7
Breakdowns Between Silos

A recurrent challenge confronting organizations large and small is that of silo behavior. We broached this subject in Chapter 3 when talking about misaligned leadership.

Breakdowns between silos can occur among internal groups, departments, or business units as well as among external partners, subcontractors, or teammates on joint development projects.

Often, internal conflicts breed between groups because the groups have slightly different missions. If you are on the front lines, whether in manufacturing, interacting with customers, or managing suppliers, you are trying to get something across the finish line. In order to get that airplane manufactured, get that seminar delivered, or get that pharmaceutical released, you may have to deal with any number of internal groups before you can gain sign-off for the next step, much less for final delivery.

Hands down, compliance and risk management are critical to the long-term success of any organization, and there are internal groups within most organizations whose primary duty is to ensure that people follow procedures. Just as certain, there are times when compliance can become an end in itself rather than a truly helpful process. Most people will recognize this state of control as part of the bureaucratic turf, but what happens when the compliance system starts to create problems of its own? And what happens when internal groups fail to talk to one another?

Let’s briefly turn our sights again to the example in Chapter 2 of the state of California and the policy of requiring compliance with nonexistent regulations. Those controls were initially put there for a powerful and positive reason: to minimize waste and assure appropriate expenditure of public funds. With the passage of time, the controls had taken on a life and purpose of their own, so much so that they were actually generating waste themselves, while inhibiting the delivery of services they were meant to assure. The problem stemmed from a situation that unfortunately is probably all too prevalent in government as well as organizations large and small: different groups are marching to independent drummers who are apparently part of the same band.

In this example, the state had several silos operating at the same time, each unaware of the impact one was having on the others. The legislative branch issued new regulations from time to time. Agencies developed their own rules and regulations. Contracts put the rules and regulations into terms and conditions. Various audit and compliance-monitoring groups enforced the rules and regulations.

Seems innocent enough, even logical, doesn’t it? The hitch was that no one on the legislative or regulatory side bothered to communicate with the contracts group when laws expired or regulations changed. This is an example of where the “stop” part of the start-stop-continue equation would have been useful.

The regulatory folks were pretty good at the “start” side— they let the contracts people know when new laws or regulations went into effect—just not so good at letting them know when something was no longer required. I’m only guessing here, but I’m willing to wager that job descriptions existed detailing what to pass on to contracts for inclusion, but nothing spelled out a job requirement to let contracts know when something should be deleted.

Similarly, once the contracts department included something, the document was thrown over the wall to the group that audited compliance. Auditors were narrowly tasked with ensuring that existing clauses were adhered to, not determining whether those clauses still mattered. The predictable net result was that the agency spent considerable time and resources monitoring requirements that no longer were relevant, and the actual nonprofit service groups were spinning their wheels instead of providing the services for which they were funded.

If you find yourself or your group in conflict with a part of the organization charged with following rules or procedures, it may be worthwhile to sit down with your counterparts to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Larry Senn’s advice from the Introduction about “assuming innocence” offers a wise attitude to adopt when you start the conversation—the other group is most likely trying to ensure that something good takes place. Start by inquiring what that good outcome might be. From there, if you still have some differences, let your counterparts see what the situation looks like from your perspective or that of your customer, and solicit their suggestions on what might make the situation workable for both sides. The main concern, of course, is that both groups act in alignment toward the larger purpose or goal of the organization.

HOW DIFFERENT SILOS AFFECT EACH OTHER

Sometimes, the biggest improvement opportunities start right where you are. On many occasions, we have seen apparently large organizational issues virtually dissolve by simply asking three questions:

1. What needs improving around here and why?

2. What could you do that would make a difference that requires no one’s permission other than your own? (Confine your answer to just your own job and what would make your job easier, more effective, or more productive.)

3. What could you do that would make a difference that requires permission, cooperation or approval? Whose? (Same context as above: what could you do that would make your job easier, more effective, or more productive but would also require someone else to go along?)

A while ago, my consulting firm had the opportunity to work with representatives of a hospital group in Florida. The client was experiencing performance issues ranging from patient satisfaction to cost management to physician engagement. We gathered roughly 450 managers, supervisors, and executives in a large theater-style conference facility. After an interactive session in which senior managers shared a few thoughts about where they were headed, we asked those 450 people in the room to take out their notebooks and work on the same three questions noted above, creating three separate lists.

Once people had completed their three lists, we asked them to seal list one and list three in a special envelope we provided them and to not refer to those lists until we got together again in a month’s time. We further asked everyone in the room to spend the next month focusing their actions on list two: What could you do that would make a difference in your job that requires no one’s permission other than your own?

When we reassembled a month later, the room was abuzz with people engaged in animated discussions. The energy level was much higher than it had been the previous month when we first convened. Can you guess what produced the buzz, the heightened energy in the room? Think back again to Chapter 2 and the effects associated with exercising or cleaning that refrigerator by accident. Same phenomenon here: people had spent the previous month doing simple things that were within their own control. Many had completed long-outstanding projects or had raised their level of performance to match their internal standards. By directing their attention to the fact that they could do something that would make a difference, they were able to take actions that made a difference.

That simple act of taking action (control) produced two powerful and energizing phenomena. First, getting something done released that stored-up psychic fat, providing more energy to do more things. Second, bringing their behavior into alignment with what they knew they could do to make a difference restored each of them to a higher sense of standards—“I’m the kind of person who takes responsibility and makes a difference”—which is probably what led these particular people to work in health care to begin with.

Getting stuff moving, making a difference, and doing so without needing anyone else to give them permission was empowering, exciting, and fulfilling. Hence, a roomful of excited people creating quite a buzz. We took a few comments from those present about the past month, all of which validated the general sense that things were moving. We then asked them to open that sealed envelope and to read list three.

Within minutes, the buzz was back in the room, only more so. We asked them what was up. With microphones placed around the room, we soon had individuals standing up and saying things like, “I had on my list that my job would improve if only Mike did xyz. Lo and behold, Mike did!” From there it was a short step to the discovery that Mike did whatever he did, not because it helped Claudia, but because it was on his list of things that would make his job better if only he were to do something himself. And he did.

They discovered as a group that a good 60 percent to 70 percent of the needed improvements could be had just by people’s assuming individual responsibility for what they could do on their own and not waiting for someone else to take the initiative. What now remained were the much more strategic issues, the kind of improvements that did require cooperation, collaboration, and approval (influence). This little exercise enabled leadership to more quickly identify what was truly critical and allowed the native intelligence of the organization to come to the fore.

Senior leadership was then able to concentrate on its own role in setting direction, without spending so much time either blaming the workforce for being lazy, political, or otherwise ineffective or refereeing disputes between departments. The real kicker showed up over the next few months: many people found that it was much easier to influence others to cooperate, collaborate, or genially lend a hand when each took responsibility for his or her own part of the equation.

Too often it happens that attempting to influence others to change comes across as blame or criticism. This personal responsibility approach to control and influence can lead to much more fluid interactions and a shared sense of accomplishment. So, perhaps the workaround is yet again one that starts with you making the first move. That applies no matter what your station is in the organization, from the most senior to the most junior. We all have a role to play, so start at the center of the circle and exercise the control that truly is yours and yours alone.

THAT’S NOT YOUR JOB

We’ve all had brushes with the person who declines to do something under the age-old defense “that’s not my job.” How about the inverse of that one? Have you ever met up with someone who tried to stop you from doing something because “that’s not your job”? That can be a really difficult roadblock, especially when you may need to work around someone who isn’t engaged at the level required for you to proceed. Reasons abound for disengagement, ranging from it’s not high enough on their priority list yet to they just don’t want to get involved.

Here’s a related example with a well-executed workaround:

The insurance company had several divisions, as well as multiple customer bases. There was the usual complement of large group, small group, and individual customers, along with different kinds of insurance programs that might be offered depending on customer type, location, and a couple other variables.

Health care reform was looming on the horizon, and although no one knew for sure where the legislation would finally land, it was pretty clear to all employees that the landscape would shift dramatically. The door was open to a wide set of products, depending on how the company wound up defining its customers and markets. Mindful of the insurer’s history of moving slowly, hierarchically, and with considerable bureaucracy, people around the organization began positioning themselves for various possibilities in the new order.

A great way to build protection in an organization is to gather critical data and hoard it. As you might imagine, insurance companies have all kinds of deep information veins. However, the data were housed all over the organization. A new marketing director joined the company from outside the insurance industry and saw the potential for gathering all the data into one place. However, she was rebuffed by each of the product groups—the basic message being, “Butt out—that’s not your job.”

Rather than trying to persuade from within, which might have looked more like an internal raid than an offer of collaboration, she went to the outside and hired a well-respected data analyst. Once on board, the new analyst spent his first few months building relationships, asking a few questions, and sharing some of his insights and expertise along the way. By first seeking to understand the players and what was important to them, he was able to establish a strong influence position, which eventually resulted in various leaders asking him in to add even more value.

It didn’t take long before he was able to call a summit meeting of all the groups to share some observations. As they began to see that each had similar issues, these groups also discovered opportunities that might arise from sharing data. The analyst was then able to turn their focus away from internal silo protection and back to the competitive world outside their own insurance company, helping them see new opportunities. At this writing, the organization is well on its way toward generating a powerful set of new, collaborative, cross-group offerings driven by its ability to share customer data and analyze the information against a variety of concerns and opportunities.

In the lexicon of workarounds, this collaboration process required thinking and acting on several fundamental levels. Let’s review what happened in the context of how you might address an issue from several workaround perspectives.

1. Environment response. Just as the insurance company data analyst looked first to the competitive environment, are there external drivers that add weight to your argument that a workaround is needed?

2. People do things for their reasons, not your reasons. Even when people are behaving in a way that seems obstinate, they usually have what they consider to be a good reason. Try to find out what’s motivating their behavior, and then look for ways you can actually help them accomplish what’s important to them. By doing so, you stand to gain an ally or a partner rather than an impediment who has to be maneuvered.

3. Control. As always, look first to what you can do that requires no one’s permission other than your own. In this instance, the data analyst found internal information sources that not only helped his cause but also provided useful information to those he was trying to influence.

4. Influence. Armed with valuable information and a sense of what was important to each of his key constituents, he was able to show people how it would be in their best interest to join the parade. What people do you need to have on board, and how might they benefit?

WHEN THE SILOS EXIST AT YOUR PARTNER

Dealing with silo behavior can be difficult enough when the silos are located in your own company. They aren’t always, and you may find yourself faced with a different set of silorelated issues when your company needs to work together with your customer, your supplier, or your partner. Following is an example in which silo behavior in a partner company impacted the entire project.

The National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) was to be the United States’ next-generation satellite system; it would monitor the earth’s weather, atmosphere, oceans, land, and near-space environment. The estimated launch date for the first NPOESS satellite had slipped from an initial target of 2006 to 2013. Problems with sensor development were cited as the primary reason for delays and cost overruns. Partners Northrop Grumman and Raytheon were challenged to find solutions that would get the program back on track.

• Roadblock: By mid-December 2007, with the threat of cancellation hanging over the program, there were 3,032 open issues and a customer requirement that they be resolved within 60 days. Internal staffing coordinators within the subcontractor (sub) were also slowing things down as they sought to control engineers assigned to the program. Conflicts within internal groups (silos) at the sub meant that many matters were not being addressed. Each internal silo was clearly managing to its own set of objectives, few of which included improved performance of the NPOESS program.

• Impact: The continuing and escalating schedule delays resulted in cost overruns measured in excess of $1 million per day, which in turn produced a very unhappy customer threatening to quash the multibillion-dollar program.

• Workaround: The prime contractor (prime) needed to understand and accept the culture and capability of its sub. Realizing that the sub prided itself on its superior scientific capability and staffing excellence, representatives of the prime approached representatives of the sub with this line of reasoning: “With your technical and staffing expertise, surely you should be able to resolve these issues quickly.” The pitch highlighted the sub’s capabilities and included positive reinforcement that the prime had faith in the sub.

This approach leveraged the previously stated principle that people do things for their reasons, not your reasons. Rather than heap blame and abuse on the sub, by underscoring the sub’s capabilities the prime encouraged the sub to overcome its own problems with silos through executive engagement. The prime and sub worked together to form a joint senior-level resolution process, effectively creating both decision and process workarounds. Issues were bucketed into 10 key categories, to be reviewed in twice-daily meetings between VPs from the two organizations. Each session identified open issues requiring senior-level involvement, what was needed to unstick the works, and what senior-level action would be taken.

• Result: With air cover provided by appropriate VPs, the teams managed to resolve 3,031 of the 3,032 open issues within the required time frame. The remaining issue required a bit more time to resolve but did wind up working out. Morale across the project rose considerably, particularly within the sub’s culture. Engineers, managers, and contributors were able to see a direct impact from their involvement, and the sensor wound up working perfectly.

A DISCONNECT BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS

Sometimes breakdowns between silos can be so basic that they’re actually humorous. Here is an example that will demonstrate how to get past such breakdowns. Data General was one of the first minicomputer firms to emerge in the late 1960s. A series of missteps in the 1980s led to a decline in market share, and the company was subsequently taken over by EMC in 1999.

Here’s a classic case of silos failing to communicate. In the mid-1990s marketing created a clever program designed to drive inquiries to the sales group. The marketing program targeted the launch of a new computer with a unique ad campaign in which the computer was presented as looking for a job. Unfortunately, marketing neglected to clue sales in on the program, even though the sales phone number was listed in the materials.

Interested IT directors started spinning the dial to learn more about the position, and of course, sales had no idea what they were talking about. You can imagine the bizarre conversations that must have taken place! The impact is funny now, but I’m not so sure Sales was laughing at the time.

Workaround: Bridge the Gap

Rather than risk more embarrassing disconnects—and disconnects had been part of the chafing history between marketing and sales for some time—the company took action. This event led to the creation of a weekly meeting between the sales and marketing VPs. Not only did this simple meeting workaround prevent future disconnects, but it also gave rise to a creative new program that Data General used to market a new type of very thin computer server, its first “blade server.” Marketing had pizza-delivery boxes made as packaging for the new servers, which were considerably smaller than previous servers, and had them delivered to IT directors. The unique packaging got the boxes opened, and the message that your servers could now fit in a pizza-delivery box captured the imagination of prospective buyers. Sales appreciated the calls this time around!

IT ALL COMES DOWN TO COMMUNICATION

It’s probably apparent from these examples that the one common thread in generating effective workarounds between silos is to get together and talk about the issue. Of course, how you talk about it is just as important as what you talk about. When people get agitated or frustrated with someone, a common complaint emerges from their mouths: “What the heck are you doing?” Whether screamed or muttered, as obvious as the plaintive question may seem, it is nonetheless the wrong question. The perfunctory answer will almost always be something along the lines of: “I’m doing what I think matters.”

Rather than treating the other person, team, or group as your enemy combatant, you will gain better purchase by following Larry Senn’s advice and assuming innocence. In all likelihood, these parties are making choices based on differences in understanding owing to causes such as different goals or differences in how they are being measured. Sometimes the challenge boils down to the struggle detailed in Chapter 2—that of being overwhelmed, with more to do than can be done.

Arranging a meeting to talk about the issue makes sense in most instances. If you need to engage a given person, group, or department in order to get something moving, it may be most helpful if you start by asking yourself what the purpose or focus of the other party’s job is. That should quickly put you on the path toward understanding that you each have different versions of a good outcome.

WORKAROUND QUESTIONS

Here are some questions to ponder before approaching parties who are causing a roadblock; these same questions may also help shape the discussion once you get together:

1. What is their job?

2. What is the purpose of their job, group, or department?

3. What does a good outcome look like to them?

4. How does their choice make sense from their point of view?

• How are they being measured in terms of performance?

5. What is the purpose of your job, group, or department?

• What is a good outcome from your point of view?

• How are you being measured in terms of performance?

6. Are there common elements that you can emphasize to help bridge any gaps?

7. How does your work impact their work?

8. Is there anything you can do to make it easier for them to produce what you need?

9. Is there anything you can do to make it easier for them to produce what they need?