How can we work together across a service, as cross-functional collaborating teams?

How can we break free from falling into the trap of silo departments working against each other, and empower staff to work together in a seamless, error free, flow of work that adapts to rapid changing circumstances? Here we are going to learn from ‘the liberated method’ and ‘self managed’ teams.

Faulure is in-built within us

As soon as we enter the world of work, we are programmed to design work into departments, with a manager that decides how we work. We work to targets and perhaps our speed and output are measured. Time and time again, staff come to the manager with small issues that they themselves can resolve! These departments then move work onto other departments, who then complain about the quality of the previous work. Silo working is endemic; something we somehow fall into.

Why? What can we do about it? How can I as a manager empower staff to answer their own questions. I want my staff to work together with other departments so that small operational issues are ironed out.

The problem to fix first

The answer as to how to fix this, first requires us to answer why this occurs in the first place. And the answer that we find is cause is due to the design of organisations that we have inherited from the industrial revolution. We think that by creating departments, and putting a manager who guides that department, at its head, and incentivising that manager. We think that we will have designed the most efficient way of working. In some cases it is true, but one of the principles behind this design is that people are treated as cogs in a machine. In effect, the staff do what they are instructed, usually a defined role, designed to follow a standard process. The manager wants a standard process so that they know exactly what people are doing, and the work can be measured at various points on the process. Let’s call this the machine paradigm.

Strangely we find that by creating optimised departments we maximise their output, but this occurs at the expense of other departments. Doing this we actually sub-optimise the whole. Why? Because an organisation rarely works like a well oiled machine process, it tends to be far more complex, with all types of knowledge moving dynamically around.

The human self managed team

Let us name this alternative approach, self managing. This is more focused on recognising a human system rather than a machine, The term ‘self managing’ does not mean that the manager is not needed, it is where direct instructions and rules can sometimes give way to staff working and deciding together.

To do this we need to start from a different place than the machine paradigm. In an organisation, we need to ask who creates that machine paradigm? The answer is that it comes from the managers of the organisation, through their instructions, their behaviours, their adherence to processes, and measures. So lets begin this change by the manager deciding to let the staff know that they wish to change their management approach, from a machine to human. When the managers role shifts, then so do those of the staff.

Step 1

The first step has to be a recognition that the behaviour and approach of the manager has to change first. Get your staff together, and say and do something that signifies this change. Dont do it in a ‘management is telling you to do this’ style. Say something that is direct and honest to your staff — not in an email! Perhaps something like this;

“For so many years now, we have been working with fixed processes, and you are audited against those processes and measures. You can simply come into work, and just follow these instructions, then go home. It does not really use your capability that you have a people.

It does not have to be like this. We could create a better way of working, where you can actually contribute and participate in making the work we do more better. We can make our work more interesting, we can work together with other colleagues in other departments.

I dont know everything. In fact, you all together know far more than I do.

What do you think?

Listen to the responses…..

OK, lets start with a small group and see how it goes. Lets do this together.”

Notice the use of we to focus on the whole department, and I when the manager refers to themselves changing. Dont use a script, and when there are comments or questions, engage with people honestly. Dont tell, answer with enquiries. One important change I often see, and that is very powerful, is when a manager says “I don’t know”, whey they are unsure. And they often complete the sentence with “we need to find out”.

Step 2

Do something different and exhibit new behaviours. For example:

• Arrange a team session one day a week, where you ask people about how the past week has gone, What went well, and what did not go so well. Invite someone from another team to join if that is appropriate. Perhaps this is not a departmental team meeting, but a meeting of people from different departments that are working with the same service.
• Write up things to do differently and assign actions before the next meeting that have been brought up in the meeting. Make it visual, and create a team board on the wall. You as the manager will follow up these actions and connect to those people and their actions, and help them out to do them.
• You might start with a small group what you know is more inclined to work this way.

A good place to start to set up a self-managed team. This is not just about doing something, but there needs to be mechanisms where the new ways of working can be enabled. Bringing people who need to work together around a common set of data, and be able to discuss work is a necessity.

The first place to start, when working with a group from different departments of the service, is to help them to start to change their culture of how they work with each other. To achieve this one of your tasks is to create a safe space where people begin to be free to achieve step 2. This is critical to setting up and new culture. I find that this takes time, and I have to ensure that people, when they are behaving in the old ways of hierarchy and dominance, are then asked to listen what others have to say.

As the manager, you have to learn how to listen, without simply responding with the answer, or your thoughts.

Creating a safe space is not some touchy-feely good deed. Traditional machine based organisations are based on staff complying with instructions, rules, behaviours, the culture. If we look at this, we relaise that compliance is based on fear — the fear of not complying, and neing seen as failing in the job. So a safe space is simply the removal of those things that create fear. You as the manager being in the room might simply be creating fear. If so, leave the room for a bit while they discuss a certain topic. Come back and perhaps ask for the summary of what was agreed. You are not there to agree or not. Or perhaps you will ask someone else to lead the meeting, someone from the team who is good at doing that.

This allows staff to behave from a position of authenticity. It does not mean that everyone has to have a view, or that everything is democratic. I find myself having to ensure that the team moves in a direction of a safe space quite quickly, and I have one-ones with people if I find they are uncomfortable. I reassure them and the whole team what we are trying to do — this is not some hidden tactic.

What do I do to make the team and individuals develop? In short the answer is to allow them to design something new. Perhaps a new part of a process. Perhaps reducing errors between one department and the other. Start somewhere not too difficult, where they can begin to learn new ways.

A real case study

Example of the old system:

Each department was responsible for one part of a service. Sales, were at the start, and they would ‘throw over’ their agreed contract with the customer, to the design department. It was wrong, full of errors and sold at far too low a margin.

The same situation in the new system:

The same person had a designer from the design department allocated to them. Whenever there was some discussions with the customer, the sales rep would talk to the designer. At least once, the sales rep would bring the designer along to a customer meeting.

The outcome was that the final sales contract, that was still led by the sales rep, was adjusted and contained elements that the designer needed. This created a work environment, where front line workers began to see how their actions contributed to the customer.

The managers role shifted to ensure that these discussions took place, trying not to interfere in the detail.

• Functional barriers within the organisation broke down.
• Participation happens between departments and people — teams formed without the need of anyone to create them.
• Many decisions began to be made at a low level, with more difficult decisions being escalated.
• Employee motivation and work life becomes positive at an individual level for most people.
• Most can contribute directly and positively to future strategic development and change.
• The work flow is adjusted in such a way as to minimise the cost of doing the work to the organisation.

What changes?

Recognise that this is not a trivial shift. A self-managed team environment does not just happen, it needs to be created. Then, when it is created, it needs to be nurtured. There will be many challenges, especially when there will be some who don’t want to participate, or who cannot work in such a system. It's the manager as a leader that must be the creator.

For both the manager and the staff, this may be new. Possibly attempting to work in a way that they have never done before. So, it may be difficult to find ways forward. It will be awkward. Some may benefit from specific coaching or guidance. My experience is that it is difficult to achieve without that guidance from someone close by. And it may need someone to facilitate this new way of working.

It will occur step by step, not all at once. In Toyota, it took months in certain departments, with people even not aligning well after more than a year.

What are the characteristics of such a team?

• That the team can work well together with regards to interpersonal relationships and communication.
• They can resolve most conflicts amongst themselves.
• That they as individuals can focus on creating a work environment that promotes their ability to achieve, autonomy and mastery.
• The team is driven by a purpose that is tied to the purpose of the service as derived by the customer. And that the team are able to clearly express how they are achieving that purpose.
• The team are aware of their performance and can adjust their activities to suit.
• The team are able to sense when something about them needs to change, and take steps to make that happen.
• They can demonstrate that they are learning and improving.
• They can demonstrate how they work together and how they make all the above happen.
• They have worked out how to use the competencies and abilities of each to them, to the best.
• They work well with others outside of the team, to ensure a seamless workflow that encompasses the end to end workflow.

I usually come up with a set of principles, that we all agree to use;

1. Focus on the real needs of the customer and do whatever you need to to ensure that is achieved.
2. If you need help, ask.
3. If someone asks for help, then help them.
4. We use decision-making frameworks that we develop together, to guide us.
5. To have a focused and effective organisation, we need clear lines of control with everyone doing their work in sync with everyone else.

If anyone thinks that new ways of working are about letting people do what they want, the fifth principle is as valid as it always was. It is still about having a coherent way of working that everyone can follow, but it is how this happens that is different.

In some parts of the public sector, these are a set of principles that I tend to use:

- Understand what matters for each person, this decides what actions we take together.

- We make decisions based on knowledge and evidence, not opinion or standards.

- Only do what is needed to create value, enabling the person to gain control.

• Take ownership through the end to end journey with the person.
• Work as a team, without department barriers.
• We are here to learn, and improve.
• Rule 1 — do not break the law.
• Rule 2 — do not make their situation worse.

Decision-making

Authority needs to be pushed down the hierarchy, to the place that is best to make those decisions. Then the rest of the organisation should be there to support that place.

So here we will shift the managers roles from being a decision-maker, to

Ensuring that the right decision is made.

There is no clear-cut agreement as to what to name the change in role, but one word that is used is decision-taker. Move from decision-maker to decisions-taker.

The role of those managers in the hierarchy, then becomes one of being responsible for the right decision to be made.

The role of those deemed to be closest to the work are now a decision-taker, to follow a path to come up with the right decision. This is not about consensus, it is about focused knowledge and systemic understanding. The decision-taker has to go to the right people to get further knowledge, and then decide how and when to decide.

The role of the decision-taker is about identifying issues, taking ownership to raise the issues and perhaps pass it onto the best placed person to deal with it. They discover the people that need to be involved.

Can you imagine what happens when everyone in your organisation can become a decision-taker? When they can do this when they see something that is at odds with what should be happening. When they pick up new knowledge about a competitor. When they have a new idea about how to deal with something? The potential is huge.

‘Someone within the organisation sees a problem, an idea or a chance, and takes the initiative to be a decision-taker. If this person thinks they are not right for the job, they can ask someone else to take over the role.

The decision-taker makes a proposal for the decision, with or without input from colleagues.

The decision-taker gets advice from people directly involved with the decision, and/or experts in the subject under decision.

The decision-taker ponders on this advice, and then makes a decision. The advice can be taken on board, or ignored. The decision-taker has the final say.

The decision-taker takes action, and informs all those involved about the advice they received, and the decision eventually taken.’ Corporate Rebels

— — — —

If you are interested to learn more about this, and other similar ways of working, this workshop may be of interest https://www.improconsult.co.uk/service-design-workshop-systemic.html