dramatically increasing their penetration in key areas. The team decided to institute some technology upgrades and training that dramatically improved customer service. The opening of additional branches was one demonstration of growth. Overall, this team truly created a new customer service culture that led to increased profitability for the institution.
Increasing Efficiency – No Simple Solution
We complain that “change initiatives” seldom work. Our approaches are often either too simple to solve complex problems or too complex because of lack of focus. One company learns how change successfully happens by turning to the future.
October 2010
The leaders in a highly technical manufacturing company were struggling with tight cash flow. Their products – which were primarily custom-built to specification – were regularly running late through the production process. Although there were other issues at play – incomplete specifications from the sales force, details missing for designed products from engineering, and more recently a serious reduction in vendor responsiveness on parts orders – the leadership team decided to focus on an “Always On Time” initiative.
| Action:Initially, the leadership team focused on root causes. Quickly, it became apparent that narrow functional views of the problem were resulting in the blaming of others for what was not working. Everyone assumed this was a production problem. They were at the end of the line, right before the products were packaged and distributed. The production executive felt those in sales, engineering, and even their vendors were causing many of the issues that led to late deliveries. Slowly, as the blame-fest heightened, these leaders began to see how territorial they each were, and a shift occurred in their approach.The members of the leadership team began to see how putting the blame on someone else gave them permission to stop trying to bring about change. “It’s your fault” translated easily into “not mine to fix.” So they agreed to stop blaming each other and anyone else. Instead, whenever they found themselves wanting to point the finger, they changed their language and asked questions. “If it’s true that the sales people are frequently not completing the specifications, what can we do about it?” This allowed everyone in the room to take responsibility for this one goal: Always On Time.
Once the leadership team was aligned, they began to involve others. By aligning on the issue and dropping out of the Blame Game, they now saw that they could make faster progress by getting cross-functional groups of people together to work pieces of the problem. For example, one of the teams took people from engineering, sales, and production to create a more effective sales forecasting tool that was helpful to everyone. Another cross-functional team took on vendor management to improve the supply chain in a difficult credit environment. |
Our Unique PerspectiveOur hard wiring drives us to protect what is ours, especially when the finger of blame is about to point in our direction. It was natural and normal for the leadership team members to start the problem solving process by blaming – there was a lot at stake and no one wanted to be the one who failed.It was also normal but not helpful that everyone started out thinking the problem was a simple one – and belonged to the production function. Our Old Brain need to simplify often slows or even prevents progress on bringing about change.
By focusing on their own in-the-moment Old Brain behavior and understanding what to do differently, the team members recognized their blaming actions and chose to stop. This was the turning point. |
Results:
Within three months, dramatic improvements had been made, with a milestone at the two-month mark – their first large delivery to a very important customer went out on time. The leadership team took time to recognize everyone’s efforts and a picture of the production team surrounding the product load was taken to post on the company’s production bulletin board.
A final benefit resulted from the cross-functional team approach. People in different functions began to understand each other’s viewpoints better throughout the company, and teamwork across the company began to improve.
The company’s leaders are now instituting final procedures around the Always On Time initiative to sustain their improvements. In addition, the leadership team is energized to take on the next issue of alignment: sales force effectiveness.
When Great Intentions Are Toxic
The implementation of an entire program can be derailed by the behavior of one person. When that one person is also a valued and valuable member of the team, more than one program is impacted.
October 2010
Recently, the head of strategic procurement for a large chemical firm had a new initiative: to consolidate contracting for parts and services across the company. The implementation of this was meeting with resistance, however.
Edward reported that his team had put together an incredible business case, received approval, and was implementing a new program that would save the company millions of dollars each year. Unfortunately, it appeared that “the field” did not want to sign up for the change because many local contracts had benefits that would be lost in the consolidation, such as golf games or season tickets to sporting events from vendors. Edward felt this was an excuse for their lack of success but was confused about how to move forward.
| Action:In interviews with his people, a different story emerged. There were three primary functional directors involved in the overall implementation. Two of the three reported that the field was working hard to implement, and that when they worked closely with field managers, they made noticeable progress. These two procurement executives saw the undertaking from a long-term perspective, understood that change is hard, and viewed their roles as supportive to the process. The third procurement executive – Jake – had a more belligerent perspective. He felt a good program had been derailed, and there was no reason why the change had not already happened. Jake’s was a top-down, “do it my way” approach and he was angry with the resistance he was experiencing.Edward and his team met several times over a six month period. In the beginning, there was tension as each person fought for his perspective. “If the field would just understand they have no choice” battled with “it takes time, but we are seeing progress.” Over time, the team was able to come to consensus – the value of buy-in in the field was the key. The success of the collaborative executives finally won over the more dictatorial approach. They developed a coherent, consistent message with a timeline and various consequences to support their implementation plan. Although they continued to feel resistance from field personnel, they were able to maintain their pace of progress.
Results: At the 12-month time frame, the program was recognized as a success. The cost savings goal of several million dollars had been met, and clear continuing goals had been identified and progress was clear. In addition, the effectiveness of the program was apparent via faster delivery and better customer service from approved vendors. Edward’s group was identified for an award by the CEO for positive impact on the organization. |
Our Unique PerspectiveBlaming “the field” for lack of success gave Edward and others a way out of doing anything differently. Edward had trapped himself in a toxic wasteland by accepting the blaming story.His reporting executive – whose style was abrasive, disrespectful and blaming – was a bright, capable leader whose participation in the development of the new program was integral to its success. Unfortunately, he was sabotaging it with his Old Brain energy.
Fortunately, Edward was able to create a vision of success with his people and get them aligned in a way that led to success. He and the other two executives helped Jake begin to understand his role in the failure in implementation. With compassion and persistence, the team held Jake accountable for changing his perspective. Whenever they met with Jake’s resistance, they painstakingly walked through a dialogue that got them all thinking about what to do in circumstances where we feel we are not in control. |
