Case Study - Process: Diverse Employee Network Mapping Industry Sector: Manufacturing
By Jeffrey Deckman
I was retained as a consultant to
serve as the acting president of a medium sized 2nd generation manufacturing
company that focused upon precision miniature zinc die cast & plastic
injection moulded of miniature parts.
The owner and CEO of the company
was taking a semi-sabbatical to “catch his breath.” and to begin developing a
strategic plan that would allow him to diversify into the micromanufacturing
industry.
The company had 60 employees and
focused on domestic and international markets. The goal was to turn the day-to-day
management of the operation over to me with him primarily providing off site
support when needed, and on-site support on most Friday mornings. While I had
never run a manufacturing company, I had extensive experience owning and growing
companies in the telecommunications industry which were also labour and
material intensive and which had similar labour forces and cultures.
The management team was primarily
comprised of people who had been with the company for many years, with the
exception of the VP of Operations. He had been on the job for several months
and was still being assessed. Most of the workforce on the shop floor had also
been with the company for many years and several of his most valuable and
experienced were scheduled to retire in several months.
My first challenge was to gain an
understanding of how the organization functioned. I was familiar with the Org
Chart but they primarily identify who is responsible for which departments and
for which people. In order for me to become effective in the shortest amount of
time I needed to understand the organizational and interpersonal dynamics of
the team with whom I would be engaging the most. I also had to identify those
people who were most influential within the group but who may not appear on the
Org. Chart.
I also needed to quickly gain a
sense for the capabilities, talents and underlying political dynamics of the
group as well as the health of its inter-personal “communication network. But
this information does not appear in job descriptions or on resumes.
So, the first challenge was getting
a clear understanding on the culture of the organization, identify those who
were most influential in the group and to understand as much about the group’s
“knowledge capital” as possible, as quickly as possible.
To accomplish this task, I used a
proprietary analytical process designed specifically to reveal the
interpersonal and group dynamics of an organization and to identify previously
unrecognized pools of knowledge capital and capabilities within the group that
could be accessed for the benefit of the organization.
To capture and map this
information an analysis was performed of 7 key informal employee networks that
exist amongst the people in organizations but operate outside of the Org Chart.
These DENs are responsible for how most of the work is done within an
organization. McKinsely and Company states that as much as 67% of the work done
in an organization occurs outside of the Org Chart and within informal networks
created by the workforce.
The informal networks targeted and examined were:
• Work
Network - Defines those who are engaged in the most work transactions
• Social
Network - Helps to identify the health of the culture of the organization
• Innovation
Network - Identifies the most innovative thinkers
• Mentor
Network - Identifies those who best counsel, guide and are most trusted
• Strategic
Thinking Network - Identifies those who are best at “getting things done”
• Learning
Network - Identifies the level of intra-departmental teaching occurring
• Peacemaker
- Identifies those who work as calming influences within the organization
The
Process
Before beginning the survey
meetings were held that allowed for the process and the intention behind it to
be explained in detail and to allow the participants to get familiar and
comfortable with me. This helped to create an environment of trust, cooperation
and honesty; all of which is crucial to the success of the process.
The group to be assessed included
upper management, middle management and key individuals who were not in
management but who had specific responsibilities. The CEO was not surveyed for
his answers but was included as one of the persons who others could name as
being influential or someone they engaged regularly.
Once the initial orientation
process was completed the surveys began. They were conducted individually over
the phone. This maximized convenience and afforded the respondent a “comfort
zone” which may not exist for them if the survey was conducted in a close
quartered face to face meeting.
Each participant was asked questions whose answers
identified those they considered to be the most active or influential in each
of their personal versions of the 7 networks defined. This individualized data
was assembled and combined to provide a cumulative view of the group’s
collective answers. The result was that those who were most active or
influential in the overall network began to be revealed and a picture of the
underlying culture of the organization appeared.
Upon completion of the survey the
entire group was assembled and only the results of the collective network were
revealed, explained, assessed and discussed. The individual’s responses which
created their personal network maps were kept confidential and only made
available to that individual and were discussed with the CEO. But much time was
spent assessing the collective data with the group.
The
Results
The diagram below represents the data compiled from all the
networks. The most active individuals in a network are indicated in dark blue.
The second most active are in light blue and the third are tan coloured.
Key Findings
This process revealed very
valuable information on the inner workings of the organization at a variety of
levels ranging from insights into the levels of influence of people to
information on the culture of the organization.
The assessment identified operational
issues that were causing bottlenecks and offered information on interpersonal
connections that were important to understand to better understand how to
mobilize the organization and maximize the strengths of its relationships.
Influential people were revealed and previously unknown capabilities and
aptitudes were identified that people were willing to offer on behalf of the
organization if asked.
It also provided information on
issues of importance in areas they had not thought of before.
A sampling, of the most relevant findings, is listed below:
Leadership:
Assumption:
Prior to the assessment it was
the opinion of both the CEO and the team that the organization operated very
independently of him and that most of the issues were handled either by the
person’s direct supervisor or were addressed in processes and procedures
manuals that had been created.
Findings:
The survey revealed that Steve
was the most influential person in 4 of the 7 networks (Innovation, Mentor,
Strategic Thinking and Learning) by a large margin in 3 of those 4 networks.
The reasons behind this, it was discovered, was that due to
cultural and education issues amongst the group, many of the people felt most
comfortable getting personal directions as opposed to reading manuals. This,
coupled with the confidence the people had in the CEO and his level of
accessibility, created a culture of “relaxed dependency” that neither side
fully realized existed. The organization did not operate nearly as
independently of the CEO as they thought.
This did not mean that they did
not possess the capability to operate independently but the culture was one
that chose to be more reliant on the CEO as opposed to itself.
Actions
Taken:
As a result of these findings, it
was decided that weekly departmental meetings would be held without the CEO
present and would be run by those in the meeting. Companywide issues such as
finance, sales and marketing, QC, engineering and personnel were discussed and
the necessary decisions and action items were defined by, and acted upon by,
the management team.
While there was a core group in
the meetings other attendees were invited dependent upon the current issues of
concern of the organization.
Only those items which rose to
the CEO level were held for his input and a weekly report was created informing
him of key issues or action items taken by the group. This process resulted in the
group operating more independently, leading more and using more of their
natural and learned capabilities on behalf of the organization.
Assumption:
Denny was in Quality Control and
was in the lower middle management layer, as per the Org Chart. She was viewed
by management as an employee who was loyal and dependable but not one who was
very influential, even though she had been with the company for 15 years. She
had a low-key personality and did not actively seek out recognition.
Findings:
Denny ranked in the top 3 categories
in every network mapped. While she was not the highest in any she was ranked in
the 2nd and 3rd tier across the board. She was well liked (Social); a good
strategic thinker (Strategic Thinking) and worked behind the scenes as a stabilizing
force (Peace Maker).
The survey revealed that Denny
was highly respected by the network. She also engaged the network often and
widely, as indicated by her first place ranking on the chart that tabulates
network activity levels. So, while management did not see her as one who was
highly influential, because of her quiet nature and mild demeanour, she was
very respected and was more influential than either the company, or she,
realized.
Actions
Taken:
As a result of these findings
Denny was made one of the key people to attend each of the weekly manager’s
meetings. Her input on her department was important but her standing amongst
the group, and her natural sense for how the workers operated, allowed her to
help the group to clearly think through issues and make delicate decisions
which could affect employee morale.
This hidden capability resulted in her confidence growing,
her standing in the management team increasing and better designed solutions
with far fewer unintentional upsets amongst the workforce.
Operations:
Assumption:
Doreen was the purchasing manager
and, as per the Org Chart, was to have limited involvement in the Work Network
of most people. There were only to be 2 people reporting to her and she was to
report to the CEO.
Findings:
Doreen was ranked in the 2nd tier
of activity in the Work Network and was the 3rd most active person in that
network. Subsequent research found that she had extended the reach of her
control far beyond what was appropriate or in the best interest of the organization.
People from all layers in the organization were engaging her regarding issues
in which she should not have been involved. As a result, the political climate
around her was negatively charged, processes were bottlenecked and people were
doing unproductive “work-arounds” to circumnavigate her self-appointed
influence.
Actions
Taken:
Once this condition was
discovered and analysed a meeting was held between Doreen, the CEO and myself
to confirm our findings and to begin a conversation designed to re-establish
the proper organizational design and increase operational efficiencies. We were
also aware of the need to neutralize to increasing political tensions the
current situation had created amongst the group.
Over the next two months attempts
were made to realign her range of control to match the responsibilities of her
position to no avail. After several attempts were met with resistance it became
clear that the only remedy for the situation was to remove her from the position,
which is what occurred.
Surprise
Finding:
After analysing the data, it was
revealed that the level of activity in the Learning Network was very low. This
sparked concern and after further review it revealed that there was not a high
priority put upon teaching the next generation worker in the organization.
Those who knew did not actively
teach and therefore those who were less experienced did not know actively seek
to learn. They did not have an active “learning culture” in the organisation.
Further analysis revealed that
several of the oldest and most experienced of the “shop floor” employees, two
of whom were retiring, had not been grooming replacements. They had also created innovation solutions
and workarounds to problems and machine fixes which they neither shared nor
documented. This created a disconnect between how the operational and procedure
manuals stated one should set up machines or respond to malfunctions and how
they were actually handled.
Actions
Taken:
A concerted effort was made to
begin capturing, documenting and transferring the unique, but relevant,
information that was in the heads of the two retiring employees into manuals
and to begin training those who were going to be replacing the retiring
individuals.
This proved challenging for
several reasons. The first was that these individuals were not naturally
inclined to teach others and did not perform the task well. Secondly, since
they were used to solving problems as they occurred, they could not remember
all of the work -rounds and “fixes” they had for all of the situations that
could occur. Management then had to wait until many problems arose again before
being apprised of the fix and institutionalizing the learning. They then had to
revise the manuals and resolve any contradictions.
Although steps were taken to
address this cultural issue the challenge continued after these employees
retired. Thankfully, they agreed to be available to coach their replacements
through situations as they arose. But this was problematic due to the immediate
nature of solutions and the availability of the person being sought after.
Miscellaneous:
The overall level of activity in
the networks, with the exception of the Learning Network, was healthy. While
the Peacemaker Network appeared to have low activity, it was to be expected due
to the nature of the network.
Steve’s #1 ranking, as revealed
in the chart which maps how much the network engages an individual, plus his
top rankings in 4 of the 7 networks clearly demonstrated that the organization
was much more dependent upon him than anyone realized.
The mapping also accurately
reflected that the people liked one another and genuinely cared about the
organization. The level of activity in the Social and Work networks
demonstrated that people interacted with one another both in the workplace and
personally. If the organization was filled with conflict and discord those
numbers would have been lower as people avoid interacting with people they
don’t like.
Conclusion:
There were many other findings
and situations that arose from performing this analysis. Some involved
manipulative people who feared being found out and who revealed themselves.
Others helped to explain, after the fact, why a person who appeared to be
satisfied left quickly and without warning.
More important than the
tremendous insights I gained which helped me to shorten my orientation curve
was the impact this analysis had on how the organization viewed itself.
Everyone involved, especially the CEO, learned a lot about how the organization
actually operated, as opposed to how the Org Chart said it was supposed to
operate and how it was thought to operate.
As a result, the organization
began functioning more of a knowledge network than as an Org Chart. They also
uncovered people who were mentors, strategic thinkers, had innovative minds and
others who were quiet influencers who had undetected leadership abilities.
Once these hidden resources were
uncovered all of everyone had a much truer understanding of how the
organization operated. As a result, I was able to become effective more
quickly. The management team also had an opportunity to grow, take more responsibility
and become more engaged with a greater sense of ownership and pride in their
accomplishments.
The organization was then on their way to becoming the type of independently operating organization the CEO had thought they were all along.
Jeffrey Deckman is an
internationally recognized thought leader, strategist and an award-winning
author on the topic of conscious leadership. His book “Developing the
Conscious Leadership Mindset for the 21st Century” was awarded
2 international Stevie Awards and 4 national awards for
its ground-breaking work detailing and defining conscious
leadership in the modern era.
Jeffrey is the
creator of the M3 Process for Conscious Leadership Transformation; The Bigger
Know Principles of Conscious Leadership and a variety of instructional programs
designed to transform leadership through higher consciousness.
He is a stage 4
cancer “thriver” and for the past 15 years Jeff has devoted his life to
expanding his consciousness and creating ways to share what he has learned with
like-minded individuals who share his passion for bringing a higher level of
consciousness into leadership to serve future generations.
Contact email: jeffrey@jeffreydeckman.com
Comments
Post a Comment