Strategic & Operating Reviews Part 3: Change and Failure

This is the third post in our series on Strategic & Operational Reviews (SOR).  Part 1 — Strategic & Operational Reviews: We Can’t Agree to Disagree — dealt with the issue that changes are coming to the Public Service, whether or not the leadership want it to happen.  And, if these changes are going to be successful it will be predicated on successfully creating alignment and embracing conflict management.

Part 2 — Strategic & Operational Reviews Part 2: Alignment and Failure — focuses the discussion on creating a greater understanding of the concept of alignment, why it matters, and where it is critical for success.

Implementation is About Change

Implementing a Strategic and Operating Review (SOR) is fundamentally about change.

Sometimes it is a big change, sometimes a small change.

Sometimes you're asking people to shift from doing what they know to something unfamiliar. Sometimes you're asking them to take the long view when they're rewarded by a different set of metrics. Almost always, you're asking people to think a new thought, do a new thing, learn, stretch, and cooperate with others in creating something together.

And, quite often, you're making the decision while challenged: programs are delivering on their product offers while in motion, and while delivering this quarter’s budget targets. Or, a program is trying to reach scale with limited funds; deciding what new product to build is hard because everyone has an opinion — yet very few of us have any data on which to make the call.

In or Out?

In the end, alignment is about how you do your work.  Specifically, how effectively you implement your strategy.

In aligning the business model, disagreement is fine as long as you come to clarity about which path is the one you will travel together.  And, sooner or later, you'll face one of those moments: 

Are you in, or are you out?

As we have previously stated, political and PS leaders cannot agree to disagree on issues of alignment. They must be crystal clear about the needs and requirements of the public who will ultimately judge their work.

Tribalism – The Other Elephant in the Room

Perhaps the greatest impediment to organizational alignment is “tribalism”.

The Oxford Dictionaries define tribalism as “the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or group” — and is seen in this context as a derogatory behaviour.

An excellent example of tribalism in the PS was recently cited in the Ottawa Citizen in the article “Team calling for deep cuts at DND thwarted, report says”. The article characterizes the DND review, led by General Andrew Leslie — Canada’s former military commander in Afghanistan, as having been blocked from examining the “civilian” side of DND.

This is not a new phenomenon.  It occurs in all kinds of organizations, but perhaps with greatest frequency and intensity in bureaucratic organizations. And, if the change involves a merger of different cultures, it presents a “double jeopardy”.

Bodies that are organized along tight specialty lines such as military vs. civilian or engineering vs. support sometimes develop strong “us” vs. “them” outlooks.  Unfortunately, strong “tribal identities” can torpedo attempts to develop an overall corporate identity  — an identity that is so vital to an organization’s effectiveness.

A strong group identity can be a major asset in developing a sense of belonging and loyalty among employees, but when that engagement is directed inward — against other groups within the same organization — it becomes a major barrier in any attempt to align operations.

Faced with the need to re-align programs and budgets with strategic direction, over-active tribal behaviours become spoilers.  Strategy direction changes and operating process changes are thwarted, and budget savings are not achieved. In frustration, policy makers and executive managers cut budgets in the “belief” that operating managers will be forced to make the desired changes.

However, the typical outcome of this approach is that frontline staffs are simply left to “do more with less”.  Without leadership guidance these same staff, though, have no real understanding of how they can adapt their work processes to accommodate the increased load. Ultimately, these ever-increasing demands can have a devastating impact on the workforce.   

It’s People

You are probably tired of hearing this, but it bears repeating: big initiatives are bound to fail if clear decisions are not reached at the highest levels that will create alignment within programs.

However, the executives who are debating these alignment decisions are just as likely to face failure if they don’t acknowledge the need to gain solid engagement from workers.

The critical elements of change management must be baked in to their operational plans from the beginning.  If their people are not engaged, informed, empowered and committed, the executive can deliver almost any plan they like — doesn’t matter.  It’s going to fail.

In preparing this blog series, I found  Nilofer Merchant’s book, The New How, helpful. You may find her discussion regarding collaborative ways to have your whole organization strategize of interest.

Update:
The series concludes — Strategic & Operational Reviews Part 4: A Framework for Success

Download our new eBook:

Managing Change: A workbook for personal and organizational change

Comments