Beyond the critical X

Six sigma master black belt David Lengacher warns about a common oversight in change management programs. Managers must address beliefs and behavior, he says, not culture. Browse the business management section at your local bookstore and you will find many top selling management books proclaiming that all measures of performance should be directly traceable to the objectives of the organization. It is hard to argue with this, but it is often overemphasized to the degree that it can cause significant organizational side effects. Sometimes this focus can become so intense that it creates a myopic vision of strategic management.┬á A flood of six sigma literature started to pour into the mainstream in the 1990s, and as a result, managers in several industries began to see the distinction between independent variables and response variables with regard to their own operationsÔÇöin other words, the difference between factors they had direct control over, and those they did not. Back then, they were told that it is the critical few independent variables (the critical Xs) that ultimately are the true drivers of performance. As a simple example, consider making a batch of chocolate. If our goal is to control the bitterness of the chocolate we can measure two things, an independent variable and a response variable. We can choose to measure the taste of the chocolate (degree of bitterness) or we can measure the amount of cocoa we put into it. The amount of cocoa is the independent variable and taste is the response variable. The response variable becomes increasingly bitter as we add more cocoa, but the taste is subjective to the taster. This is similar to a situation where a manager is tasked with increasing market share by 20 percent. Market share is a response variable, so the manager must first find the critical Xs that drive itÔÇöand thatÔÇÖs a huge task. This approach of finding the critical Xs that drive performance has experienced great success in many organizations, but there is one area of continuous improvement where it has, thus far, failed miserably. The failure occurs when organizations identify culture, or workforce behavior, as one of the critical Xs that drive performance. This is a trend that has gained great momentum in the last few years. Phrases such as ÔÇ£ÔǪto change the cultureÔÇØ and ÔÇ£ÔǪachieving culture changeÔÇØ can be found in the strategic objectives of many organizations. Identifying culture as an input variable makes little sense, however, because, just like market share, it too is a response variable. It is this single, ill-conceived association that is primarily responsible for the rapid ascent in popularity of the change management section in your local bookstore. Change management is now in the mainstream; it is in our lexicon, and it is comprised of books, service offerings, and software. Several organizations now define culture, or workforce behavior, as an independent variable; something they can affect directly. This is a critical error and it can have serious ramifications.┬áProblemThe most obvious flaw with this practice is that, unlike most variables, culture is almost always impossible to measure in any meaningful way. Companies that focus on changing their culture often do not have an accurate situational awareness of what their culture is today. Some organizations use surveys in an attempt to measure this, but the one sure-fire way for employees to end the disruption that change management training brings to their work life is to simply lie on an exit survey after training is completed. Employees may provide answers that they feel management wants to hear. There is actually an incentive for employees to do this for fear of yet another round of training.┬á When selecting independent variables in an attempt to analyze their connection to performance, culture will always prove to be a poor choice. Organizations dedicated to changing their current culture and the behavior of the workforce could benefit greatly from focusing on something that more directly affects performance, like beliefs. More specifically, take a look at what your employees believe with respect to the goals management is promoting.┬á There is much research supporting the model that beliefs drive behavior and behavior drives performance. The degree to which employees will pursue the activities defined by management as necessary to achieve a given goal is directly proportional to the perceived achievability of the goal, and the personal significance of what it means for the employee to achieve it.Perceived achievability is relatively easy for management to influence. The most common method is to refer to a recent goal that was both achieved and perceived to be more difficult than the goal currently being posed to employees. Making this comparison is an effective way to frame the current goal as being achievable in the eyes of employees. Personal significance is more problematic. The challenge lies in deciding how to frame the goal in such a way that its achievement is highly significant to each member of the team being asked to participate. Addressing personal significance is therefore where most managers and change agents should focus their efforts.┬áIf you focus on addressing the current beliefs of your employees, you may be able to affect their behavior, and ultimately you will be closer to achieving your goals.┬á