TAKE 1

Commentary by Joe Willmore

A leader in the field of human performance, Joe Willmore is a consultant for a range of organizations and the author of numerous publications on performance improvement.

This is a great case because it’s so typical of what a lot of consultants face—an organization where everything seems to be going wrong, things are falling apart, and there are lots of possible targets to pursue. And professionals not taking a performance improvement approach would likely jump to some immediate conclusions, like “Let’s provide executive coaching for Theo Paine,” who admitted when he took the job that he wasn’t that experienced, or “Let’s send everyone through training on a range of topics, like safety issues, supervision, and communication skills,” or “Let’s build up employee engagement.”

While these may initially seem like great ideas, they aren’t very systematic or very business focused (I’ll explain what that means in just a bit). Additionally, when things start to go wrong in an organization, it’s very easy for everything to start falling apart. A bad process or conflicting targets can lead to a situation where it seems everyone is incompetent and nothing is done right. Lightgate is a classic example of an organization where a systematic and systemic approach to performance is critical—otherwise you’ll end up spending valuable resources on issues that have a tangential impact.

Let’s also acknowledge that it’s not clear what the business priorities are. The CEO at one point talks about sales being down, at another point about the need to speed up delivery, and a third time about the importance of reducing damages and rework, but Theo’s initial priority was to “stabilize things down in the warehouse.” Everyone is so busy slapping bandages on problems (or ducking responsibility and just continuing to do what they’ve always done) that you don’t have a clear sense of what the business wants to achieve. Until we identify the business goals, it’s hard to determine the most critical performance to focus on. That’s a key element of any performance analysis—defining the goals, not just in terms of priorities but also in terms of metrics. (How much do sales need to change? How much faster do shipments need to be?)

There are a lot of dysfunctional elements to Lightgate as a business and how it operates, and it’s easy to be distracted by them. None of the players have a good handle on what the problem is, so they’re all acting on anecdotal evidence (“fire all the managers!” or “hire a people person” or “rearrange the warehouse layout” or “initiate safety training”). The late Geary Rummler used to say, “Pit a good person against a bad process, and the bad process will win almost every time.” What is going on at Lightgate is repetitive and constant. It doesn’t appear isolated to one shift (although the less experienced night shift appears to have more damage problems), or to one manager, supervisor, client, or set of products. My initial read is that there is a process problem, and in trying to cope with it, a series of workarounds—like banning smartphones, moving water fountains, and so forth—have compounded the issues.

So, to me, there are two main problems. First, there is no clearly enunciated business goal or way to measure it. It’s as if the target keeps shifting, or the business goal is “make the pain stop!” Second, no one seems to know the root cause they’re trying to address, so every action is simply a bandage based on anecdotal information. Because of these two factors, you have a dysfunctional organization where key processes have broken down, resulting in poor performance in almost every area (slow turnaround times, damaged products, safety violations, and so on).

Any approach to these problems has to start with the CEO. I’d first want Callaway to commit to a business priority and identify how to measure progress. Then, for whatever business goal the CEO names as top priority, I’d want to see how performance has changed over time. For instance, if the goal involves reducing waste and damaged products, I’d want to see how this is measured and look at long-term damages rates. This could tell me if the change in results correlates with a specific change in process, procedure, or internal operation. Given the turnover in operations managers, I think it’s quite likely that changes in internal standard operating procedures are a factor, or that with the turnover in ops managers, some key processes or functions have fallen by the wayside.

I’m never against asking people for their opinion—it gives you the opportunity to find out what they think and sometimes provides useful insights. But to be clear: Just because everyone says “we need new equipment” or “we need more training” doesn’t mean it’s true. You’re asking for their input partially for political reasons (so they’re more likely to accept your recommendations) and because people occasionally tell you the answer to the problem. But the best approach is to use data where possible and show impact—especially for performance issues.

What are my recommendations for Theo Paine? First of all, he needs to stop trying to solve everything and stop using superficial fixes. Second, anything he can do that is a quick “win,” even if it’s small, will help to build credibility. Third, he’s not going to be able to tackle any major organizational performance issue unless he partners with key people. That’s why a “win” or good data matter—he can use them to get support and buy-in for his initiatives.

Theo would find the DNA Desktop tools from ATD’s Analysis course helpful. Process maps are also very useful, especially if you’re looking at how one process affects others or has a force multiplier effect. Systems theory would also help. Lightgate is a complex company with a series of feedback loops that encourage specific behaviors (such as not worrying if you break supplies or slow the delivery of products) and other loops that discourage particular behaviors (such as safety). If you understand how the system works and have the feedback loops in place, then you can start predicting results and behavior patterns. And you also identify the pressure points to go after to change the system and alter the results.

This is absolutely a common scenario. Lightgate would benefit from a systematic approach and a clear set of priorities—yet neither currently exists. The failure to have one, let alone both, results in a lot of frustration and wasted effort. It creates an atmosphere where everything feels like it’s broken, and management is playing Whack-A-Mole as they react to each new problem that suddenly emerges.