Collaborative
Decision Making
According to Allen et al., conflict
is not a hindrance to collaborative learning, rather as a means through which
learning occurs and is essential for creativity and problem solving (Allen et al.,
1998). There has not been a more accurate
representation of this statement for me personally than when teams from different
areas of the organization came together for a resolution that impacted multiple
stakeholders.
A specific situation when I was
faced with making a decision that involved multiple stakeholders was at Target.
When I entered my role, I was handed off
a store with many opportunities for process improvements that directly affected
our top and bottom lines. One such
opportunity was our in-stocks. This was a problem because more often than not,
the store showed product available on our shelf in the system but physically
there was nothing there; customers would go to the store looking for something they
expected to buy that showed available but was out of stock. This was affecting sales and customer
satisfaction as well as the results of the metrics we were measured on for
store performance.
The store had to change a lot of our
processes and routines because the inventory management system was inaccurate.
Essentially, the information we were reporting to the distribution center was
consistently inaccurate; the data systematically did not match up to physical
counts on the shelves and in the back room, which was important because we
didn’t have a back room to store a lot of reserve material. As a result, we
were getting too much of some items and not enough of others, which was driving
down sales and in-stock levels. While
this became increasingly frustrating, it was about to get even more frustrating
when headquarters batched our performance metrics together with the
distribution centers. For the first time,
stores and the distribution center started sharing key performance indicators
because Target started tying the store metrics to the distribution center’s metrics,
so we had to partner with them. In the
past, we were measured on individual performance. For example, we were rated on in-stocks,
sales, and budget, and the distribution centers were rated on trailer fill,
productivity, and quality as it pertained to on-time delivery. The big problem was, headquarters did not
provide new key performance indicators (KPI’s) and tasked us to develop our
own.
The process for fixing the issues
was to get together and establish goals for hitting our targets, then we had to
root cause and develop quality improvements for in-stocks. Intuitively, I knew that system issues at the
store level had to be corrected for a good overall performance measure. I called a meeting with my logistics ETL, ETL’s
from other stores, the distribution center, and the quality team to discuss the
overarching goals and find a way to meet them.
During this time, we could all
feel the frustrations of this new directive and moving toward an agreement in
principle meant dealing with group dynamics and difficult people. According to Levine, people need to get comfortable
working with each other in a new way.
People have different levels of awareness, intra-personal, and interpersonal
skills in a group dynamic, even though we had similar intentions and outcomes
(Levine, 2009). It became apparent during
much negativism and complaining, that focusing on the desired outcome and big
picture while allowing everyone to talk and voice their concerns was the key to
getting on the same page toward an agreement.
Additionally, there were several views on the right way to go about the
task. According to Levine, when you
multiply the number of people and conflicts, there becomes several right ways. Trusting your instincts and having positive
intentions will guide you toward a sense of the right way (Levine, 2009).
Ultimately, we developed 3 KPI’s based
on sales, in-stocks, and product quality. It took teamwork and partnering to determine
what was important and how to drive in-stocks better. Now we had an agreement in principle. Everyone was on the same page, and this was a
big step toward reaching an agreement.
Levine states that agreements define how activities are coordinated, how
people work together that express a joint vision, and a roadmap to
results. Like a dance, with the differing
idea of the steps of the dance, but the differences can create a greater
synergy (Levine, 2009). What we could not figure out on our own, by
collaborating with a larger group of stakeholders, we determined what we wanted
to measure and tasked these mechanisms to teams. Our agreement created the details, the bones
of the agreement, which, according to Levine, created trust and eliminates
conflict (Levine, 2009).
Over several weeks we measured how
the POS systems worked, how we did cycle counts, how up to date our systems
were, and how we unloaded the trailers and checked in materials. After it all shook out, analysis of the data resulted
in changes in our processes and routines.
At the store level, we had to change our habits. Store departments used the new agreement to
keep units on the same page.
Articulating a shared vision and creating clear conditions with
direction and guidance in implementing team objectives and the overall mission
(Levine, 2009). At the distribution center had to change when they were
getting product from suppliers and tighten down on the delivery windows so they
could flow product directly to the stores sooner. They also made changes to some of their
processes to better serve the stores, like sending product to stores more real-time
instead of putting it into reserve and waiting for us to request it. Suppliers were given a more efficient delivery
window of 4 hours instead of 12, so the distribution center could better
facilitate flowing product directly to us. This allowed for a more accurate forecasting
and better metric performance.
When everything was said and done,
the stores received what we wanted, when we wanted it. This
significantly improved our stock-outs and our system more accurately reflected the
products in our store, and this quality improvement positively impacted our performance
measurements. I attribute this victory to the teams and collaborators that came
together to figure out a way to solve the issues. The issues would not have been found had the
stores and the distribution center not collaborated and worked together. This ultimately increased customer
satisfaction and sales. Levine talks about the power in joining
your vision with others. Clear
agreements with other stakeholders and teams can generate an exponential
expansion of power as teams work together pursuing common goals (Levine, 2009). Stakeholders from the customers, store team
members, suppliers, warehousing and distribution teams, quality teams on up to
HQ were all impacted by this collaborative effort that could not have been done
otherwise and we learned that it truly takes a village to achieve what one man
could never accomplish on his own.
In the future, this learning
experience can help me to make better decisions because it has opened my
perspective to what teams can accomplish with collaboration and teamwork
empowering team members toward a common goal. Team dynamics bring much more to the table as
differing perspectives are bounced around. The experience can improve my
decisions because it has taught me that trusting others and putting my faith in
them to do the necessary tasks to get the job done pays off. It’s about relinquishing control. Lastly, I
am a better decision maker because of this experience. I have learned about my
leadership abilities and being an effective leader in a dynamic, diverse
organization. That giving up was never
an option in my mind, and that my intuition as a guide to resolution is quite
reliable. I was more empowered
reflecting on this problem while reading Levine as he discussed leadership
saying that leaders don’t give up, don’t blame others, don’t make excuses, they
keep moving forward and course correct as they go (Levine, 2009). The experience opened my eyes and reinforced
that respecting differing values and perspectives brings value to situations. Understanding and honoring them influences a
compelling vision for the future.
References:
Levine, S.
(2009). Getting to resolution (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Allen, W., Brown,
K., Gloag, T., Morris, J., Simpson, K., Thomas, J. & Young, R. (1998).
Building partnerships for conservation in the Waitaki/Mackenzie basins.
Landcare Research Contract Report LC9899/033, Lincoln, New Zealand. Retrieved on July 11, 2019 from http://learningforsustainability.net/research/thesis/thesis_ch7.html
No comments:
Post a Comment