Publicatie in InterAction, The Journal of Solution Focus in Organisations. Volume 5, Number 2. Case studies.

“Do we have to become sheep, or can we still be entrepreneurs ?” Moving top down relations to better communication and cooperation.

Philip Lievens

Abstract. This case study looks at using SF for organisational development in a context of a merger situation, where management and central services unfold their influence to the work floor. This article follows the design, delivery and results of an assignment to improve communication, participation and cooperation.

Context. Following a process of acquisition, a group of autonomous plants producing building materials was integrated into one organisation with a strong central and directive management. Local plant managers’ experience was not happy: central services made decisions for local production plants without much communication although these decisions affected their business results. There was a lack of communication, both vertical and between production plants. As reported, the new organisational structure led to slow decisions, little information, less connection with the market and little awareness of the company’s policy goals. The effects were: many discussions, not feeling respected, and feeling less responsible (because decisions were being made higher up). As one plant manager put it: “Local managers still know what and how to produce, but they do not know why anymore.” The business unit manager, under the stimulus of a local plant manager, took the initiative to hire a consultant to improve communication with the central services and between plants in the business unit.

Aim. When I started to introduce the design of our project at the kick off, I saw curious faces. How could an external consultant make a contribution: “the decisions about structure had already been made!” I announced a solution focused approach in co-creation with all the stakeholders. We would include the perspective of all participants in a dialogue, appreciating that all stakeholders are the experts in their solution. This gave from the start the group of participants a good feeling. The initial aim was to improve communications in the new organisation structure, with more consultation where useful and necessary, to achieve better cooperation. We used a metaphor: ‘we are not changing the motor, but it is important that the engine has the right oil to make it run smoothly’. At the kick-off meeting the participants stated the results they hoped for:

Productive and respectful relationships between services and production plants. Better information and communication, respecting those who are responsible for

production. Stronger unity, all pulling in the same direction. Restored confidence by the top managers and central services in what plant managers do. Better horizontal communication between production plants, and a better self-organising

competence.

What we did. Our approach consisted of 4 phases. 1. Warm up.

1.1. Reminder of the aim and the expected results. Survey of expectations: how will this be useful ?

1.2. Clarification of the new organisation structure, and how central services influence the operations of the plants. During a visit the CEO stated his expectations on how this organisation structure has to work, and made some critical statements.

2. Input on the desired future.

Plants and central services as internal customers. 2.1. What works already well ? 2.2. Input roundtables (cf. “kitchen tables” Alan Kay) from both parties: plant managers and

central services. How do they experience the usefulness of the other party? What works well in the

current collaboration? How would a better cooperation in the future look like ? How would this be useful in

terms of desired outcomes? While one party was talking the other party did not intervene, but afterwards reflected on their learnings from the perspective of the other, and on how they could be better from that perspective. 2.3. Formulating in mixed subgroups the perfect future, and what the advantages of that would

be.

2.4. Participants defined personally their ideas on the question: By means of what kind of actions or activities the communication and cooperation can be more successful ? They shared this with another person, and to the group on post-it notes.

2.5. All post-it’s were clustered on a mind-map. End of day 1.

3. Concretisation into actions.

Half a day session, one week later. 3.1. We started with the overview of all the concrete ideas to ameliorate communication and

cooperation between plants and central services, and between plants. In a following step participants gave weighing points to those ideas that would make the biggest contribution. This did concern:

1. Clarification of all the responsibilities. 2. Optimising the Plant Managers Meetings. 3. Briefing by Product development and Sales. 4. Collective Quality targets.

3.2. Elaboration. This 4 priority actions were considered in 4 simultaneous task groups. From a central point I presented the questions of the well-known coaching steps:

3.2.1. Perfect future. 3.2.2. Where are we now? What works already ?

3.2.3. Supporting resources. 3.2.4. Next step. 3.2.5. In a very last question I asked for the owners of the action. All actions were presented and got plenary feedback.

3.3. Closing of this session: How do we find the results of these sessions up to now ? Are we nearer to our goals ? How has this been useful ?

4. Implementation.

The task groups went into a six week period to get the actions into practice. In the first week the report of the sessions was send around.

5. Satisfaction measurement half way. At that moment some process aspects were checked. Participants gave the highest satisfaction scores to: ‘having the right amount of input during the sessions’ and ‘I understand the roles and responsibilities of my colleagues’.

On the way of facilitating the workshops the participants reported that the sessions were helpful in that sense that ‘the design of the workshops allowed all parties to give their input from an equal position’, and that ‘it went further than a discussion: there was a clear structure to work on goals and solutions’. A point of expectation was clearly the ‘further clarification of responsibilities’. Some participants raised the question if all the significant members of the management team and the central services were present.

6. Follow up. 6.1. Warm up on the goal and the hoped for results. Sharing of good experiences in the six

weeks implementation period. 6.2. The task groups reported on the steps that were taken on the 4 actions, the progress that

had been made and how this had helped to reach the organisation’s goals. All actions got plenary feedback. Special attention was given to a matrix of responsibilities, for which the task group asked for input from everyone, and obscurities were discussed and solved.

6.3. The task groups elaborated further on: How can this process be continued, what will be the next steps ?

6.4. We ended with: How has this been useful ? and Lessons learned. 7. Evaluation at the end. After two weeks, an updated report of the task groups was send around together with an . evaluation questionnaire. The participants reported a mean of 7,67 on a scale of 10 (with a standard deviation of 0,75). They appreciated in special ‘the constructive attitude, the openness and input of all visions’, and ‘the design of the workshop in which conflict situations were switched into opportunities to improve the way we function.’ On the question: How can you make progress sustainable, one participant reported: ‘I learned especially that communication is something that one can start and organise oneself, even from an underdog position. If we bring that into practice, we can only become better (and happier).’

Conclusion. The initial request for an intervention was focused on positions that people take in the organisation (who has the right to be directive to whom) and was bended to an interactive perspective: ‘how do we in the recent decisions of the organisation structure come to a better communication and consultation’. Communication as the oil that makes the system run smoothly … . The people in the process of the 5 half a day sessions of the project made an evolution from a relation full of tensions, to participation in a constructive attitude and in mutual respect to contribute to solutions. During the sessions we lived what we wanted to realize afterwards in practice. In the first part the input-roundtables were an excellent format to take in the stories of all parties and to make the other reflect on it, and it gave the wonderful occasion to everybody to express their hopes. Thanks, Alan Kay ! The Solutions Focus approach made the client the owner of the desired future, and the specific actions and the steps near to their concrete practices. The whole process placed them in their force.

My lesson learned. I still have one care. For reasons of cost-efficiency the client selected the persons to attend: the people who have immediately to do with each other. But if these people want to behave in a more consultative way, their managers have to allow and even support it. How can we handle this if these managers do not take part in the process ?

- How large do we have to take the whole system in the process ? - Or: How can all participants, the business unit manager and the HR manager spread the goals

and results of this project, convince the managers, and stand up for it in cases where it is offended ?

Next time I will more explicit put the question ‘How will we disseminate this ?‘ on the agenda. I am eager to receive some thoughts from you, readers, on this topic. Philip Lievens, M.A., M.B.A., is an independent Consultant, Trainer and Coach. He is a former Training manager in the non-profit sector and in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry (Bayer Antwerp NV). From early in his career he has been trained in process-consultation by Rene Bouwen and Felix Corthouts (B). The last five years he participated in several master classes in Solution Focus organized by Ilfaro (B), and found a deepening and practical methodology in SF. He works with teams and organisations to constructive and resourceful ways of behaving and to bring about positive change and satisfaction in the work place. His main focus is on future search, team coaching, cooperative communication skills, training of learning managers and learning consultants, and developmental competence management. philip.lievens@telenet.be . www.philiplievens.be .