SHARED OWNERSHIP FOR CHANGE
Aimee Bernstein

Aimee Bernstein is thee President of Aimee Bernstein & Associates, Inc., an organization consulting ,firm based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. For more than twenty years she has been helping organizations transform through the development of their leaders, teams, culture, and strategic change processes. Aimee is also the Founding Director of Open Mind Adventures, which provides personal transformation journeys.

You've done your homework and now you're ready to roll. Perhaps your intent is to improve the quality of your product or service, lower your costs, restructure your organization, create a learning environment, or develop a wider base of loyal customers. You and your leadership team have worked hard creating a three- or five-year vision, which every- one tells you is inspiring. You've drafted a values statement, identified target goals, and selected methodologies for higher productivity. Possessing a clear direction, you start charging the hill, only to realize that not many of your workers are behind you. Furthermore, your union may be fighting you, causing you to spend a considerable amount of time and money in legal fees. Not one to give up easily, you press on in the hope that you will out-think or overpower the union and get your resistant work force to go the extra mile with you to create needed change. Meanwhile, back at the home front, your spouse is complaining of not spending enough time with you, and your kids are beginning to think of you as just their personal AIM machine. And you ask, "Isn't there an easier way?"

Most executives, no matter how smart or talented, eventually realize that they can't create a bridge to the future alone. Money and perks may help get people involved, but they don't necessarily buy people's passion, commitment, honest feedback, accountability, and innovative suggestions for improvement. In- stead, what is needed is a shared ownership mentality for change.

Creating a shared ownership mentality for change among a company's various stakeholders is one of the most powerful strategies an organization can initiate. It is the essential core of successful organization transformation, as it lays a foundation for culture change that supports individual and company goals. It is a strategy that is based on the development of partnerships between management, unions, employees, customers, suppliers, and external community.
In past models, companies took up to forty people through a training program designed to get them on board. However, if you have hundreds or thousands of employees that means it could take years to create buy-in by the entire work force. Unfortunately, at the end of the process you would have groups of people at different levels of understanding, experience, and ownership in the change process, which could easily become a Human Re- sources nightmare. But what if you could put your entire work force through a change process at the same time? Not only would this be more efficient and time saving, you would also have a critical mass of people to drive the initiative forward.
In October 1996, my associate Dinesh Chandra and I did just that for more than 650 people at a Southern manufacturing plant. The company's strategic intent included lowering production costs, particularly in terms of high overtime labor costs; improving the quality of the product they produced; and developing a self-directed team approach.

Our first step in late August was to develop the buy-in by the leadership team and the union to put a group of forty people through a two-day pilot experience to generate their ownership for change. These people were selected by the work force and represented a microcosm of the company. The general manager, assistant manager, and the regional union representative also at- tended. When this event was over, all forty participants were not only ready to assume ownership for the change; they were also convinced that the entire work force should experience a similar process.
As part of the microcosm's commitment, each participant joined one of five committees. We formed a steering committee to oversee the company's total transformational journey, a de- sign team to co-create a three-day event for the entire work force, a logistics team to handle all logistics for the event, a pulse team to monitor the morale of the organization throughout the change process, and a research team to investigate best practices and how they could break through to the next level of quality.

Now we were ready to roll-but how and with what model? Synthesizing the best parts of Kathy Dan miller's Real Time Strategic Change Model and Harrison Open's Open Space approach, we added performance art to create a high-intensity/high-participatory event. Recognizing that the "Bridge to the Future" (the company's name for the event) must incorporate left- and right- brain thinking, we created an "edutainment" approach. This approach inspired the participants to get involved in the planning process wholeheartedly, and generated the "out of the box" thinking necessary to move the company forward exponentially. This model also helped the participants to maintain their concentration and creativity.

When you're working with hundreds or thousands of people, the technology must be exact, because even a three-minute de- lay can generate chaos. Every aspect of our event was carefully co-designed with our microcosm teams. Our logistical design included parking, registration, audio-visual systems, contingency plans for potential problems, and the serving of catered meals for almost seven hundred people in no more than half an hour. Seating was reassigned to create tables of ten participants who also represented the microcosm of the company. Each table was equipped with flip charts and other necessary supplies to aid in the many small group break-outs on strategic change issues. Just- in-time instructions for these exercises were distributed by logistic team members and collected immediately following large group presentations for each exercise. This collection process allowed us to collate data quickly and feed back to participants the group's collective decisions.

We likened the three-day event to a symphony, with each movement or section expressing different qualities, energy levels, and rhythms. We envisioned the movements building on each other, helping us. guide the group's collective energy and mood, culminating in a final movement of celebration and commitment. We also realized that the performance art we designed needed to be in alignment with the culture of the people and the Southern environment in which they lived. As this company has strong spiritual values and the majority of the work forces are ardent church members, we decided to create a business event that had the flavor of a gospel or inspirational meeting.
Understanding that people need to voice and empty them- selves of dissatisfactions before they could open their minds and hearts to new possibilities, we designed the first day as a healing session. Bridge to the Future was kicked off by the general manager of the facility who welcomed participants and described the purpose of the event. Following his introduction, the union steward told participants that the union supported the process and were management's partner in change. A simple model of the change process was described and instructions for the healing session were provided. It was explained that the leadership team sitting on the stage would not respond to their concerns at this time; instead, they would merely listen and take notes.

For almost four hours, these 650 people expressed their anger and concerns. Although corporate officers of the parent company were worried that such venting would lead to chaos, it didn't. Throughout the session, the group held its focus, and al- though some were peeved at specific company policies, their feedback was always given in a respectful manner. Four main issues surfaced in this healing session. At the end of the session, participants prioritized these four issues and a decision was reached by consensus to create a microcosm committee. This committee would begin work immediately after the event to generate recommendations for solving the work force's highest concern the attendance policy.

When the group finally exhausted itself three and half hours later, I asked them what made them glad. Immediately people rose to thank the general manager for the changes they had already seen since he took over six months ago, and also to thank other leadership team members for the help they had pro- vided them in the past. Thus, what began as a venting session naturally moved to a session of appreciation. By the end of Day One, the majority of participants were cautiously optimistic, al- though others still were not yet ready to sign on.
Day Two began with an employee singing an inspirational song. After welcoming remarks and specific instructions for the day, long-time employees spoke about the history of the parent company and of their specific plant. Participants then had an opportunity to listen to a panel of their customers, consisting of the Corporate Vice President of Human Resources, the Corporate Director of Technical Support, and an external customer. The panel gave them both positive and negative feedback. Each table of ten participants discussed among themselves what they had heard and formulated one burning question they wanted to ask the panel. By the end of this segment, the entire work force had a more realistic and expanded picture of the issues that faced them in producing a less expensive quality product and a historical perspective of the strengths they shared as a company in dealing with change.

The rest of the day focused on building a shared strategic foundation for company improvements and growth. The en- tire work force chose five core values, which, unknown to them, were similar to the parent company's values. Participants then performed skits that demonstrated the workplace before and after each of these values were practiced. Ideas for a five-year company vision were generated by each person drawing a picture and writing the headline of a front page newspaper article that described their plant's enormous future success. Anyone who thinks workers lack vision and an understanding of the future would only have to view these drawings to change his or her mind. A mission statement, previously drawn up by the leader- ship team, was presented. Participants at their tables then discussed and wrote their recommendations for changes to this mission statement.

Throughout the day, short, quality-of-life, philosophical presentations were provided by the consultant team. These presentations not only served to highlight the paradigm shifts necessary for transformational success, they also helped shift the mood and retain the group's attention. One such presentation was on "out of the box" thinking. A large box was wheeled out, which bore labels such as "That's not my job." and "You're not my boss." I spoke of the importance of the conventional road- the tried and true-in getting them to their present success. Of- ten, I explained, the thinking that has brought you to where you are is the thinking that is limiting you from getting further ahead. To proceed to the next level of success, I told them that they must be willing to walk the unconventional path and to let go of "It's not my job " kind of thinking. I ended by saying that "every once in a while someone comes along who has the courage, wisdom, and vision to break out of the box." On cue, an employee broke out of the box. Unfortunately, she slipped and came crashing down. Divine intervention must have been at play, for at the exact moment I saw her slip, I added that "sometimes they stumble and fall, but always they stand up." As if rehearsed, the employee stood up. The crowd went wild and the message was heard.

A significant leap forward in developing partnerships that share an ownership mentality for change always occurs when organizational goals and individual goals are aligned. Thus we began Day Three by asking participants to write their personal mission statements, and to reflect on how these aligned with the company's mission. The learning in this exercise was that people did not have to divide themselves between their personal and professional lives; it was not a question of serving themselves or the company, but that both were possible. It also began to answer the question, "What's in it for me?" which must be answered if shared ownership is to be embraced. The leadership team then presented the company's mission statement, which had been revised the night before, based on participants' recom- mendations. This immediate feedback showed employees that management was serious about incorporating their input.

As this plant was gearing up to implement self-directed teams, an employee experienced in team methodology and well respected by the work force provided a overview of self-directed teams. This was followed by a video, which further described the essence and importance of a team approach. As expected, participants were now itching to know how this transformational journey and the implementation of self-directed teams would specifically affect their work lives. Clearly it was time to get down to the nitty gritty.

Target goals were generated by the entire group, and burning questions were asked of the leadership team. Although this company is privately held and thus does not share certain numbers, much information that had not been previously shared was provided. This information-helped participants see the company's financial picture in a more realistic light. Requests for more money were responded to by management's commitment to create a higher quality of life for everyone based on the company's ability to meet its goals. This open sharing of information was powerful as it helped participants see the necessity of being in it together and therefore further cemented the development of authentic partnerships with stakeholders.

We then focused our attention on action planning, which included kaizen, housekeeping, and inventory accuracy-the basics for self-directed teams. Specific action steps and monitoring procedures were identified. These provided clear direction to workers regarding what was expected of them when they went back to the production floor. We closed the event with a ceremony in which the entire work force voluntarily declared their commitment to change and to the new direction and culture of the company. An employee choir sang their hearts out, every- one was determined and up-lifted, and, as participants exited the warehouse, all of us sensed that the company was now positioned as a united force to move into the future.

Postscript: A Year Litter
Our contract with this manufacturing company included an agree- merit that my associate would provide one day of follow-up consultation every three months. Approximately two months after the Bridge to the Future, I spoke with the general manager. He provided an update on the plant and agreed to be interviewed by a local newspaper for an article about our large-group change process. Since that phone call, I have sporadically stayed in touch with the general manager, the manager of team development, and the corporation's internal consultant, who works with the parent company as well as this particular plant. Dinesh also shared with me his perspective of the company's progress. The following chronology is a compilation of these key players' feedback and perspectives.
December 1996

o The attendance team is off and running. Initially the union representative wants only union people to participate in this team, but after some negotiating, the general manager convinces him that a true microcosm of the company must participate.

o The other shoe drops. The parent company decides on $2.6 million of budget cuts. According to the parent company's statistics, the plant is 20 percent off the manufacturing forecast. Managers and team leaders are feeling the stress. However, instead of badgering workers, managers and team leaders take the opposite approach: Employees are greeted every morning and thanked for coming to work. The whole plant unites and jumps up to speed.

o Team leaders are brought together to decide on a new plant layout. These leaders gather input from their teams and then collectively decide on carving out ten geographical locations. As the plant's janitorial staff is trimmed because of corporate budget cuts, teams agree to take responsibility for housekeeping in their respective areas. Workers are feeling ownership and pride, and the work- place is cleaner than it ever was before. They decide to hold an Open House to celebrate.

o A raffle is held to raise money for United Way. The team that raises the most money wins the right to use their favorite sports team's name as their name. Each team then paints its team colors throughout their members' respective work locations. The raffle raises approximately $2,000 for United Way, the plant gets painted, and team spirit rises.

o The assistant general manager heads a committee of eight people to explore pay-for-skill or pay-for-performance options. Presently the company pays two to three dollars per hour more for skilled workers than other plants in their area. Union and management clash over approaches. In the spirit of partnership, the general manager decides to champion the union. They agree to try out a new pay- for-skills approach in two work areas. Management chooses one of these areas and union chooses the other.

o As the general manager reports in a newspaper interview, employees' complaints now are not whether somebody lived by the union contract but whether somebody violated the shared values of the plant. "They weren't honest" or "They didn't trust me" are the type of concerns workers now have. This indicates that people are taking these values seriously and that the organizational culture is changing.

o Because of productivity problems, the steering commit- tee drops the ball on designing the blueprint for change. Without this change architecture, the plant is likely to lose its vision and focus.
March 1997

o Major struggles have occurred. A change is made to one of the plant's products and they are now unable to pro- duce it. After considerable time, energy, money, and ag- gravation, the product gets pulled out of schedule and outsourced.

o Only a small number of effective self-directed teams are up and running. Most workers are still untrained in self- directed teams, and this lack of training is creating morale problems on the floor Some workers think that haying self-directed teams means that people shouldn't tell them what to do., others take advantage of the confusion and opt for low productivity.

o The company, which has a different cost accounting system than the parent company, discovers that high numbers in terms of their top seller are hiding losses on other products. 'Re accounting system gets overhauled.

o Ale company fails to achieve its new quality goal.

September 1997
The company is told by the parent organization that it must cut operating costs in half. Two hundred workers are let go, inventory is reduced, certain products are eliminated, and its two facilities are condensed into one.
o Front line supervisors go through Development Dimensions International and Dale Carnegie training in self-directed team development and interpersonal skills.

o Safety bin-o, a safety incentive program that is tied to housekeeping, is instituted. Every accident-free day, a number is drawn and a worker can win $20, $50, or $500. If the winning. employee is a member of the department that won the
good housekeeping award that month, winnings are doubled.

o Sales are now 30 percent higher than last year, yet there is no significant change in worker's productivity.
A math program, one of a number of skill trade opportunities, is held. Twenty-eight people elect to participate on their own time with no additional pay incentive. All participants graduate and 26 have perfect attendance. A new awareness is growing. People are realizing that their job can really be a career and that they can make a significant impact in their workplace.

The general manager, along with twelve others from his company, takes a "lean manufacturing" seminar at Toyota. They are so impressed with Toyota's productivity system that they spend two weeks on the Toyota floor chatting with workers. People from other factories owned by the parent company agree to accompany them on these visits.

December 1997
o The company finally hits its production numbers in November and a quality bonus is paid to workers.

o lie new organizational culture is beginning to take root. Workers can still quote the company's shared values and in union grievances, both workers and union representatives state the shared values as if they were part of the union contract.

. Teamwork is beginning to happen. Teamwork is defined by workers as a sharing of responsibility, and consequently, workers are beginning to help each other. There is continued success in problem-solving within the cross- functional teams. Islands of success are now more common throughout the plant.

Evaluating the Large-Group Event
Although the company did not have a financially good year, the general manager believes that the company is now positioned to turn things around in 1998. Overhead is down by a half, just-in- time inventory control is on line, the product line has been reduced to eliminate those products that were not money makers, a new accounting system is in place, morale is on the rise, team work has increased, and the new culture is steadily becoming part of the organization. Additionally, in this town, where education has had little value, people are now wanting to learn. As they learn, they are beginning to think about themselves differently and the contribution they can make to their company.
Although positive results from the large group event were slow in coming and challenges continue to face them, the general manager believes the event significantly helped in turning things around. Most importantly, it sent out the message that people were the company's most important core resource. "Public commitment to this philosophy," states the general manager, "kept us honest. Had we not gone through the Bridge to the Future, it would have been easy for us to back down, particularly when under pressure. If anyone is questioning whether they need to do a large group event, the answer is yes."

The general manager is committed to doing another large group event this year to celebrate the company's successes and to let his work force know that they have made the difference.

Key Learning's Although the event itself was highly successful and ultimately has produced ongoing results, it demonstrated two important points to remember in future events. First, the general manager, a very enthusiastic and action-oriented man, wanted to produce this event quickly, and against our better judgment, we agreed to go with his time table. This was a mistake we all now recognize.

The general manager of this plant had the autonomy to pro- duce this event, but without dialogue with the parent company, we did not recognize how differences in their systems and Philosophies would affect the plant. Nor did we fully understand the change process the parent company was going through. The parent company needed to standardize systems among its many plants, but the general manager of the plant we worked with did not agree with the parent company's systems and thus forged ahead with his own, perhaps more progressive, approaches. Had we coached the general manager in understanding the importance of remaining in alignment with the parent company or had we consulted with the parent company ourselves. We would have been better prepared for the changes that occurred. With more dialogues we may have been able to move the parent company along and prevent some of the problems that arose between them.

Second, as a result of insufficient planning time, a blue- print for change was not designed. Although we had incorporated a steering team in our original design that had the responsibility for creating this blueprint for change immediately after the event, they dropped the ball. At the time of our original agreement, the company did not want to pay for much follow-up consultation. Thus we agreed to one day of quarterly consultation. This proved to be inadequate. Had our follow-up been more frequent and consistent, we would have pushed for the design of a change plan, and it probably would have happened. It is important to incorporate ongoing follow-up as part of a contract with an organization as it is essential to producing continuous results.

Additionally, in my estimation, the biggest mistake the company made was in not going ahead directly after the event with self-directed team training as they had promised their employees. Although I recognize that production problems and the need to cut overhead became priorities, the lack of training created misunderstandings on the floor. These misunderstandings led to a decline in morale, conflicts among team members, and ultimately a decline in productivity. It was only because of management's continued demonstration of caring for their employees and their ongoing message of shared ownership that they were able to reunite their work force and raise morale. Although the company is now providing this training, they too recognize that postponement of training was a mistake.

Perhaps one of the most helpful aspects of this project was introducing management and employees to William Bridges' model of change. This model describes the downturn that usually occurs when organizations initiate change as well as the upswing process of cautious optimism and integration that occurs as the change begins to take hold. By acquainting the company with this model of change at the beginning of our engagement with them', they were more prepared for the chaos that erupted. They were also willing to hold true to their intent while under great pressure to do otherwise.

Although organizations' presenting problems may differ, central to every strategic issue is the question, "How do we unite our work force to share ownership and accountability for company change?" More and more companies understand that whether they start their team-based approach first with quality circles or begin with organization culture change, at some time they need to bring people together to create a shared ownership mentality and commitment for change. The successful process listens to people's concerns; answers the question, "What's in it for me?", includes them as equal partners in strategic planning, which makes it their plan; teaches new paradigms that support the strategic initiative; creates an environment that is conducive to learning., and, by bringing everyone together at once, is able to guide their collective energy toward a future that is better for everyone.
_____________
Aimee Bernstein can be reached at 1126 South Federal Highway, Suite 326, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316. Phone: 954-630-9004; fax: 954-561-1964; E-mail: aimeecoma@aol.com