How do leaders help their organization become more resilient?part #2

Leaders who help their organization become more resilient focus on creating three different kinds of clarity, i.e. three different forms of knowledge. The three different kinds of knowledge are the following:

- Declarative knowledge is factual knowledge which helps them understand and explain how and why things work the way they do.

- Procedural knowledge is knowing how to perform certain activities plus details the steps and activities required to perform a task or job.

- Structural knowledge is information about how to organize one’s thoughts in order to solve a problem. This form of knowledge helps in problem solving plus the creation of plans and strategies.

At the same time, leaders, who help their organization become more resilient, respect the power of culture. Ken Blanchard in his book, Leading At a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations (Prentice Hall, 2006) writes that when people leading the change fail to respect the power of the current culture, the current culture will kill the change initiative.

From my perspective, most organizational systems and initiatives are focused on improving what already exists. They are not aligned with the “new” change, i.e. new transformational strategic change. Furthermore, the ways we measure progress are all operationally oriented rather than strategically focused. Therefore, it is hard to measure if the culture is changing.

However, highly resilient organizations, writes Karl Weick and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe in their book, Managing The Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2007) are highly reliable organizations. Wick and Sutcliffe note that “No system is perfect.” I would agree and say that no person is perfect, too. But as they point out “The essence of resilience is therefore the intrinsic ability of an organization (system) to maintain or regain a dynamically stable state, which allows it to continue operations after a major mishap and/or in the presence of a continuous stress.” The hallmark of an HRO, a highly reliable organization, is not that it is error-free but that errors don’t disable it. As they continue, “Resilience is a combination of keeping errors small and of improving workarounds that allow the system to keep functioning.”

From experience, lots of reading, plus visiting with many leaders, I have learned that creating a resilient culture involves three actions:

First, they image worst-case conditions and practice their own equivalent of fire drills. This can involve thinking through a black swan event and planning accordingly. Or those involved can participate in a pre-mortem. As Jack B. Soll, Katherine L. Milkman, and John W. Payne in their article called “Outsmart Your Own Biases” from the May 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review wrote, “In a premortem, you imagine a future failure and then explain the cause…. This technique, also called prospective hindsight, helps you identify potential problems that ordinary foresight won’t bring to mind.”

Second, they institute routine After Action Reports. See my Monday Thoughts Blog for October 6, 2017 for more details about After Action Reports.

Finally, they implement a “Churchill’s Audit” from the book, Managing The Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty which is based on personal reflection. Here is his audit:

- Why didn’t I know?

- Why didn’t my advisors[/direct reports] know?

- Why wasn’t I told?

- Why didn’t I ask?

This week, consider holding a black swan event with your team and/or a premortem.  I also encourage you to do a Churchill Audit on a recent event. All of the above will help you and your team become a more resilient.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

How do leaders change systems? - part #2

Continuing with last week’s subject, some days we forget that there are four understandings when it comes to any system. First, there is the boss’s understanding of how the system works. Next, there is an employee’s understanding of how the system works. Third, there is other peoples’ understanding of how the system works, and finally there is the reality of how the system actually works. Often, these four levels of perception are in conflict and can be the source of why a system is not functioning properly and why it is difficult to change.

Many years ago, I worked with an organization that wanted to improve it’s systems. Their goal was to be a High Reliability Organization or HRO. An HRO is an organization that has succeeded in avoiding catastrophes in an environment where normal accidents can be expected due to risk factors and complexity.

The best resource on this subject is the work of Karl Weick , and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe in their book,  Managing The Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2007. As the authors write, “Our basic message is that expectations can get you in trouble unless you create a mindful infrastructure that continually does all of the following: tracks small failures, resists oversimplification, remains sensitive to operations, maintains capabilities for resilience, and takes advantage of shifting locations of expertise.”  As they continue, “Moving toward a mindful infrastructure is harder than it looks because it means that people have to forgo the “pleasures” of attending to success, simplicities, strategy, planning, and superiors.... The ability to deal with a crisis situation is largely dependent on the structures that have been developed before chaos arrives.”

There are five key HRO principles as outlined in the aforementioned book. They are as follows:

- # 1: Preoccupation with Failure. HROs are distinctive because they are preoccupied with failure. They treat any lapse as a symptom that something may be wrong with the system, something that could have severe consequences.

- # 2: Reluctance to Simplify. Another way HROs manage for the unexpected is by being reluctant to accept simplifications. It is certainly true that success in any coordinated activity requires that people simplify in order to stay focused on a handful of key issues and key indicators. Knowing that the world is complex, unstable, unknowable, and unpredictable, HROs position themselves to see as much as possible. 

- # 3: Sensitivity to Operations. HROs are sensitive to operations. They are attentive to the front line, where the real work gets done. The “big picture” in HROs is less strategic and more situational than is true of most organizations. When people have well-developed situational awareness, they can make the continuous adjustments that prevent errors from accumulating and enlarging.

- #4: Commitment to Resilience. No system is perfect. The essence of resilience is therefore the intrinsic ability of an organization or system to maintain or regain a dynamically stable state, which allows it to continue operations after a major mishap and/or in the presence of a continuous stress. The hallmark of an HRO is not that it is error-free but that errors don’t disable it. Resilience is a combination of keeping errors small and of improving workarounds that allow the system to keep functioning. They image worst-case conditions and practice their own equivalent of fire drills. 

- # 5: Deference to Expertise. HROs cultivate diversity, not just because it helps them notice more in complex environments, but also because it helps them do more with the complexities they do spot. Rigid hierarchies have their own special vulnerability to error. Errors at higher levels tend to pick-up and combine with errors at lower levels, thereby making the resulting problem bigger, harder to comprehend, and more prone to escalation. To prevent this deadly scenario, HRO’s push decision making down and around. Decisions are made on the front line and authority migrates to the people with the most expertise, regardless of rank. 

When seeking to become an HRO, there are three critical questions according to the previously mentioned authors. First is the “hands on” question: What activities involve the most direct human contact with the system and thus offer the greatest opportunity for human decisions or actions to have an immediate, direct, adverse effect upon the system? Second is the “criticality” question: What activities, if performed less than adequately, pose the greatest risks to the well-being of the system? Third is the “frequency” question: How often are these activities performed in the day-to-day operation of the system as a whole?

This week, think about becoming an HRO and consider reading Karl Weick and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe’s book,  Managing The Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2007. It is full of good insights.

Geery Howe, M.A. Consultant, Executive Coach, Trainer in Leadership, Strategic Planning and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257