Background:

DDC (name changed), a leading IT organization that developed Instructional Software was increasingly feeling the stress of rapid expansion. Within a short span of 3 years, the company’s billings had gone up 10 times and the manpower had increased by more than 4 times.

This growth had brought to the fore various problems within the organization. With an average age of staff as 23 years, there were no resources from the past.

The organization was facing pressures from all fronts. To name a few, the organization’s ability to keep its employees together was waning; there was a constant pressure from the customers to meet delivery deadlines.

One of its largest divisions – METG was facing the worst effect of all.

Few of the crisis symptoms at METG were:

• Frustration & discontent due to focus on tasks & deadline pressures
• Staff compelled to work overtime
• Inability to see the larger picture
• Resource Crunch
• Lack of communication & ‘information sharing’
• Poor time management
• Poor planning

An intervention was desperately required to rectify these myriad problems.

Conceptual Model:
The intervention was guided by the Learning Organization Model developed by Jack Gilles. According to this, work is accomplished through two cycles

1. Energy Consumption cycle - emphasizes on overall task, effort & achievement
2. Energy Generation cycle - consists of fun, a sense of meaning & learning and celebration

This model can be used for diagnosis & correction of organizational problems.

This model was used as the basis of the intervention at METG. The intervention followed the action research method – Diagnosis, intervention, evaluation & follow-up.

Process of Intervention:

Diagnosis:

The first step in diagnosis was to assure the leader of the organization about the model that was to be implemented. The leader himself realized that the elements of the Energy Generating Cycle were non-existent in the organization. Post this, he could identify factors leading many of the problems and was now convinced of the efficacy of the model.

During discussions with the leader & the project managers, the following issues were clubbed as follows:

1. Working Overtime
2. Attitude of non-cooperation
3. Blaming others for failures
4. Missing Deadlines
5. Complaints about quality

The group discussed these issues using the following questions:

1. What motivates people to indulge in such behavior?
2. How does the organization encourage such behavior?
3. What steps can the organization take to stop encouraging it?

The diagnosis was made at two levels – top management & organization on the whole.

The most important revelation was that the intent to make things better was there but not the know-how.

Therefore the action plan focused more on providing know-how.

Action:

Based on the above diagram, the action plan was implemented at 3 levels.

1. Group of 5 (Leader, group head and 3 other members)
2. Managers of METG (reporting to the Leader) – the Captains
3. Employees of METG

To strengthen the impact of the intervention, each level was facilitated in this process by their managers/superiors.

The group of 5 and the group captains would delineate the purpose and map the company’s values to the purpose. This would then be passed on to the next level for evaluation.
Supporting systems would be designed around it.

So while we worked with the Group of 5, they then took on the mantle (especially the Leader) to conduct workshops (under the guidance of the facilitators).

The Captains then conducted the workshops for the employees.

The Group of 5 (the leader, the group head & 3 other members) at METG decided that the immediate problem which needed to be rectified was lack of proper infrastructure. The action plan for it was charted out with clear deadlines & ownership.

The Learning Organization Model was discussed in this meeting with the Group of 5 and it was realized that to have a ‘sense of meaning’ it was critical to have a clear, well-articulated ‘statement of purpose’.

Action Framework

The action items were classified into the 2 different cycles:

1. Energy-consuming Cycle
1. Building the ‘sense of purpose’
• The Group of 5 delineated the Statement of Purpose and then the statement was passed onto the Captains & finally the employees for validation & inputs.
2. Linking the Purpose to Company values
• The company values were reviewed in the context of the ‘Statement of Purpose’ and each value was linked back to the Statement of Purpose.
2. Energy-generating cycle

1. Identifying elements for the energy generating cycle in the context of the statement of purpose & values
   • The workshops centered around the question - In the given perspective, how can fun be defined?
   • components of Fun were identified by the Group of 5
1. Learning
2. Celebration
3. ‘What difference do I make?”

2. Reviewing Supporting systems
• Under this item, Performance Management System was identified as the vehicle for addressing all 3 components of fun identified.
3. Development of new framework to support PMS – ORID framework
   • To ensure that the PMS served as a positive rather than a negative motivator, the ORID framework was developed with inputs from the Leader of METG

The framework was then passed on to the Captains and the employees to ensure clear & complete understanding of what it entailed.

3. Supporting Group Interventions

While the overarching systems were set up through the PMS and ORID framework, there were few interventions at specific levels conducted by the facilitators to address specific group level issues

1. Trust building Workshop – the aim of the workshop was to resolve issues related to inability of group captains of taking responsibility for the organization’s problems. The workshop focused on building a team, building trust & ‘working out issues’ through facilitating open discussions,

2. Counseling of Project & team leaders – one on one coaching & counseling sessions were provided to Project & team leaders to assist them in resolving any issues that they had or with any of the team members.

3. Team workshops – Each project team underwent a 1-day team building workshop, conducted to help the team to come to a common understanding of problems and work out issues collectively.

Results

The impact of the intervention was measured an year after. The employees in their feedback highlighted the following features of the organization:

1. A close knit team
2. Sense of belonging
3. Increase in information sharing
4. Motivated & responsible teams
5. Owning responsibility instead of blaming.
6. Greater innovation

In short, the intervention and the consequent impact of it resulted in resolving all the problems diagnosed early on.

In addition, the METG group also received commendations from the Company for being extremely productive.