case study 1

HUMAN SIDE OF SIX SIGMA

By Deborah Hopen, Deborah Hopen Associates Inc., and James J. Rooney, ABS Consulting

Consider a team that has been assigned a lean Six Sigma (LSS) project involving the follow- ing circumstances: • The process associated with

the project has been in place for many years, and the process ow ners and operators are comfortable with it.

• C u s t o m e r s a n d o t h e r stakeholders regularly provide feedback related to issues with and opportunities to improve the process, but the frequency and number of comments and complaints isn’t excessive.

• Two events led to the formation of the team. One involved a serious episode of process failure and poor performance. The other was associated with the annual customer loyalty survey results, which indicated that some competitors were doing a better job and providing greater value.

• A lt hough t he root c au se of t he poor per for ma nce

was identif ied and resolved rapidly, t he organizat ion’s leaders realized t hat t hey were neglecting the long-term feedback from customers and now faced stiffer competition. So, an LSS team was launched to improve the process by a dd re s si ng not on ly t he historical issues, but also the new competitive pressures.

Signs you’re working with an unsettled team

The team has a specific task and clear focus, but it is unsettled. An unsettled team also might be called dysfunctional in the more popular vernacular. Here are a few exam- ples of issues and behaviors being observed by certain team members: • Although the team has a spe-

cif ic charter that has been prepared by the project cham- pion, and the team accepted it when the define phase of the define, measure, analyze, improve and control (DMAIC) process began, team members frequently ask questions that reflect their poor understand- ing of or commitment to the documented charter.

This leaves the impression that they do not support the team’s mission or they never grasped their assignment. Sometimes, this behavior involves lengthy debates about the work the team should be doing. Other times, when the team leader suggests that the project champion con- sider revising the charter, these team members quickly indicate

that it’s not necessary. • When data are collected and

analyzed, unfavorable results are dismissed or challenged. The challenges often are dis- guised as requests for more compelling proofs. Nitpicking about sample sizes, analytical approaches and unlikely events that might affect the results, for example, may be used as a subtle way of blocking progress.

• Reaching consensus is a tumul- tuous process. Frequently, it seems like team members are entrenched and unwilling to consider other possibilities. Eventually, after a lengthy dis- cussion, the team adopts a com- promised position that doesn’t truly ref lect the best combi- nation of input. Instead, the team finds a suboptimal middle ground.

• There is greater focus on assign- ing blame than considering the possible root causes that gen- erated the results. The overall pattern is defensive rather than investigatory.

Although these behaviors usu- ally are unintentional, there are situations in which they are used intentionally to sabotage the team’s success. Psychologists call such behaviors passive-aggressive, which is described as “a deliber- ate and masked way of expressing covert feelings of anger. It involves a range of behaviors designed to get back at another person without him recognizing the underlying anger.”1,2

continued on p. 39

Is Your Team Playing ‘Whack-a-Mole’?

S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E I N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 7 I 37

38 I N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 7 I W W W . A S Q . O R G

HUMAN SIDE OF SIX SIGMA

CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING Consensus decision making is performed in a group discus-

sion in which everyone’s opinion is given equal consider-

ation. The final decision reached is one that all members

can support fully. Consensus decision making is used when

the quality of the decision and the commitment to action

are important.

Consensus is appealing because of its often-positive

effect on team morale, commitment and follow through.

Contrary to popular opinion, consensus does not mean

unanimity. Not everyone has to agree or be perfectly satis-

fied with the outcome. Consensus is a process, a way of

operation and a philosophy.

Consensus is achieved when every member can say, “I

have had an opportunity to express my views

fully, and they have been thoughtfully consid-

ered by the group. Even though this solution

is not the one I believe is optimal, I do believe

it will work and I support it. I endorse the

validity of the process we have undertaken.”

There are four key reasons for seeking

consensus:

1. It fosters commitment to the ultimate deci-

sion by all team members.

2. A win-win attitude replaces the win-lose mentality of the

voting method.

3. It raises the quality of decision making by reducing error

and contributing to synergy.

4. It increases the team’s awareness of self-intervention by

helping it take responsibility for ongoing changes.

Here are eight suggestions for achieving consensus:

1. Each member should present his or her ideas and the

reasons for those ideas.

2. Differences of opinions, ideas and solutions should be

discussed openly and conflict not smoothed over.

3. Active participation is important. Each member should

accept the responsibility to listen and speak.

4. A member should be willing to modify his or her opinions

based on the discussion and information shared.

5. The final decisions should be based on a thorough ex-

amination of all the information and ideas presented, and

should be understood by all members.

6. The leadership role should be shared by all members.

7. All members should agree on the level of quality sought

or required.

8. Members should understand the decision and be able to

paraphrase it if asked.

The following steps can be used to set the stage for

consensus:

• Create two flipcharts for capturing team members’ input.

Label one “must be included” and the other “must be

excluded.”

• Ask each team member to share up to three elements

that must be incorporated in the decision. Team mem-

bers must understand that the list should represent

absolute requirements, not wishes. Make sure every

team member shares his or her ideas. Record them on

the flip chart.

• Repeat the process to determine the elements that

should be excluded.

• Review the lists quickly to eliminate duplicates and

combine elements that are essentially the same. This

can be done most easily by having the people who

originally offered the idea finalize its description on the

lists. Do not engage in group evaluation or debate, and

avoid excessive wordsmithing. The key is to capture the

combined idea quickly so it can be incorporated into the

final solution.

• Draft a proposed solution in list format. It should have

two sections—one for what will be included in the

decision, and another for what will be excluded. This

draft will not be elegant, but it will offer a great starting

place.

• Revise the decision description by cleaning up the lan-

guage so the elements are easier to read and under-

stand. Do not evaluate or debate their merit; just reword

them and accept that they are important to at least one

team member.

• After the revised decision is completed, check for op-

posing elements. These are the only ones that should be

addressed in group discussion. Resolve them and call for

a consensus.

Consensus seeking is harder work than formalistic

modes of decision making, but the investment in energy

expended to make the team function effectively can have a

dramatic payoff.

—D.H. and J.J.R.

Consensus is aChieved when every member Can say, “i have had an opportunity to express my views fully, and they have been thoughtfully Considered by the group.”

Whack-a-mole syndrome

You’re probably familiar with the classic arcade game “Whack-a- Mole,” in which players use a mallet to hit toy moles before they disap- pear back into their holes. As soon as one mole disappears, another one pops up.

When an LSS team is unsettled, the leader or facilitator may be faced with a situation that feels like playing “Whack-a-Mole.” As soon as problem is eliminated, another pops up and the problem-solving cycle begins again. This issue may occur occasionally in any team, especially when high-risk decisions are being made. But unsettled teams experience these setbacks repeatedly.

Obviously, frequent occurrences of “Whack-a-Mole” syndrome not only delay the team’s progress through the DMAIC phases, but they also can generate frustration and ill will among team members. These counter-productive effects reduce the efficacy of the LSS method because decisions are not based on consensus and do not represent the team members’ best efforts and ideas.

Different breeds of moles

Dysfunctional behaviors and actions vary widely; you might say there are many breeds of moles that must be whacked. The follow- ing three3 are observed in unsettled teams, and the suggestions of how to address them may apply to your specific situation. 1. Lack of commitment. If all team

members aren’t equally dedi- cated to the project, they may have trouble staying focused and reaching decisions. Use a deci- sion-making process in which

decisions are evaluated against the team’s mission. Discussion should involve how closely the options align with the charter elements. Make it clear that deci- sions that align with the mission are accepted quickly and every team member will support them enthusiastically.

In other words, instead of constantly picking apart what the mission means or how it should be revised, use it as a framework for analysis. This approach assumes the team will have ample opportunity to become comfortable with the charter when the team is launched, and any debate on it later in the project will be deemed inappropriate under normal circumstances.

2. Fea r of con f l ic t . Cha nge can occur only when the sta- tus quo is abandoned, which almost always creates conf lict and disharmony. Believe it or not, conflict is healthy at these times, and orderly debate can be a good way of reaching consensus. The key is to avoid unruly debate. The sidebar, “Consensus Decision Making,” describes a structured process for gathering divergent input in an orderly way and using it to reach consensus.

3. Avoidance of accountability. There are many reasons team members may want to avoid tak- ing responsibility for changes or being held accountable. These issues should be addressed dur- ing the launch. Specific project goals and acceptable behaviors must be established, and every team member must agree to perform project tasks in a way that demonstrates clear com- mitment to those goals and behaviors.

If a team member is too

uncomfortable with the chang- es that potentially may be required, he or she should ask to be removed from the team. This candid approach should be encouraged, not viewed as a failing. Not every team member is a good fit for every project, and it’s much better to address that at the beginning of the project so it doesn’t undermine the improvement process.

Change the rules

Almost every LSS project team will experience an occasional bump along the way, but teams that are unsettled must confront their dysfunctional behaviors and actions quickly and constructively. If you feel like your team is playing “Whack-a-Mole,” you may need to implement new rules of play that support reasonable discussion and debate without tolerating passive- aggressive behaviors.

REFERENCES

1. Signe Whitson, “10 Things Passive-Aggressive People Say,” Psychology Today, Nov. 23, 2010, https://tinyurl.com/grru9gw.

2. Jody E. Long, Nicholas J. Long and Signe Whitson, The Angry Smile: The Psychology of Passive-Aggressive Behavior in Families, Schools, and Workplaces, second edition, Pro-Ed, 2008.

3. “Team Dysfunction: Why it Happens and How to Fix it,” Business Management Daily, Feb. 29, 2012, https://tinyurl.com/y9vrrxls.

DEBORAH HOPEN is the owner of Deborah Hopen Associates Inc. in Tacoma, WA. She has a bachelor’s degree in applied science, pulp and paper technology from Miami University in Oxford, OH. As a past president and chair of ASQ, Hopen is an ASQ fellow and the editor of the Journal for Quality and Participation. JAMES J. ROONEY is director of train- ing services at ABS Consulting Group in Knoxville, TN. He has an MBA from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. Rooney is a past ASQ chair and holds sev- eral ASQ certifications.

HUMAN SIDE OF SIX SIGMA

S I X S I G M A F O R U M M A G A Z I N E I N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 7 I 39

continued from p. 37