In another thread the issue of change came up in relation to ISO implementation.
A small discussion within a discussion started - but died - on the issue of whether change starts at the top - ie top management or if a lower ranked employee could initiate or develop a paradigm change.
The one arguement stands that as top management are the gaurdians (sic)? of the companies direction and cash flow, change starts with them. But in many cases they see the ISO QMS as a necessary evil.
The flip side of the coin is that a QA manager - for example - interacts with all departments and staff and so he is able to influence change the perception, adoption and acceptance of the QMS.
What thoughts??

In my opinion (which is limited to the 1.5 years of quality work I have done), it may be easier to answer if you phrase where change ends.

I think that anyone can start change. Ultimately those who have started it will need final approval of management for the provision of resources and finances (as you mentioned).

In an ideal world it would start with management showing committment was there, but as I have experienced so far - there is potential for it to start at grass roots and grow up, then when accomplishing something and demonstrating the benefits of QMS more higher level managers accept the concepts, and so as the QMS grows it inspires more of top management to become involved. That at least is the story for me at the moment here in the UAE. (There is a lot more scope to introduce change away from the UK (where I was originally) so I hope I stay abroad for a while to come.)

Unfortunately its a cycle - and after a while of being involved some management seem to forget those initial benefits and attribute them to standard operating procedure (which the QMS has guided). Its the usual story for support services - "no one knows what they do, until they aren't there any more and the place falls apart".

Hi Tony,

I think that it depends on what you regard as paradigm change. If it relates to changing the strategy or direction of the business then it would defenitely be senior management.

However, the senior management will then deploy objectives and targets into the organisation. Whilst middle managers will meet some of these through incremental changes, others will lead to breakthroughs. The other managers and personnel are likely to regard the latter as a paradigm change.

The Kaizen Flag developed by Maasaki Imai is worth searching for on this.

Best regards
Phil

I think the way you've phrased the question represents the heart of the issue.

George Carlin had a great saying: "some people see the glass as half full and others as half empty; I think the glass is the wrong size"

To me it's not a question of change originating with senior management or with lower levels; it's that both are necessarry for initiating, achieving and sustaining change.

Much like addicts, if top management does not want to change, they are not going to. They have the resources to prevent or subvert change. Middle management or below can only propagate change within their area of control (maybe a bit further if they find like-minded allies) - sometimes keeping it under the radar of upper management. Otherwise, their efforts will be considered a waste of resources, and that 'waste' will be punished.

Change should be happening at different levels of the organization simultaneously.

Change at the Top
Managers set direction and cascade policy and system changes down.

Changes at the Bottom
Team members submitt suggestions or change requests

At the Middle
Middle management propose new products and programs up, negotiate with colleagues laterally and cascade policy and system changes down.

If your question is more specific to how to cause change, then let us know what you need changed. Management support of ISO is not specific enough. If you need help, look at your process audits. They should be an indicator of what needs to change the most. Once you know, come back to the group and we will help.

Steve


Steve

Thanks Steve - I have effected the change in my particular organisation. (But there is always room for improvement!!)
When I first took on the Quality role - the perception of Qa was different depending on the level as you say. For example - the boss wanted the ISO logo because it looked good. That was that!! The departmental managers believed that QA was responsible for ISO, not them. The operators had the idea that quality was inspected in - I often got - "well thats how it looks - send it to the customer and if he rejects it - well tough". One manager in finance believed I had a personal vendetta against him, because I was rejecting things and this was costing us money. The sales Director simply wanted to have that "ISO thingy" because it "makes us look good". Our CEO didnt care what it entailed - it "bought us credibility" - and he told me this often. Our Ops Director at the time always thought it was a waste of time and money - and NEVER wanted to get envolved. After a few audits - he left us - partly because he never changed with the times and partly because he just didnt enjoy the job anymore.
As the discussion is going - indeed the change process was multi faceted and educating people - from top to bottom was essential.
The reason I pose the question is because the old cliche - change starts at the top is very general, and I am of the opinion, that sometimes - circumstance dependant, it can start in the middle or at the bottom or - in some cases it must start at the top - and I was hoping to spark the debate.
I have seen on these fora alot of guys asking for help - and the answers often given is the old cliche - but change starts at the top....... Does it always?? Theres another slogan - "change starts with you" - this implies change can start anywehere?

I see two questions here. First, was the original question. Does change have to start at the top? I firmly believe no and there is plenty of evidence to support this.

Anyone have some good examples of changes that started at the middle?

Here are some to get us started...

Engineer submitts patent that transforms the business. This has happened in my previous employement. More than once.

I initiated change at the middle, by creating pressure from the outside. Collecting evidence of customer complaints and market information to create a sense of urgency. I, and others on the board, have used outside audits to do the same. Quality professionals do it all the time, when they promote and execute new programs (e.g. lean, six sigma).

Upper management needs to support the change in order to access resources, but the change can still start elsewhere.

The second question I see is how to get management support. Thats a big question. To be successful you need to focus on the most business critical problem. I recommend starting with your process audits. Determine what Management cares about most and make the connection between the problem and ISO.

What is the biggest problem you see from your process audits? If its not clear to you, we need to fix the audits. If the findings from your audits are all compliance issues, they may be causing more harm than good.

Steve

In another thread the issue of change came up in relation to ISO implementation.
A small discussion within a discussion started - but died - on the issue of whether change starts at the top - ie top management or if a lower ranked employee could initiate or develop a paradigm change.
The one arguement stands that as top management are the gaurdians (sic)? of the companies direction and cash flow, change starts with them. But in many cases they see the ISO QMS as a necessary evil.
The flip side of the coin is that a QA manager - for example - interacts with all departments and staff and so he is able to influence change the perception, adoption and acceptance of the QMS.
What thoughts??

The first thing to understand is what a "paradigm" is. My American Heritage Dictionary gives this definition, in the sense of the word we're concerned with:
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. My emphasis.
In business, there is no set of ideas and concepts that forms a universal paradigm. This is because the people who own or manage the business define the paradigm, either either deliberately or by default. Most of us have a fairly consistent idea of the way things should be, but unfortunately our view is frequently at odds with the ones who are responsible for developing the paradigm. There's vivid evidence of this right now in the "ISO is a Joke..." (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=37056) thread. The OP in that thread suffers from the cognitive dissonance that results from the violent collision of opposing paradigms. We have to be aware of the fact that in business, reality isn't necessarily transferable. The top manager in any business gets to define reality, and if your view is substantively different and inflexible, nothing good will come of it.

The thing we need to understand about all of this is that below the top echelon, people are powerless to change the paradigm on their own. The change must come from the top, and there are no exceptions. What we can do, if it seems worthwhile, is provide impetus towards change--we can lead the proverbial horse to water. In my own experience, before the horse will actually drink it needs to understand both the nature of its dilemma and the dilemma of its nature. To get both of those things acting in consonance is no easy task for some people at the top. While a given CEO might realize that something needs to change, she might be loathe to accept someone else's ideas on how to go about it. These people often harbor deep-seated delusions of their own powers and greatness, which I think is part of the package sometimes for people who are very ambitious and the types who are likely to become entrepreneurs and CEOs.

If this type of narcissistic view of oneself is emphatic and unshakable, as it is in some extreme cases, the horse can die of thirst while standing knee-deep in fresh water. This is not to say that those types will never change, but they will never change so long as what needs to be done isn't their own idea. This means that the strategy of the change-seeker needs to be in the direction of showing the way, but making the manager think that it's all his idea.

For example, if you go to one of these people with charts and graphs and say "Here are the year-to-date scrap numbers and it's clear that we need to change [something specific] in order to get a handle on it," the manager will listen and forget. On the other hand, if you can engage him in conversation and say, "I've noticed that we're producing a lot of costly scrap and I'd like to pick your brain--what do you think we should do?" you're much more likely to get the answer(s) you're hoping for. Asking Socratic questions (http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/socratic_questions.htm) is a time-honored method of getting a person to solve his own problems and works much better than trying to get a person out of a deep state of denial by making a big deal of his refusal to listen to reason.

In another thread the issue of change came up in relation to ISO implementation.
A small discussion within a discussion started - but died - on the issue of whether change starts at the top - ie top management or if a lower ranked employee could initiate or develop a paradigm change.
The one arguement stands that as top management are the gaurdians (sic)? of the companies direction and cash flow, change starts with them. But in many cases they see the ISO QMS as a necessary evil.
The flip side of the coin is that a QA manager - for example - interacts with all departments and staff and so he is able to influence change the perception, adoption and acceptance of the QMS.
What thoughts??

Haven't read the other posts but here is my 2c.

The first thing I see would be the necessity of defining what constitutes "initiating" or "developing" or "infuencing" a paradigm change in an organization.
Certainly Top management can "Institute" a paradigm Change, but that is usually only after they have been suitably influenced by some outside source, i.e. customer demands, reading, networking with other businesses.
As to who can instigate, influence and/or develop such change there are many from shop floor supervisors, to middle managers etc.
It is often the Q.A. Manager who acts as the "agent for change", since he is the one who can aticulate the changes needed, speak with others about their ideas that might work to improve things get things written up, track measures etc. - All of which can illustrate for still others the benefits of the possitive changes, while also helping to weed out those changes that are negative.

Many years ago I developed an Idea that might allow for a paradigm shift "from the middle" and extends the old idea of "Internal Customers" to the next step - "Internal Companies"

In this case, rather than try to change the entire company, the QM, working with a likeminded supervisor, develops that department as an,"Internal company", on a TQM quality basis. The department determines their suppliers, their customers, their inputs and outputs. They determine how best to improve, monitor and measure their performance. As a result this department becomes the most efficient in the company. So much so that other department head(s) want to know how they did it. They explain how and other depatments begin to adopt the strategies. Soon Top management takes notice and the paradigm shift is well underway.

Naturally such an approach is not "over-night" plus there are many limitations on "Internal companies" that stand alone companies don't have. However, such a program, studiously applied and carefully cultivated, can bring about a paradigm shift before Top management even knows it has happened.

I even considered writing a paper on this idea, but never developed enough. If anyone has comment on it, positive or negative, I'd be glad to hear it.

Peace
James

Jim Wynne hit this one on the head. In fact the "ISO is a joke" thread got to me thinking on this one....... And JRKH - I fully agree with your post - yes you should do a paper on this - it could develop into a useful model that the guy who originally posted "ISO is a joke" could use to solve his problem.
Thanks

The first thing I see would be the necessity of defining what constitutes "initiating" or "developing" or "influencing" a paradigm change in an organization.


Good point - what is more important - initiating change or implementing or completing change? Sure - it is virtually impossible to argue that change can be initiated anywhere in the organization - but if it is promptly snuffed out, does that count?

The point that change starts at the top is meant that an environment to support change has to be generated by a culture encouraged from the top. I doubt it was ever intended to mean that all change starts from the top. It can readily stop there though!

Good point - what is more important - initiating change or implementing or completing change? Sure - it is virtually impossible to argue that change can be initiated anywhere in the organization - but if it is promptly snuffed out, does that count?

The point that change starts at the top is meant that an environment to support change has to be generated by a culture encouraged from the top. I doubt it was ever intended to mean that all change starts from the top. It can readily stop there though!
Absolutely. As an addendum to my earlier post, I should say that there are times when even socratic questioning won't work. I worked for a guy once (company owner) who was so far gone that you had to see it to believe it.
I once tried to get him to contribute to a solution by asking what he thought should be done. He said, "I'm paying you to figure that stuff out." When I went ahead and did what needed to be done, he promptly undid it and told me it was a lousy idea. On another occasion he called me to his office and told me to do something. I knew that what he was asking for would lead to trouble, and tried to explain why it might not be a good idea. He said (and I'm not kidding) "I'm not paying you to think--just do what I told you to do." When I did, and it blew up, he called me in again and said, "What were you thinking?" I replied that I had just done what he'd told me to do, and he said, "You misunderstood me. Any idiot would know that won't work."

The moral is that there are some people who are hopeless, and the best thing you can do is get the hell out, which is what I did as soon as I could.

I am trying to keep this simple so that we can help Tony. We could define change in different ways (e.g. engineering change, policy changes, paradigm changes). Based on the symptoms I see from Tony's posts, I was going to focus on creating change through the audit system.

The department determines their suppliers, their customers, their inputs and outputs. They determine how best to improve, monitor and measure their performance. As a result this department becomes the most efficient in the company.

James,

Great! That's were I was heading. In this case, the department is the QS department. I want to focus him on one output - audits.

Based on the symptoms I see, there are complaints coming from audits. If the audits are not connecting between problems in the business and ISO solutions, then he could be creating problems.

So my question is Tony, what are the major findings from your audits? Y
our findings should be a good indicator that you are following the process approach.

Some really good points, even with horses knee deep in water :lol:

I do think that any individual can influence change of thinking which may well change the paradigm, yes. So I think it's possible for change to start from the middle, the top, the bottom, almost anywhere, and I believe strongly in the capacity of an individual to effect change, almost regardless of their position in a hierarchy.

And yes, I've been in a position where I have changed people's concept of quality and turned them from 'have to have certification' to raving fans of a good quality system.

But in any organisation, there's also the question of power and authority - who has it, who exercises it, who doesn't have it. And while it is possible in some organisations to bring about change by various methods (and yes, including Socratic questioning), there are also situations in which you could question until you were blue in the face or whatever, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference if the boss wasn't at least a functioning adult, willing to listen and think, etc etc. Unfortunately, in the other thread, I think that's the case. In that particular situation (or situations like it) I think that advising someone to 'have a go, you could bring about a change' is neither wise nor well-informed advice.

:topic:
I am trying to keep this simple so that we can help Tony.
I didn't see any evidence at all of Tony asking for help in this thread. I think he's just raising a very interesting question and encouraging a discussion on it.

As a corallary to this idea of individuals intitiating and effecting change from the middle, I'd add that, the person who does the best job in whatever position they are in, is likely to be looked upon favorably and given opportunities for advancement. Such advancement can often proved them with even greater ability to influence change. Perhaps such advancement will reven result in them BECOMING Top Management.
It really all starts with the individuals attitude and work ethic.

Peace
James

I'd add that, the person who does the best job in whatever position they are in, is likely to be looked upon favorably and given opportunities for advancement.

There are two competing theories on that - pigeon hole versus Peter Principle.

There are two competing theories on that - pigeon hole versus Peter Principle.

True, but I think that much depends on the character of the individual and on the character of those above him/her.
Too many variables involved to make a definative statment either direction.

Peace
James

Too many variables involved to make a definitive statement either direction.

Exactly - so it can not be assured that the person who does the best job in whatever position they are in, is likely to be looked upon favorably and given opportunities for advancement. It is nice to think that it would happen - but there is no assurance of a correlation as there are too many variables involved to make a definitive statement .

Exactly - so it can not be assured that the person who does the best job in whatever position they are in, is likely to be looked upon favorably and given opportunities for advancement. It is nice to think that it would happen - but there is no assurance of a correlation as there are too many variables involved to make a definitive statement .

Not only that, but if there's a psychopath at the top, she is likely to surround herself with people who will gleefully indulge her psychopathic behavior, and a "normal" person will probably never be promoted into a position of significant responsibility.

In my working life experience I have, like Jim Wynne - seen the best and worst of superiors. We had an engineer whose motto was probably - be resonable.. do it my way. If you tried to change his way, indeed best to leave. And we lost good people for years, and finally the engineer left - not on his own accord mind you - he was caught doing some illegal stuff. I once had the pleasure of working around nepotistic people. If you were aunty, uncle cousin, or so on - you were promoted. Other peoples ideas just didnt count. That business is dead today, and the family are as poor as church mice.
Doing a good job and going nowhere - well - I have seen that too. I have a QA manager - who is absolutely excellent. He used to be a VERY GOOD production supervisor. He had been in this job for years. I had to make the call - promote him, or let him be. I promoted the guy and his attitude is rubbing off onto the other staff. A success story of note. Then, I had a production supervisor who I promoted into management. I had known the guy for years, worked with him etc. As soon as he became a manager, he took the stance "I have arrived". He didnt work well, he would rather issue orders and play the blame game - "I didnt mess up - it was sales fault etc". This attitude equally grew like a cancer. After firing the guy - it took almost three years to get the blame mentality out.
On the other hand,
My point here is that change has many facets, and many ramifications. Can one guy make a difference - YES (good and bad). In this case, I made a change by promoting a guy, and he in turn influenced the attitude of the business.
And to clarify - I dont really have a problem - but do find the discussion stimulating as the one thing we can be sure of - day after day, year after year is CHANGE....

I dont really have a problem - but do find the discussion stimulating as the one thing we can be sure of - day after day, year after year is CHANGE....

Yes, indeedy. I bet bosses and owners have equally many horror stories about bad employees as about good ones. I vividly recall one person at one client's business who was, quite simply, a trouble-maker. One of those people who liked to stick her nose into other people's business, and somehow, no matter where she'd been, she stirred up thinks and fomented problems. (Which of course she was never accountable for, nor could be caught out in). When she eventually left... things changed a lot. For the better.

I've had good bosses (rare, alas) and quite a lot of ordinary to bad ones too. Like others, I think it's far too simplistic to hold that 'good behaviour at work will always be rewarded' nor the opposite cynical viewpoint ('they' only promote the incompetent/those who suck up to them etc), for that matter. Way, way too many variables. The key is perhaps to find the 'right' niche for the 'right' person.

Many, many years ago I was a teacher. I found it fascinating how some students and some teachers just Did Not Get On At All - and yet, put a 'difficult' student into a class with a different teacher, and s/he blossomed. And vice versa.

I think that perhaps I should apologize if I gave teh impression that Good work is always rewarded with promotions, or that bad work is always punished. Certainly this is not the case within a given organization.

However, I will hold to the idea that good work and good attitude is always rewarded where it matters most. That is to the individual doing the work. That person has the greatest pleasure in their life and the most rewards in peace, happiness, pride, humility, integrety, honor, and all of the intangibles that, at the end of the day, mean the most.
It has ablways been my experience that those who cheat, lie, backstab, gossip, "play the game", are lazy and try to get by with as little as possible, are the most unhappy people around - and it's all their own doing whether they see it or not.

Believe me my friends, when all is said and done, it isn't what the title is, or how much money is made, but how well you sleep at nights, and how other, honest and worthy, people see you that really matters.
Why else would we advise Tony and others, to hold on to their integrety even if it means changing jobs?

As John Lennon once said, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...."

Peace
James

...good work and good attitude is always rewarded where it matters most. That is to the individual doing the work. That person has the greatest pleasure in their life and the most rewards in peace, happiness, pride, humility, integrity, honor, and all of the intangibles that, at the end of the day, mean the most.
It has ablways been my experience that those who cheat, lie, backstab, gossip, "play the game", are lazy and try to get by with as little as possible, are the most unhappy people around - and it's all their own doing whether they see it or not.

I could not agree with you more. And you're quite right - what matters most is being able to look into the mirror and be comfortable with who's looking you right back in the eye. :applause: :applause:
This gave me some good thinking about the differences between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation on my morning walk, and the superiority of the former over the latter.