November 2009

You'll know that there's been a lot in the papers over the last few weeks about the postal strikes.  I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of the dispute itself, but among all that coverage I read something that really caught my eye.

Interestingly, it was a point of view that's been largely overlooked.  It was a letter from a postman himself (although I'm not sure Pat Stamp was his real name.).  Here's what he said:

"Postmen speculate endlessly as to why Royal Mail is making it impossible for us to do our job properly.Maybe the fact that Royal Mail is now run by managers who have little or no hands-on experience and who use computer-generated models to organise everything is the explanation"

This was very close to home - because in my work I use computer-generated models, and I don't have hands-on experience of all the companies I work for.  And more to the point, it's also true of almost any manager who is trying to make changes.

Of course, we can't give up using models to help us improve the way we do things.  Nor can we restrict planning and implementing change only to people who've done the job themselves.  But neither can we ignore what Pat wrote.  His problems are real - and in this case they have become large enough to cause strikes.

So what can we learn from this?

#1 EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN

First of all, it's easy to dismiss Pat's objections as excuses to avoid change.  But that's the wrong response.  Whether we like it or not, that's how it seems to Pat. 

And if you read the whole letter (you can do that here), one message comes across strongly.  Pat isn't refusing to accept change; he just can't understand how the changes he's being asked to make will actually achieve their objective of saving money.  No doubt the objective is unwelcome (it means more work for fewer postmen), but it's his bafflement that really causes him to obstruct the changes.

So the first lesson I've learnt - or, rather, been reminded of - is that implementing change isn't simply about designing new processes.  You've got to put as much time and effort into explaining to everyone involved what you're doing and why.  If this isn't clear, you can't expect people to accept change.

#2 IT'S WHERE YOU GET TO, NOT HOW YOU GET THERE

Secondly, Pat is reminding us that, however useful models are, you start to bump up against reality when you implement - and that's never as neat and tidy as the theory.

If you've spent time developing your model, it's only human to feel pride in it.  Then it's only a small step to think that the world should change to match your model, and not the other way round!  But you've got to remember that real life will be different from what your model predicts.  That means you must be prepared to adapt your plans to match local circumstances. 

Don't fall into the trap of making change a matter of imposing a particular process - whether it works or not - instead of a method of achieving an objective.  That's  like following your satnav off the edge of a cliff - because you've forgotten satnav is there to help you find your destination, not an instruction you've got to follow. 

So the second lesson I've learnt from this is to focus on the objective of change, not the process.  Make sure the people who have to make the change can tell you what they think.  Welcome criticism - and be willing to adapt your plans to reach your objective.

So what's this month's message to take away? 

- explain, explain and explain again WHAT you need to achieve and WHY your plan will do that

- when you implement, remember that the important thing is WHERE you get to, not HOW you get there - so be prepared to change your plan when real life demands it

<< Back