Loop Beratung

"Knowledge workers have to manage themselves," Peter Drucker wrote in the management logbook back in the last millennium. "They have to have autonomy. " (Drucker 1999, p. 123). As I showed in the first part of this series of articles, this autonomy stands and falls with the framework conditions that are set for it. What is the work management focused on? What specifications are there for it? How does information flow? What do the feedback loops look like to ensure coordination across system boundaries? And how can all those involved recognize that something is actually improving? The fact that the potential for improvement is all the higher, the more Kanban and self-organization are used throughout the company, leads us straight to the notorious "why? question. It is the focus of Part 2: Why should companies use visual work management systems? And what motivates them to embark on the adventure of self-organization? The third and last part is about the "How? How can we support self-organized work with the help of Kanban? How can visual work management systems be used in such a way that autonomy grows? That there is a conscious focus on creative freedom? And the framework ensure that you still don't forget the necessary alignment? In short:

How do we promote self-organized work with Kanban?

Autonomy does not come about through pure expression of will. Rather, certain conditions must be actively created. Not for nothing is it called "Manage the work; and let people self-organize around it". This sounds like laissez faire, but it means the opposite - namely, consciously letting oneself in, allowing oneself to be left out.

The company must embrace a different understanding of leadership. Self-organized companies show that the commitment of the top management or the owners is trend-setting for this. As the highest guardians of the company system, they ultimately decide how much room self-organization has - and of course whether Kanban is used company-wide.
All those who currently hold hierarchical positions must allow self-organized work and at the same time, if they remain line managers, change their own understanding of their role (apropos "working on the system").
Evolutionary change in the management system is no small feat. It requires courage, discipline and staying power. In addition to learning new skills, there is also a second aspect of change. It is about letting go, about actively unlearning old work and management patterns. Self-organisation also needs to be learned. But that does not happen overnight. Bad habits, as Mark Twain already knew, cannot simply be thrown out of the window; they have to be coaxed down the stairs step by step. And what approach could support us better in this step by step than evolutionary change management with Kanban?

This outlines three essential factors if we want to promote self-organised work. I think that all three factors deserve a little more explanation. So let's get right to it.

To really engage in self-organization, lip service is not enough. The opposite of superficial rhetoric is required, namely a thorough examination of one's own basic assumptions: How do we think organizations will need to be designed in the future to best meet the needs of customers and the demands of employees? What elements will be important? What values seem to guide our actions? And what does this mean for our work and organizational practice?

Somewhat pathetically, one could say that it is about nothing less than a new creed, whose 10 commandments could read something like this:

We believe that everyone in our organization is trying to do the best for the customers and the organization.
We assume that highly qualified professionals understand best how their own work works.
All employees have the freedom to design and manage not only their own work, but also the entire work process within a certain framework.
We extend the decision-making powers of all employees so that they can exercise this freedom - and we are sure that, given the appropriate practice, everyone will exercise this freedom for the good of the company.
We rely on a dense network of feedback loops so that we can continuously give feedback to our customers, receive feedback from them and support each other as much as possible.
All receive regular updates on how their respective work impacts the bigger picture.
We trust that all employees act as active sensors who, to a certain extent, put out their feelers to the outside world in order to perceive relevant changes as early as possible and actively communicate them to the organization.
We do everything we can to keep our organization moving in such a way that we can react as quickly as possible to such developments and use them to our advantage.
We are convinced that self-organisation improves work satisfaction and has a positive effect not only on the internal working atmosphere but also on customers.
We do everything we can to ensure that we learn from our experiences as quickly as possible and continue to improve in all areas.

The second prerequisite for autonomous work is that the hierarchy allows self-organization. Passively allowing this is not enough. As the basic cell of self-organisation already indicates, there are at least two stakes: firstly, the shaping of the framework conditions, without which neither autonomy nor alignment can be had; and secondly, the reshaping of the management role.

It would be downright negligent not to emphasize the enormous importance of such a redesign in the context of this article. After all, the principle discussed here is "Manage the work; and let people self-organise around it. "And how could that possibly work without line management?

The question remains, what does it take? What exactly should management do now? Self-organized companies also provide exciting answers to this question. Line managers in such companies concentrate on what John Seddon calls working on the system. Whether it's pioneers like Gore, Semco and dm, trendsetters like Spotify, Buurtzorg and sipgate or newcomers like TELE Haase, allsafe JUNGFALK and Stämpfli -- management always means doing everything possible to promote self-organized work. Of course, this is essentially a matter of the interplay between strategic orientation and those structural and procedural guard rails that guide the way to the desired goal. In the sense of an agile organizational design, however, it is not about managing the existing according to the iron principle of business administration. Instead, it is about creatively designing a management system that is capable of responding quickly to relevant changes, new customer needs and innovative ideas. If we want to promote business agility, we must no longer see the design of an organization as something set in stone. To me, the term mobile seems more appropriate, capable of resonating with external impulses, absorbing them in a targeted manner and processing them efficiently. Or the concept of choreography, which constantly rearranges the individual elements.

The keyword change brings us to the third lever with which self-organized work can be promoted: The principle of evolutionary improvement. For Team Kanban, Klaus Leopold and I have described this principle and its effects on the implementation process detail. In the following I would like to venture a short update in the matter of Enterprise Kanban. It is, so to speak, the latest state of the misconception that guides not only Klaus' and my consulting practice, but also our joint training course to become a certified Enterprise Kanban Coach. First, I outline the key steps by which Kanban enters the enterprise, and second, I describe the role that self-organization plays in the process. First, an overview of the steps that have proven themselves in practice:

Carry out initial clarification
Understand problems and outline solution
set the course
Extend change
Design Enterprise Kanban System(s)
Putting Enterprise Kanban System(s) into Operation
Operate and continuously improve kanban system(s)

Carry out initial clarification

The starting signal for the introduction of Enterprise Kanban is a painful act. This sounds like masochism, but it means the honest identification of business problems that require improvement. Too long time-to-market, poor service quality, lack of alignment between agile teams or the disconnect between strategy and operations are classics in this regard. Whatever is seen as problematic: If it's not clear why we need to change in the first place, sustainable change is going to be damn hard. A powerful sense of urgency, as John Kotter once called the starting point of modern change management, is still the first act of any serious improvement initiative.

We make such an initiative much easier for ourselves if we define the need for improvement from the outside in and take into account the perspectives of our key stakeholders from the outset: our customers, external stakeholders such as investors shareholders or business partners and, of course, all members of the system to be improved as well as their internal organizational stakeholders (other teams, experts, supervisors, etc.). Why do we need to change? What are the most important problems? What are they caused by? Where do we need to leverage to get to a directional solution? And how can Kanban help us to do this?

In answering these questions, a profound understanding of self-organization helps enormously. It encourages one to critically examine one's own view of the world, to gain further information and not to confuse the guiding coalition that follows the sense of urgency with hierarchical issuing of orders. A viable coalition can only come into being when all those concerned have been sufficiently informed, a solid basic understanding has been achieved and a decision has been made as to who is to be involved in what and in what form.

In the tradition of Lean Change, I recommend that at the end of the initial clarification, you do not immediately launch a large transformation project, but rather start with an initial improvement hypothesis. For example, with the hypothesis that lead times throughout product development can be drastically reduced with the help of a WIP-limited coordination system, or with the hypothesis that the overview of strategic initiatives can be strengthened by visualizing cross-departmental collaboration. Building on such hypotheses, the next step can be defined as a dedicated change experiment, which is not least about validating the initial hypothesis. For example, in the form of a workshop in which the current situation can be examined from different perspectives and a concrete perspective for improvement can be outlined in a few hours.

Understand problems and outline solution

This workshop, which is deliberately designed as a large group event in Enterprise Kanban, has at least four goals:

To enable open exchange between different stakeholders, thus bridging the differences between existing subsystems, silo boundaries and hierarchies in an exemplary way;
To conduct as prudent an inventory as possible, broadening the existing view of the problem and deepening the understanding of its causes;
To provide a profound information about possible solution steps by elaborating the what, why and how of Enterprise Kanban;
Risking a joint feedback loop in which all participants are asked for their personal assessment at the end of the workshop. Where can Kanban help us to solve the problems we have identified? What encourages us? What critical points do we still see?

With these goals in mind, the traditional title of this workshop certainly says it all: "Kanban for Decision Makers" means that with this first improvement experiment we want to promote both intellectual understanding (aka decision-making fundamentals) and emotional readiness (aka decision-making courage).

Self-organisation is also the foundation for this:

We create a clear framework in terms of goals, core activities, structure and time.
We invite a diverse mix of people to discuss the current situation in a varied way.
We focus on necessary system improvements.
We provide different networking to encourage open discussions.
We risk that bit of chaos that comes with self-organization and is potentially amplified by the momentum of large groups.

set the course

"Kanban for decision makers" does not mean that we ignore the existing decision culture (à la "the majority wins"), nor that we want to make all relevant decisions in a single workshop (à la "putting all our eggs in one basket"). That would simply overburden everyone involved. In contrast, we rely on prudent evaluation: What are the key findings from the workshop? How does this fit in with our original improvement hypothesis? And what conclusions do we draw from this for our further course of action?

So, this is the phase where the directional course is set. It is about:

Focus: What exactly do we want to improve company-wide?
Concept: Where do we want to use Enterprise Kanban for this? Which systems do we need for this?
Sponsors: Who has strategic patronage of this initiative?
Change agents: Who should take operational responsibility for change management?
Stakeholders: Who is affected by everything? Who do we want to involve in what? Who can we neglect with impunity?

What it is definitely not about are big transformation plans and elaborate change ceremonies. Enterprise Kanban thrives on a lean approach to change and the agile step-by-step procedure. Only this way it is possible to learn from the respective progress or even regression. In short: the initiative follows a short-winded inspect and adapt and not a big design upfront.

ABB? Caution high voltage?

Extend change

Depending on the improvement focus, the initial situation and the corporate culture, this phase proceeds quite differently. Only one thing can be said: it involves a lot of legwork. After all, Enterprise Kanban and self-organization both involve intensive networking. Who needs to be talked to in more detail? What questions and concerns still need to be addressed? Who needs more information? What personnel decisions need to be made, for example regarding the delegates who will then design the concrete systems? What training measures are needed? Which transfer measures should already be started now?

Here, too, the following applies: Together is better than alone! The broader the targeted range of improvement (aka fluke level, see above), the more important it is to have appropriate diversity at the change management level. In other words: if we want to design cross-team and cross-functional Kanban systems and ensure their efficient interlocking, the change agents should also come from different areas. Different backgrounds, diverse views and the ability to make the best out of these differences enliven a company-wide improvement culture.

Design kanban system(s)

Depending on the objectives, one or more systems can be designed in this phase. The basic self-organizing principle is and remains: those who are active on the respective flight level jointly design their visual work management system.

Even if not all employees are involved in the design, but delegates from the different areas, it is about consistent self-management. The experts who know their own work best also determine the most efficient way to manage this work. Once again, this requires an appropriate framework, targeted training and professional support for the specific design process.

Putting the kanban system(s) into operation

Especially when delegates are used, we are by no means finished with the system design as Master Trappatoni would say. On the one hand, it is important to adequately involve those who were not involved in the initial design, but who are also to manage their work with the help of Kanban in the future. Secondly, all relevant stakeholders must be sufficiently informed about the system - especially those who are responsible for regular replenishment or prioritization of work. This involves a variety of aspects, such as:

checking the visualisation, for example: are all essential works recorded?
explaining the operating rules: how do we want to work with the board initially?
answering open questions: what do we still need to clarify in order to get started together?
gathering feedback: what ideas for improvement are there already?

Operate and continuously improve kanban system(s)

In everyday work, the principle of "Manage the work; and let people self-organise around it" is primarily reflected in operational self-control. Those who work with the respective kanban system are also responsible for the quality and flow of their work. They ensure the best possible overview, continuously optimize the flow of work, conduct focused meetings and use measurements to help them learn. Feedback in the sense of continuous improvement is always welcome - even from management. However, classic micro-management and its derivatives such as status reports or individual control are no-goes if kaizen is to become the guiding culture.

Conclusion

Kanban brings much more with it than colorful pieces of paper on the wall. Provided it is used professionally, the approach gives us a better overview, allows us to gain better insight into complex processes and thus facilitates our own as well as collaborative work. Enterprise Kanban goes even further. It helps us to agilize not only individual teams, but the entire organization. The strategic agility we strive for, however, requires new forms of networking and coordination just as much as the operational agility we use to ensure the efficient implementation of our strategies. We start with the systemic interrelationships, optimize work flows across the boundaries of the current organizational structure, reduce dependencies and bottlenecks, and thus demonstrably create more value for the customer. At the same time, we can create a work environment that thrives on self-determination and is significantly more attractive than traditional external control. The great promise of Enterprise Kanban lies in making our company fit enough to meet the current requirements -- both those of the customers and those of the workforce,

As I have tried to show, this promise cannot be fulfilled without self-organization. However, such a corporate culture cannot be had overnight. The techniques of Enterprise Kanban are quickly applied. Using them in such a way that ultimately the personal agility of all participants grows is much more demanding. In conclusion, we would like to remind you of some of the prerequisites for this:

the courage and discipline to engage in a new form of corporate management as a top manager
a profound, to a certain extent unshakeable basic trust in the commitment and responsibility of all employees
respect for the professional knowledge and skills of the experts
the willingness to grant them operational autonomy and to provide them with appropriate decision-making powers
a different understanding of leadership as a property of the system and not as a privilege of individual people
the consequence of defining line management as a service that focuses primarily on shaping framework conditions
the knowledge that appreciation and value creation are Siamese twins

Kanban Self-Organization - Part 3