Mike Freedman Kepner-Tregoe Ltd, Bentley House, 13-15 Victoria Street, Windsor, Berksbire, UK

Two of the characteristics we have come to live with during the latter part of the twentieth century are the increasing pace of change in all aspects of our society and the doubling of our knowledge base every 5-6 years. Thus, the world has become ever more complex at a time when we might have wanted it to be simpler. It has also become more competitive as greater demands chase relatively fewer resources at national, corporate, community and personal levels.

To cope with this increasingly hostile environment companies have turned, some- times in desperation, to a growing number of initiatives, themes, improvement projects, change programmes and plain and simple ‘flavours of the month’. Many of these have been costly failures, characterized by poor planning, a lack of commitment and half- hearted execution, only to be followed by yet another panacea which, all too frequently, follows the same pattern.

The history of corporate initiatives over the past decade bears testimony to the creative genius of ‘management man’. Equally and sadly, however, the list has greatly enhanced the tombstone sculptors’ skills in recording yet further examples of well-intentioned mismanagement, all with the common epitaph R.I.P. Lest this sound too heavy an attack on managements’ abilities, due recognition must be given to those who succeed in introducing effective and value-added initiatives. From the observation deck of Kepner-Tregoe’s privi- leged position with some of the world’s great companies, the distinctions between those initiatives that succeed and those that fail can clearly be drawn.

Before these are examined a reminder of

Initiative fatigue

what management has faced in the 1980s and 1990s is appropriate. In no particular order, corporations have been urged to undertake projects to introduce some or all of the following: quality circles, quality control, total quality management, MRP I, MRP 11, ‘just-in-time’ WIT), the search for excellence, 1-minute management, participation, produc- tivity improvement, centralization, decentral- ization, global/local management, time management, multinationalism, transnational- ism, equal opportunity, in Europe, ‘1992’ meet the Japanese challenge, culture change, competitive benchmarking, mission state- ment management, value-added, down-sizing, right-sizing, supply chain management, and on and on and on.

Rational cases have been presented against real and imagined needs, and initiatives begun. In many instances these were success- ful, in many more they were failures. Yet in almost all cases companies truly felt the need to improve their performance, change their posture and give increased value to share- holders, employees and customers alike. What went wrong? What distinguishes success from failure?

In the first instance, many programmes were undertaken in the absence of a clear strategic framework setting out the future nature and direction of the organization, its product/market scope, emphasis and mix, and the key capabilities and resources needed to take its products to its chosen markets. Without such a framework it is difficult to set priorities and assess one alterna- tive against another for scarce resources. Organizations clearly cannot undertake more than two or three initiatives for change over a period of even 1-2 years, and a set of

90 M. Freedman

decision criteria relating proposed actions to a well founded strategic vision, as well as operational needs and the realpolitick of the situation, is an absolute must.

Second, top management commitment in deed as well as word is vital. So many initiatives began as middle management dreams with ‘product champions’ articu- lating their causes in a most seductive way. Boards of Directors gave lip service commit- ment, too little resource and not enough of their own time and attention, and doomed the exercise to certain failure, causing much demotivation in the process. Unless top management really all want to succeed the advice must be, don’t try. ‘Thriving on Chaos’, one of Tom Peters’ glitzy dictures, only works in very special corporate environ- ments, of which there are so few examples.

Clear roles and responsibilities far all those involved, including definitive guidelines for project authority and accountability, must be laid out from the beginning with top manage- ment sponsorship, if not ownership and control. Implied in this is the need for a detailed project plan with a work breakdown structure, a realistic schedule, measurable objectives and a simple yet firm review process. Two other distinctions between successfully implemented initiatives and those that fail are: (a) excellent (communi- cation; and (b) the presence of the skills needed to do the job.

Too often a poorly communicated initiative leads to rumour, innuendo, insecurity, a lack of commitment, poor implementation and, at worst, an industrial relations crisis. The latter has so frequently accompanied1 manage- ments’ adoption of projects for improved productivity, greater efficiency, right-sizing and other potentially threatening yet vital prerogatives. Rolls Royce’s retraction of its dismissal letters to its total work:force will become a textbook classic in poor com- munjcation. An organization has many con- stituencies with whom it must communicate, not just employees but their official represen- tatives, customers, suppliers, and their Boards, especially if they are non-executive, among others. Good communication requires

not just ‘telling’ but ensuring understanding, commanding commitment from those who need to act and, through encouraging behaviour change, making certain that individuals respond to the messages being communicated by appropriate action plans and projects.

Training is more often than not the Cinderella or poor relation on many companies’ ‘to do’ list. Frighteningly, it is commonly among the first of activities to be reviewed and then cut, just when a new initiative designed to save the day is proposed, thus diverting much needed scarce resources. The opposite should be true. New initiatives often involve the acquisition by those who are to participate in them of new skills, roles and responsibilities. Frequently initiatives flounder for lack of investment in training those who are to implement them. This is particularly important if the initiative is an entirely new one as well as if it is merely new to the organization. Motivating everyone to ‘climb on board’ through good communi- cation is not enough and training frequently needs to take place, both in the classroom and in the field or on the shopfloor.

Ambitious organizations with a highly motivated management and workforce acting in concert, singing from the same songsheet and sharing the same vision and priorities, can achieve miracles together. It takes some planning and a recognition of what is both needed and possible. But given that scenario and the presence of the success criteria, more can be done than ever would be guessed. Without these preconditions failure and fatigue go hand in hand.

Performance systems are needed to measure effective implementation, give recognition and provide rewards for those who are involved in new initiatives. Without them there will be a continuing questioning of ‘why should we’ by employees, a lack of commitment and, inevitably, a failure by default. Employees need to know the answer to the question ‘how am I doing’, as do teams or departments. Without adequate feedback, which is a vital component of any per- formance system, any project can fail.

_ _ ~

Journal of Strategic Change, April 1992

Initiative fatigue 91

A t a broader level, certainly in board rooms and among top management, clear success criteria are required, together with systems to measure that success as an important ingredient in the overall project plan designed to introduce any new initiative. These success criteria often relate to improvements in operational performance related to such things as cost reductions, increased productivity, quality improve- ments, more effective use of capital equipment, increased sales and so on. They obviously filter down through the performance systems described above to an individual level and need to be linked to effective performance appraisal.

To summarize, it is clear that many initiatives fail for lack of a well conceived plan of execution, the criteria for which are clear to see. In the corporate world of the 1990s, which are likely to be characterized by an increasing level of competition in almost every industry, flexibility in the workplace, flatter and leaner organization structures and a never-ending plethora of new ideas available to solve corporate problems, the successful firm will think twice before striking out on a new initiative and will certainly try to avoid initiative fatigue.

Journal of Strategic Change, April 1992 0 1992 by Kepner-Tregoe Ltd