Constructive change comes from within
Association Management; Washington; Sep 2002; John T Adams III; Francie Dalton;
Volume: |
54 |
Issue: |
9 |
Start Page: |
48 |
ISSN: |
00045578 |
Full Text: |
Copyright
American Society of Association Executives Sep
2002 |
[Headnote]
How one association reorganized and improved
performance by involving its staff.
WHEN MICHELLE SHANDS DECIDED HER ASSOCIATION MIGHT BENEFIT FROM AN EMPLOYEE
attitude survey, she had no idea what changes were in store.
Shards, the human resources director for the Special Libraries Association,
Washington, D.C., contacted a management consultant and began a multifaceted
transition for SLA that has resulted in an organization that is flatter and
smaller. It also includes clearly defined roles for each employee and measurable
performance objectives.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Before all that could happen, Shands had to get buy-in for her idea to do the
survey. Shands, with the support of now Acting Executive Director Lynn K. Smith,
CAE, pushed forward.
"It was frustrating to have this sense that we were out of balance," Smith
said recently. "We didn't like where we were on a variety of fronts, and were
struggling to articulate with clarity where we wanted to go."
Team spirit was low, with departments operating in silos and management
competing with each other for the attention-and favor-of the executive director.
The result was a command-and-control environment where few employees took
initiative beyond their narrow ranges of responsibility.
In addition to what Smith calls a "disjointed" feeling about how the
organization was performing, SLA's long-time executive director had announced
his retirement would begin in a year. "We felt it was important to capture
`current state' information about the organization in preparation for the new
CEO," she says, "so we started working immediately to get buy-in on the survey."
The survey, as proposed by management consultant Francie Dalton, Dalton
Alliances, Inc., wasn't merely a questionnaire about how employees felt about
working at SLA. Besides those kinds of inquiries, it also asked staff for their
perceptions about SLA's strategic direction, specific work processes, and
quality of management.
Also built in were mechanisms to assess the professionalism of workplace
behavior, capture perceptions about staff competencies, and evaluate program
efficiencies.
Once the survey results were in, the next step would be for Dalton and SLA
staff to develop a plan that would address key concerns.
More than a survey
"We were buying into a program, not just getting survey results," says Smith,
who at the time of the survey was deputy executive director. "It was a hard sell
because we knew the results would be fairly harsh and that remediating the ills
would take a long-term commitment."
Many managers were reluctant to ask their staff how they felt and even more
reluctant to take on the job of working to make tough changes. Discussions
continued from late summer into late fall 2000.
Significantly, the decision was made at the staff level, without involvement
of the board of directors. Four months before the CEO's retirement date, Shands
surveyed the staff to find out how they felt about doing the survey. All but one
of SLA's 37 employees voted to move forward. The survey was a go.
More meetings and discussions followed as SLA staff worked to tailor the
questionnaire to the association's needs. Then, with safeguards in place to
preserve the anonymity of the respondents, the instrument went to the staff in
May 2001.
The tabulated results presented to Smith and Shands weren't pretty.
* Across all topic areas in the 110-- question survey, 42 percent of the
responses were negative or very negative.
* More than 65 percent of employees found fault with the quality of
leadership in the organization.
* Nearly 60 percent were critical of fairness in the organization.
* The same proportion had concerns about work processes.
* More than half saw flaws in SLA's methods for making decisions.
* More than 40 percent gave negative responses about teamwork. And almost
half the employees expressed negative views about human resources.
It wasn't all bad news. Many employees were happy with their jobs.
* More than half said management was approachable.
* Nearly two thirds said tasks were delegated well.
* Almost 70 percent gave positive responses about their jobs.
* And nearly 40 percent gave favorable ratings to human resources.
Drilling down into the finer details of the responses gave Smith and Shands
even more reason to be glad they had led the survey project. For example,
although the overall "quality of management" scores were low, employees gave
high ratings for most of the questions in this category. However, responses to
some questions, such as "use of power," were so low that they pulled down the
whole category. Moreover, the write-in responses reflected much positive
information:
* "This is a great place to work." (Repeated several times.)
* "Restructure products and services."
* "Flatten the organization."
AS MANY STAFF HAD SUGGESTED IN THE "COMMENTS" SECTION OF THE SURVEY, THE
ORGANIZATION NEEDED TO BE REORGANIZED.
* "Develop a clear strategy for the association... reorganize the staff to
support the new strategy... build a high-performance staff that is
vision-driven."
* "Redefine which jobs are critical to fulfilling any mission and eliminate
those which are not."
Fixing the problems
After she had read through the results, Smith says her thinking was on two
levels: "One was, 'Oh, my God!' The other was, 'Wait a minute-these problems
aren't insurmountable. There may be a lot of them, but we can fix them."'
After giving the survey results additional thought, Smith says, she
recognized that the overall responses were "very solution-oriented. If you read
through them, you could see they weren't just complaints."
After sharing the results with the staff, SLA got to work. "The staff were
really interested in making things better. Some even asked how they could begin
contributing right away," Shands adds. More quickly than anticipated, staff
focus ceased to be on the negative results and instead turned toward specifics
about how to improve the organization.
As expected, lots of discussions with staff followed, during which action
plans were developed for implementing improvements. A real turning point came
when Shands, the HR director, brought up the rather low ratings staff had
assigned her department and invited suggestions.
"Michelle said the survey gave her insights she couldn't have got any other
way on how she could be more successful on the job," Smith says. "She was
willing to hear more and willing to change." Adds Dalton, "Michelle really set
the standard for her colleagues on how to receive and respond to critical
feedback."
By now, it was only six weeks before the new CEO was scheduled to arrive, and
Smith and Shands were pushing to show some progress before then. They formed a
task force composed of staff-elected delegates: two from each of the four
hierarchical levels in the organization. "The emphasis," Smith says, "was on
choosing delegates who wouldn't be intimidated by the hierarchical level of
other delegates."
The task force developed performance criteria against which to analyze all of
SLA's program areas. Included in the assessment was the degree of relevance each
program area had to the organization's mission, how many members it reached, how
important it was to members, how much public relations value it had, and how
much cost or profit it generated. As a result of the analysis, some programs
were slated for termination and others for emphasis.
"Although we already had a strategic plan in place," Smith says, "it lacked
accountability measures for staff. In these discussions we came up with goals
and objectives for every program and for every position.
"And we caught ourselves in a mistake," Smith concedes. "In our first
staffing iteration, we tried to plug all our existing personnel into the new
model. Then we realized what we were doing. I'm not going to say it was easy,
but we did ultimately succeed in setting aside personal relationships and
focused instead on objectively assessing authentic personnel needs."
The next phase called for Dalton to interview all staff to determine their
specific work responsibilities. This process revealed numerous redundancies and
inefficiencies. For example:
* Staff in two departments were doing the same work, but for different
supervisors, because work products were not shared across departmental lines.
* Some staff would complete their work by unnecessarily labor-intensive means
to avoid confrontations with difficult employees.
* Fees for various services weren't pegged to the market, resulting in
unprofitable programs.
As many staff had suggested in the "comments" section of the survey, the
organization needed to be reorganized. It needed to be flatter. And it needed
fewer people to get the work done most effectively.
A new organization
In October 2001, Smith and the new CEO met with each of the five managing
directors individually, making the following changes within their ranks:
Three positions were eliminated, with the affected employees receiving
severance pay and outplacement assistance. One staff member was kept in the same
job but moved to a different level. One was redeployed to another area.
Before the reorganization, SLA had four hierarchical levels below the top two
executives: managing director, director, specialist, and associate. Now there
are two: director and associate. Within the remaining levels, six individuals
received promotions.
"Everything was tied back to the survey results and the analysis done by the
task force," Smith says.
Smith says she had already noticed many positive changes only six months
after the survey was completed.
"We still have some issues, but we're overcoming them, and we're doing it as
a team. Silo-thinking has disappeared. We're collaborating with each other,
which is something we rarely did before. Even staff meetings have changed," she
says.
|
|
HOW SLA DID IT
ONE STEP AT A TIME
Once results of the Special Libraries Association
survey were tabulated, the real work started. The staff needed to receive the
data and then work to identify problem areas and develop solutions. Here is
how we did it, step by step.
Step 1. The employees got the full survey
results at an all-staff meeting. Each employee received a copy; nothing was
held back.
Step 2. Hierarchically segmented groups met to discuss which
survey topics they wanted to work on first. In many organizations, the
different hierarchical levels prioritize topics differently, so that the
various levels aren't all working on the same things. At SLA, all hierarchical
levels wanted to improve interpersonal skills, how they treated one another.
Step 3. A series of workshops on interpersonal skills was held for the
staff. Because trust among the hierarchical levels was not high at this early
stage, these workshops were delivered in hierarchically segmented groups.
Step 4. At the same time, each hierarchical level elected two
representatives to serve on a task force charged with achieving four outcomes:
1. To establish the criteria by which the association's programs would be
vetted.
2. To determine how the program areas should be changed to better
meet member needs and whether any programs should be dropped. (During this
process, the staff trimmed SLAs 11 major program areas to seven. Among the
seven programs kept were education, public relations, membership development
and publications. The staff evaluated these programs against 13 critical
factors, including past member survey results, how they contributed to the
profession's image, and whether they made money or needed to make money. The
criteria were ranked in importance, with member interests at the top of the
list.)
3. To establish the criteria by which all initiatives within the
seven program areas would be approved. Any existing or newly suggested
activities within all program areas would be vetted against these criteria,
ensuring that all resources were deployed in alignment with strategic
priorities (see figure).
4. To learn how to establish measurable goals and
objectives.
Step 5. Interviews were conducted with each employee to update
job descriptions, identify redundancies that could be eliminated, and begin
the process of establishing measurable goals and objectives for the
organization. Ultimately, this step resulted in the elimination of some jobs,
the addition of others, and dramatic changes in still others. Two of the four
hierarchical levels-managing directors and specialists-were eliminated,
changing the reporting relationships for many SLA employees. Three employees
were outplaced. Six employees were promoted. Salaries were adjusted to market
levels for all employees.
Step 6. Individual meetings were held with each
of the 14 directors to develop measurable goals and objectives. This work was
then presented by each director in meetings attended by all directors to
*
invite changes in targeted outcomes;
* identify critical collaborations
among the directors; and
* ensure that each director knew the functional
responsibilities and contributions of every other director.
Each director
received a copy of all the final goals and objectives. In addition, this step
identified outcomes for which all directors shared responsibility.
Step 7.
While Step 6 was under way, workshops on collaborative work environments were
conducted. It is significant that during these workshops, there was full
agreement among all hierarchies about the behaviors that evidence
collaboration, and all SLA associates agreed to adopt those behaviors.
As
a result of the work SLA has done, it is no longer possible to cloak a lack of
productivity behind a facade of power, tenure, personality, or work style.
Expected work outcomes are clear, and the volume of work is such that there
isn't tolerance at any level for power plays or departmental isolation. SLA is
now a results-oriented organization that has clarified the value and
contribution of each employee.
Francie Dalton is founder and president of
Dalton Alliances, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, a business consulting firm
specializing in communication, management, and behavioral sciences. E-mail:
fmdalton@da/tonalliances. com.
"Information on program area progress and difficulties is shared with
everyone and is substantively discussed," Smith explains. "More people are
working together and working smarter. The mailroom and information technology
are working together on e-commerce. That never would have happened before. Then,
there were few processes in place. Now the main process involves measurable
performance objectives that commit each staff person to work together with other
staff, communicate, and share accountability."
And there have been other changes as well, Smith explains. "Our new CEO left
only months after arriving, but it's been a seamless transition. Our business
decisions are sound and process-oriented, not emotional or self-serving."
Meanwhile, working with Dalton as part of the ongoing transformation, the
organization continues to change. Staff are engaged in every step of the
process, and are demonstrating a sense of personal responsibility for the health
and overall effectiveness of SLA.
"Smith and Shands get high marks on two fronts," says Dalton. "First for
having the courage to undertake what they knew would be an uphill battle and,
second, for demonstrating strong leadership throughout every step of a very
difficult process."
"Sometimes," Smith says, "you have to stir the pot."
[Sidebar]
WHY
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IS IMPORTANT
[Sidebar]
"Proof of performance-or the absence
thereof."
That, says management consultant Francie Dalton, founder and
president of Dalton Alliances, Inc., is what you get with well-defined
performance measures. "Properly constructed," she says, "performance measures
describe targeted outcomes in both quantitative and qualitative terms,
permitting a fair and objective assessment of performance. As a result, rather
than speaking of what 'seems to be so' or how one 'feels about' the performance
of a subordinate, performance measures provide objective, evidence-based
measures of performance."
Dalton offers four reasons why measuring staff
performance is important-especially in associations.
[Sidebar]
1.
Performance measures document performance. "Their development equips employees
to document their value in both qualitative and quantitative terms, which, in
turn, enables associations to document the value they bring to their members in
both quantitative and qualitative terms," Dalton says.
[Sidebar]
2.
Objective performance measures foster a focus on facts rather than feelings. As
a result, they help managers who are uncomfortable with confronting poor
performance do so effectively.
[Sidebar]
3. Attracting and retaining the "best" means
you must prune much of the rest. Dalton says, "High achievers leave because
mediocrity is tolerated all around them. Mediocre performers remain because
they're 'safe.' Without meaningful performance measures, your best can't surpass
expectations because the expectations were never clearly articulated. Just as
bad, your dead weight can't be pruned, since you can't promote or prune against
performance expectations that were never clearly articulated."
[Sidebar]
4.
Traditional methods of assessing performance-observation and communication-are
inadequate. Consider the following:
[Sidebar]
Observation: Imagine you have two
subordinates named Joe and Sally. In walking down the hall, you observe Joe with
his feet up on his desk, hands behind his head, staring out the window. Down the
hall, you observe Sally. She is talking on the phone, typing into her laptop,
covering the phone receiver and giving instructions to her assistant-all at
once. Based on these observations, which you made with your very own eyes, you
deduce that Joe is wasting time and Sally should be cloned to increase
organizational productivity. What you don't know, despite your direct
observations, is that Joe just got the CEO of your largest nonmember company to
commit to membership in your association and is taking a moment to savor his
success. Sally, having missed six deadlines in a row, is frantically trying not
to miss the seventh. So much for "observation" as a valid method for assessing
performance.
Communication: Now imagine that you've assigned two of your
subordinates, Dick and Jane, a task on which they must work together. You happen
to see Dick in the lobby and you casually inquire about the progress of the
project. Dick hesitates in responding to your questions just long enough to make
you suspicious, before he says "Ummm ... it's going to be fine, boss." You ask
Dick if there's a problem. He quickly replies, "No, no, no-everything's going to
be just fine. Not to worry." Something in his tone of voice is unconvincing, and
you set a meeting with him to discuss it. During this meeting you ask if perhaps
Jane hasn't been pulling her weight on the project, and Dick once again
hesitates long enough for you to be concerned. As you move toward the phone to
call Jane in, Dick begs you not to intervene, saying he can handle things on his
own. Recognize that Dick never actually said Jane wasn't pulling her weight. You
merely inferred as much from Dick's artful intimation. So much for communication
as an adequate method of assessing performance.
[Sidebar]
HOW
TO ESTABLISH VALID PERFORMANCE MEASURES
[Sidebar]
Establishing valid performance measures
isn't easy. But the investment you make in crafting meaningful performance
measures pays tremendous dividends.
You can prove an employee's value to
your association; you'll have quantifiable evidence with which to intelligently
justify rewarding or trimming your staff; you'll be much better equipped to
address performance factually, without emotion; and, perhaps most importantly,
your association can document its value to members.
[Sidebar]
COMPONENTS OF EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
[Sidebar]
The
three components of effective performance measures are goals, objectives, and
action plans.
Goals are the results to be achieved. Usually set one to three
years out, goals define what is to be achieved and do not include how the goals
will be achieved.
Objectives establish the major ways in which goals will be
achieved. Objectives usually require six to nine months to accomplish.
Action plans outline the tactical steps necessary to achieve each objective.
Usually requiring one to three months to complete, action plan items are not
daily tasks; they are larger undertakings enabling the accomplishment of
objectives.
[Sidebar]
INCORPORATING PLANNING AND GOAL-SETTING
[Sidebar]
*
Make each goal, objective, and action plan measurable, achievable, and
time-specific. Measures can include percentages, specific names of targets, hard
numbers, and even such phrases as "as requested by." A valid measure can be as
simple as whether something did or did not get done. Achievability doesn't mean
you should limit your goals to those you already know you can achieve. You'll
want to set goals that, while realistic, require extra effort. Time-specific can
mean a dated deadline, but some goals or objectives are executed on an ongoing
basis, which is a perfectly acceptable deadline.
* Include only one
statement for each component. Don't bury objectives (how-to's) within your goal
statements.
* Avoid using words such as increase, decrease, expand, or
reduce unless the implied baseline already exists and is expressed in the
statement itself. For example, saying "achieve a 10 percent increase in
attendance at the next annual meeting" doesn't work. Instead, say something
like, "Achieve a 10 percent increase in nonmember attendees at the 2003 annual
meeting over the 2001 annual meeting."
[Sidebar]
* Use quantitative and qualitative measures,
as necessary, in each component of performance measures. Qualitative measures
can include such phrases as "member-approved," "director-approved," "consensus,"
"on the record," "identified," "targeted," and "per the attached list."
*
Craft cross-functional goals or objectives-those shared by more than one
department-using the following language: "In collaboration with the X
department, achieve...."
[Sidebar]
SOLUTIONS FOR THE MOST COMMON MISTAKES
[Sidebar]
Avoiding the following errors in constructing component statements will
help ensure that your goals and objectives have less fluff and more substance:
[Sidebar]
*
Don't use phrases that aren't measurable. "Top quality," "cost effective,"
"effective," "key audiences," and appropriate" are examples of this common
error. Avoid saying, "By 12/03, conduct a high-quality meeting with key
audiences regarding X."
[Sidebar]
* Don't use verbs you can't measure, such as
educate, promote, meet with, lead, coordinate, attend, engage. For example: "On
an ongoing basis, attend all meetings of the XYZ committee." Warming a seat is
not an accomplishment. What is your attendance meant to achieve? Why are you
attending? The technique for using measurable outcomes is to ask the question
"Why?" regarding each verb. For example, why are you "leading"-to achieve what
outcome? Why are you "coordinating"-to achieve what outcome?
[Sidebar]
*
Don't end the goal statements with phrases that describe how the goal will be
achieved. For example: "Survey all 'X" groups to determine their priorities by
6/30/03." Separate the goal statement from the objective statements. The goal
here is to determine priorities; the method for doing so is the survey.
[Sidebar]
*
Don't require outcomes that are uncontrollable. For example: "Ensure that
Congress passes/does not pass the ABC bill by 12/03." It is neither realistic
nor fair to craft goals requiring outcomes not under the control of the
employee. What is reasonable and fair is to require a comprehensive and
aggressive strategy that improves the chances that the desired piece of
legislation will pass/be defeated. If the strategy is comprehensive, approved by
the supervisor and flawlessly executed, whether the bill is passed or defeated
is not a valid measure. A good way to state the goal is, "Work toward
ensuring....
[Sidebar]
* Don't use unsubstantiated quantity or
quality comparisons. For example: "create more visibility" or "establish better
communications." Instead, ask yourself, "More than what? How much more?" "Better
than what? How much better?"
[Sidebar]
Francie Dalton is founder and president of
Dalton Alliances, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, a business consulting firm
specializing in communication, management, and behavioral sciences. E-mail:
fmdalton@daltonalliances.com.
[Author note]
John T Adams III, the former vice president
for publications and new media with the Society for Human Resource Management in Alexandria, Virginia,
now operates Strategies for Associations, a consulting business specializing in
publishing and advertising sales strategies, Internet planning, nondues revenue growth, and coaching in
business writing. E-mail: johntadams@worldnet.att.net.
Reproduced with permission of the
copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without
permission.