Welcome back to the Savvy Blog which will from now on be updated at least weekly and so sorry for the Savvy Seasonal Vacation!

By popular demand, this week’s Guest Author is again Ken Bruss, Ed.D., picking up on the theme of Savvy and Six Sigma or Continuous Improvement. Ken has extensive experience managing the implications of Organizational and Political Savvy inherent in quality and process improvement initiatives. A primary area of focus has been New Product Development processes.

________________________________________________________________________________________

– Ken Bruss

Albert Einstein once observed that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.” For those of us involved with change initiatives in organizations, this observation is particularly pertinent. Why when faced with compelling data that the existing processes don’t work, do seemingly sane individuals resist change?

I encounter this routinely in my work with New Product Development teams. I used to be amazed when empirically trained engineers committed to project schedules, budgets and performance requirements that flew in the face of organizational history. Puzzled, I’d ask myself why were they ignoring data and resisting more effective project planning methods.

I’ve found the Organizational Savvy Political Styles model created by Brandon Partners to be a useful means of unraveling this conundrum. In a nutshell the Organizational Savvy model presents a continuum of behaviors influencing such actions as decision-making. At one end is the “Power of Ideas Style” which views true power as residing in SUBSTANCE–– the work itself whether facts, logic and analysis, sales and new accounts, or creative and artistic results. At the other end of the continuum is the “Power of Person Style,” which views true power as residing in POSITION POWER, so this person deftly reads between the lines, psychs out power trends, and operates from a posture of street smarts and political practicality. The Organizational Savvy model suggests that by understanding what individuals value and how they navigate in the company, we will be more effective at influencing them.

Applying Organizational Savvy to Project Planning

As you might have guessed by now, I’m more comfortable operating from a Power of Ideas posture. Most project planning decisions, however, are not framed in such black and white terms. Typically they involve both types of considerations. To understand why otherwise rational engineers people act in what appears to be an irrational manner, I’ve learned to ask myself what other factors are at play? What data am I missing, either because I’ve dismissed its significance or simply did not recognize it staring me in the face?

A useful starting question is “what is motivating the client to ask for such an aggressive schedule?” Follow-up questions might be:

• What internal or external pressures are driving their behavior?
• What organizational changes have recently occurred?
• Whose projects are being funded and which ones are being cut?
• What’s the mood like in the company?
• What new competitors are nipping at their heels?

While all of this data can be statistically analyzed, attaching appropriate meaning to these factors requires a more qualitative approach that factors in the stakeholders’ Political Styles; in essence, perception sometimes really is reality.

By utilizing these new insights, I’m then able to conduct a more nuanced and productive project planning discussion. I’m able to see more clearly the reasons why people are clinging to seemingly dysfunctional behaviors. While I’ll still rely on hard data to justify my points, by broadening my understanding of issues I’m able to focus on what truly matters to the client.

This week’s Guest Author is Ken Bruss, Ed.D. Ken has extensive experience managing the implications of Organizational and Political Savvy inherent in quality and process improvement initiatives. A primary area of focus has been New Product Development processes. Ken will be contributing a few blog entries based upon his experience.

Why is Political Savvy Critical for Six Sigma Success? It seems every day we read about another company reporting amazing financial results attributable to a Six Sigma initiative. Led by Black Belt masters religiously deploying statistical methods these companies are successfully eliminating variability from their processes and defects from their products.

On occasion, the same business journals report on companies failing to experience anticipated benefits from their Six Sigma initiatives. Post mortem data indicates that frequently the root cause for disappointing results is failure to achieve company-wide buy-in. This is surprising, since unlike many other process improvement initiatives, Six Sigma heavily focuses on securing active senior and middle management support. One of the fundamentals is creating a robust infrastructure (e.g., green belts, black belts…).

Kissing the Frog. In other instances we read about a perceived struggle between achieving efficiency and  fostering innovation. For companies whose lifeblood is new products, complaints that Six Sigma stifles creativity can’t easily be ignored. Inherent in the front end of New Product Development is risk. As technologists push the envelope and explore unknowns, failures will occur. The slogan “you need to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince” hangs in many Silicon Valley cubicles. Six Sigma data analysis would  have recommended killing many development efforts which subsequently resulted in profitable, breakthrough products. As software companies attempt to manage risks by implementing “lean” and “agile” approaches to development their goal isn’t to eliminate failure, but simply surface it sooner.

How Does Political Savvy Address This Innovation versus Efficiency Challenge? Brandon Partners’ Political Styles model teaches about two distinct organizational influencing styles with contrasting world views about true Power, Politics, the role of Perception in idea approval, and Promotion of yourself and your results. On a very basic level Six Sigma is totally consistent with the less political style’s (Power of Idea’s) approach to work and organizational politics–– which is to put faith in “Substance Power” and count of the data and results speaking for themselves. In organizations where a Power of Idea’s orientation is the cultural norm, this posture will experience smooth sailing. These are organizations, after all, where power resides in facts, logic and analysis, not hierarchical status; where decisions are based on meritocracy, not relationships.

Many organizations, however, don’t operate this way. While they may not suffer from being “Overly Political,” a slightly more political, but still highly ethical political style (Power of Person) is also very active and appropriate. Here, for Six Sigma initiatives to take hold, dazzling statistical analysis isn’t sufficient. In such company cultures, decisions and resource commitments have already been informally made before the official “decision-making” meeting is held. To be effective, Six Sigma practitioners need to lift their head from the data and become politically savvy, engaging in what Brandon and Seldman in Survival of the Savvy (Free Press, 2004) call “Ethical Lobbying.” This doesn’t mean that Power of Person Six Sigma leaders need to compromise their methods or principles, but simple sell them more effectively to stakeholders across the enterprise. In up-coming Blogs we’ll explore how being Politically Savvy can contribute to Six Sigma success.