How do you Eat an Elephant?

Image Credit: Wordpress

Ken Gentner

     In my military experience, almost every time a manager or commander made some drastic change to a military unit, it always seemed to wither on the vine--only to be forgotten sometime later.  The change was usually in reaction to some negative trend that had emerged under their command; it could be behavioral, such as a rash of embarrassing off-duty antics with the junior enlisted force; it could even be from a decay of solid leadership from within the unit that happened right under the leadership of an otherwise-absent management team.  Regardless of cause, the effect--and the subsequent change that came with it, was usually poorly-executed.

     In the 1990s, the United States Air Force implemented a concept known as “Quality Air Force”; this concept was actually a re-hash of a previous idea known as “Total Quality Management”.  Both concepts had lofty goals and buzzwords such as paradigm shift coupled with catchphrases like doing more with less. In addition, those who blew the trumpets on such ideologies were grinning, fast-talking proponents of the concepts who appeared to unleash an artificial sunshine on every situation and case study they could dig-up in the Air Force. Though they were versed in (what I later understood to be) LEAN principles, their delivery seemed too high-level and alien to the grassroots Airmen at work fixing jet engines, guarding air bases, or fighting a war in the Middle East. Simply put, there was no onboarding or indoctrination for the larger military force that was uneducated in these ideas to streamline and modernize the service. As time folded forward, the idea seemed to decay from within. High-ranking officers, who were deeply invested in instituting real change, began demanding all officers in the field embrace the concepts they were preaching at the Pentagon. Just when the Air Force at-large believed “Quality Air Force” was relegated to the dead letter office of bad ideas, a new, intense focus on the concept began in reckless earnest. Command-wide inspections, checklists, and interviews saturated the military landscape as small “QAF Victories” were celebrated in a saccharine way (Rinehart, 2006). I recall the time a small, aluminum box was spot-welded to a 50-gallon weapons clearing drum. The box was placed below a large hole; it was designed to catch stray bullets that were cleared from service pistols for military policemen who were ending their shift. Photographs of the celebration about an aluminum, bullet-catching box could be mistaken for NASA’s control room after the "Eagle" had landed.

A Multi-Level Approach
            The problem with Quality Air Force (QAF) was not with the concept itself. If it was actually understood and properly supported, QAF had the potential to create sweeping, positive change. Instead, it is now a punch line by seasoned veterans. The problem was how it was introduced and implemented. In addition, there were no supporting programs to supplement the changes the Air Force felt were needed to streamline and modernize. Instead, QAF stood on its own like a misfit of nature. Steely-eyed missile men glared in suspicion at the intrusive process and scoffed at it behind closed doors with their subordinates.

            Could something have been done to save QAF from a boondoggle?  Steve Denning, writing in Forbes, outlined a multi-level approach to affecting real, sustained change. While there are many facets to each, the way to change culture can be classified into three distinct, overlapping levels of tools (Denning, 2011): leadership tools, management tools, and power tools.

Leadership Tools
            This is where an organization’s leader will work with employees and executives to establish a shared vision and initiate leadership conversations throughout the business. If leadership is viewed as inspiration, this should be cultivating fertile ground for all change that follows. Leaders may struggle to have these conversations if the concept of speaking to employees is alien to the culture. The ideas presented in the realm of this tier should be relatable both up-and-down the leadership chain, but high-level enough to be illustrative and easy to facilitate.

Management Tools
            Management tools dive in to explore employment control systems and work with leadership tools in establishing strategic planning; management tools are also used to respect established former rituals and reexamine these for adaptability to new change opportunities. Management tools are also responsible for the maintenance of promotion and annual review performance plans. It is here where real training happens that introduces concepts to the work force. Management tools also invest in the employees’ professional development to work—not just to introduce new principles that directly affect the culture—but also demonstrate a sincere effort to promote employees from within and sustain the workforce.

Power Tools
            Power tools contain the hiring/firing systems, point accumulation and disciplinary systems, but also work in concert with management tools for establishing clear role guidelines in an organization. While some may dismiss power tools as purely punitive, these tools serve as essential standards for setting clear and ethical guidance for company policies for employee retention. These power tools comply with labor laws and safeguard against unfair labor practices that are seen as inconsistent or play favorites among employees. Power tools also work to enforce new policies in a fair, even fashion while maintaining transparency at all levels of employment.

An Experiment
            If I wanted to affect a cultural change in business—like abandon the United States customary units of measurement and have my business use strictly metric—I would implement it this way:

• I would work directly with my subordinate leaders to identify and forge a method for implementing such a drastic change in business that would affect the entire company. I would understand the American culture bristles at centimeters and embraces customary inches. I would be prepared for initial negative pushback. I would not be one-dimensional in my approach and give the impression that I was unprepared. After forging an approach, I would meet with subject matter experts to flesh-out a shared vision and initial benefits for making such a drastic change. I would call these “leadership meetings” and would make them resemble a more collaborative meeting rather than Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats.
• After forging a shared vision and phased plan of implementation, I would articulate the vision to the plant, communicate clear goals we have set, and provide training to all employees so the intention is understood. Every person trained would understand how the change affected their job on a daily basis as well as how their changes interconnected to one level of leadership above and below theirs.
• I would set controls in place that eliminated old literature that could cause a regression and establish new compliance standards toward sustaining the change.
• Finally, I would articulate a clear date for full implementation of the change, provide feedback and support to all, and encourage the workforce to positively make metric part of their daily work. I would remind all employees that the change has clear benefits and they will not be immediately felt.  Speak in meters instead of yards, and kilograms instead of pounds.

            Had the United States Air Force been more deliberate and incremental in their implementation of such sweeping change with Quality Air Force, it may not have ended so tragically. There is something powerful in assembling a team to deconstruct a process, analyze the components, eliminate waste or redundancy, and rebuild it stronger, smarter, and leaner. Like manufacturing, the military has detailed and deliberate processes that require technical expertise to execute. Both have subject matter experts who know their institution has excessive waste and monotony within it. In my opinion, the civilian manufacturing industry has succeeded where the military has failed for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious reason is the private sector works in great self-interest to eliminate waste and increase profit while the military works at the pleasure of the taxpayer. Because there is no profit to gain, the motivation must be intrinsic rather than outward; the military must feel motivated to improve a tired process because streamlining will reduce managerial headaches. It stands to be noted that implementations in business can fail just as easily as the Quality Air Force concept outlined above.

          If change is to be embraced, it needs to be articulated at the grassroots level. Real improvements must be demonstrated with a potential for results. It should be designed by those who will directly work with the proposed changes in the culture. A streamlined process for a hydraulic die press should closely involve the die press operator who has the experience of using the machine. Furthermore, leadership tools should support the worker and facilitate the establishment of a vision and goal for the improvement. Management should support the change and be deliberate and genuine in their efforts. Power tools processes should establish clear precedent for sustaining the change to become part of the labor fabric that is articulated for all leadership levels and permeate the culture. 

        How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time.