On the Road to Quality Service       

Scott G. Sahagian

In the non-profit industry, many institutions  have attempted to innovate those services which are unique to themselves. In the "wave of excellence" which swept through the late 1980s many attempted to instill excellence in service, but many were unsuccessful because they failed to deviate from their traditional management structure.

As values and society have changed, colleges and university administration have changed the way in which traditional services are provided to its clients – faculty and students. In the last 20 years, technology has opened many doorways, mostly as a way to increase revenue. The added revenue has allowed them to continue its traditional efforts as well as expand into new areas and serve broader populations such as child care and day camp to its clients at low or no cost. While adjusting programs to meet changing needs, the core focus has remained the same.

However, the attention paid to management, its effectiveness and its impact on service quality has not been a priority. The disciplines of strategic management, marketing, organization and human resources, and operations management all have an impact on service management effectiveness. However, these disciplines and their roles, while core curriculum in some colleges and universities, are very rarely discussed as part of internal management programs.

This perspective of interdisciplinary relationships has become more important in recent years. An organization needs to work within this over-arching model because its service is to its constituents and the community has multiple points of contact within the organization. In the departments, a reception person, financial person, or student affairs staff may all come into contact with a community member or potential member of the community. How they interact with the member will shape the perception of quality of the service that they will receive. In this environment, the challenge of the management is to give the staff responsibility for this interaction.

Traditional Management Style

Traditional management  style can be categorized as a top-down system. In this system, the executive, because of the short term and long term nature of  is responsible for all aspects of the operation, and rightly so; but the executive does not share ownership with subordinates. Some managers are micro managers and some are macro-managers. Some micro-managers can’t understand or tolerate how macro manager does his or her job. The micro-manager is ok with delays and longer periods of resolution, of there ever is a resolution. Macro-managers are looking at the bigger picture and have a higher level of tolerance, but are always looking for a solution. As the Executive Director at a non-profit, the management style of the prior executive was one in which the executive, who had a seven year tenure at the organization, was shouldering the burden of responsibility. This included every decision regardless of the magnitude of the decision. The staff members were not given ownership or responsibility of their problems and did not seek it. The path was set for them not to attempt to solve their problems only tell the executive that there was a problem.

Strategy was formulated with little or no interaction with the staff. The visionprovided by the chief executive officer was not transmitted to the staff or board of directors by the executive director. The problems that arose from this system were not related to the overall performance of the operation, but rather the productivity of the staff and the quality of service that they imparted to the member. In addition, the staff was not innovative in terms of program development and marketing of the services of the branch. Finally, there was little or no sense of self-fulfillment on the part of the staff. Again, when there is a funnel point, all items in the hopper have to flow through the funnel.

1984-2006 Karl Albrecht

Albrecht's triangle of service demonstrates how these problems affect customers. In the triangle, the three points are the strategy, the systems and the people. Inside the pyramid is the customer or client. The triangle represents a process, as opposed to a structure, in which weak links can be determined. Within a large organization, the strategy is defined by the corporation in its five-year strategic plan. This is usually a top down, bottom up process involving numerous stakeholders. The systems are established through the corporate policy developed by the executive staff. It is up to each sub-unit to fill the people segments of how service will be provided.  It is the people segment which creates a customer-driven organization and can be given top priority. It is therefore necessary to say that an organization exists to serve the needs of the people who are serving the needs of the customer.

At different institutions, emphasis is placed on key other areas within the college or university that needed immediate attention. The people segment of the operation was not made a priority (excluding faculty) until later in the growth cycle of the entity, with the inception of employee-recognition programs from the corporate office. Improvements were made to the facility, including acquisition of new equipment, new technologies are instituted and of course, to the acquisition of new raw materials (students!). The improvements made to the facility and program areas were needed for continued growth to attract the best and the brightest students. These improvements, however, have not been able to sustain growth. There are a number of limiting factors, and the margins for managing these factors has become incredibly thin.

Personal Contact

Potential members of the community (faculty, students and staff) have direct contact with the people segment of Albrecht’s triangle. This is a crucial aspect because the way in which the contact is perceived by potential members of the community determines whether or not they will want to become members. Without a motivator, there can be no assurances that a staff member will take the opportunity to make a potential member's interest a gain for the organization. In the past, the motivators for staff members were fairly simple. But as society has changed, the motivators have changed. The staff is no longer satisfied with only a weekly paycheck. Employees wish to have a voice in the vision of the organization.

A weakness that has occurred within colleges and universities is that the vision is not given to the supporting employees who will make the vision succeed. This is a direct result of the top-down management style. In the hierarchy that has been established, decisions regarding the operation have been left to a mid-level manager. The result is that the problems of the organization are consistently laid at the feet of the manager, as opposed to allowing employees to solve the problems. In part, this is related to the degree to which risk and failure are tolerated. A low level of tolerance will result in less involvement in the problem-solving process. A high level of tolerance will result in more ownership of problems and in overall operation. The involvement of people who are affected directly by decisions has been proven to be the key to reaching goals set by the vision. I changed the hierarchy which was pyramidal in other positions I have held to a flat line structure. This has provided department managers the freedom to interact more rapidly, take ownership and responsibility for problems, and to function as a team rather than as individuals.

This has allowed them to, in their own way, do the best job possible. The culture had been changed to empower the employees. This has resulted in a common vision, sharing of information in a timely fashion and a better understanding of the corporation as a whole. In addition, the employees who have adjusted to this style have takenon more responsibility and risk. They have assumed the risk, knowing that they will not be punished for failing. Employees can approach the executive with both a problem and a possible solution to the problem. Discussion can then ensue with regard to the solution, rather than the executive making decisions in a vacuum.

 A Changing Culture

The culture within all organizations is changing as a result of larger changers – social, technological and financial. You have to evaluate the culture to understand how people who have been indoctrinated will react to a new-found freedom. There are issues related to territorial behavior, where a sub-unit sits in terms of relevancy, and how leaders are perceived (weak or strong). Problems sometimes arise between departments, usually involving issues not related to the big picture of the institution. These issues are short term in nature and the impact that they have on the quality of service is minimal. But they can tie up a lot of time and energy. At times, staff members are reluctant to accept their new roles and try to backslide. Communication is often the solution getting the staff back on the track of ownership. It is important to take each step as a learning process for the staff. The learning curve will shorten over time, which means that the manager will be giving up some short-term gains for a long term gain-that of a competent staff member.

The management acting in a service capacity for the staff is a relatively new concept. The fact is that managers need to be leaders to their staffs. In the service organization, the leadership role is one of support. The management is to be used as a resource by the staff, with regard to the direction of the organization. The management does not always have all the answers, as it would in the traditional approach, but rather empowers employees and creates a nourishing environment that encourages personal growth. This allows employees to find their own solutions and puts managers in the role of mentor as opposed to the role of dictator.

 A management credo with a core of creative orientation needs to be implemented.Included in this credo are risk taking, superior performance expectations, the knowledge that the manager can improve the work ethic and the concept that employees who participate in the organization's decisions will commit to the organization's goals.

 Toward Higher Quality

How will the innovation of a management structure improve the quality of service delivery? At several institutions where I have been, the change in the management structure has resulted in a faster response time to member/client/customer's requests, more ownership in and quicker resolution of problems, and less demand for financial rewards. As far as the members are concerned, they have not noticed any marked change in the operation of the institution, just that their issue has been resolved.

 The service delivery can improve in small increments. This can be frustrating for staff members who have bought into the system and wish to move as rapidly as possible. Some staff members who have not fully accepted the system tend to move more slowly and remain focused on small-picture items. The strategy needs to be an attempt to replace an autocratic management style with one that is more participatory with line staff, to create a culture that internally stresses the concern for productivity and high quality, to define corporate goals and translate them into unit-specific goals and, finally, to tie rewards to long term performance rather than rewarding short-term performance. The decision to change management structure is one that many managers will have a difficult time dealing with, as they see it as a reduction of their power. The managers will have to make the changes in themselves, first, and demonstrate the change through their action. One such action I used is to give department managers the responsibility for chairing the weekly staff meeting, developing the agenda, etc. Managers will also have to be consistent in their style and in being supportive of the staff. To deliver quality service will rest on the ability to adapt to the changing work environment and to recognize the needs of staff members. Quality service will result in an environment where the employee can flourish and grow. 

References

Learning 10 Manage Change; Williams, Hank, Industrial & Commercial Training (UK); May/ June 1989.

Improving American Competitiveness: A Management

Systems Perspective; Marciarello, Joseph; Burke, Jeffery; Tilley, Donald; Academy of Management Executives; Nov. 1989.

Service America!: Doing Business in the New Economy; Albrecht, Karl; Zemke, Ron; Down-Jones Irwin;1985.

New Roles for Managers; Rosow, Jerome; Vital Speeches; Mar. 1990.Restructuring: Reinventing the Corporation; Naisbitt, John; Aburdenc, Patricia; Chief Executive; Autumn 1985.

Service Management Effectiveness; Bowen, David; Chase, Richard; Cummings, Thomas, ct al.; Jossey Bass Publishers, 1990.Developing New Services; George, William; Marshall,Claudia; AmericanMarketing Association, I 985.

Making Employees Feel That They "Make a Difference"; Metzger, Norman; Health Care Supervisor;April, 1989..

Pathways to Leading - Who Do You follow?

Scott G. Sahagian

Early in my career, I was a follower of the Excellence Movement. " In Search of Excellence", Tom Peter's book, was on everyone's bookshelf at work, and many people I encountered became disciples of searching for excellence. Over time, many colleagues felt that while these "guiding principles" were amazing, the implementation of these ideas was less than successful. One has to wonder what piece of a single equation was missing. Was their style of communicating these ideas and principles lacking? Did they know how to balance the change they were moving to implement with the current structure? And what elements of the environment were impacting the change they wanted to make?

Senior management tends to look at these problems as top-down issues. If midlevel people can't implement these ideas, there must be something wrong with the middle manager's ability to push the idea. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. Management books are not a panacea for all problems or motivating high productivity. They are tools, and very good tools, but it is how they are adapted that makes them effective.

Over the course of my career, I've seen senior leadership focus like a laser beam on one book or one idea, and I am sure you may have seen this too, or have even been part of the team to bring the idea forward. I recall an instance where Michael Collins' "From Good to Great" became the focal point of the senior leader's vision of how he saw his enterprise. That got upended by Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point" and now the focus was on how little things can make a big difference. From there we jumped onto another idea, all the while confusing the staff, and wondering why the ideas weren't coming to fruition and yielding the results that we wanted.

My experience has taught me that, no matter the idea, the work still needs to get done. Even today, the work is measurable, quantitative , and usually under a time sensitivity. Metrics I have used include speed of accomplishment balanced with quality, production planning (simple concepts in academia - a semester begins, and a semester ends...). The idea of balance is not one widely used, but in the age of COVID, we have to look deeper at the outliers of the metrics. While there is a desire to "make things better," leaders need to articulate details, so teams understand for whom they are making things better. Are you making things better for faculty...for students? Are you making things better for staff who support faculty and students? Or are you trying for the trifecta of making things better for all three? Then there is the Board. How are they perceiving what is being done at/to their beloved institution? It really comes down to communications, setting realistic expectations, and stating what you hope to accomplish realistically.

The equation to success has many variables, and the building blocks start at how credible you have been. Again, measures to gauge success or failure are important, as is knowing why you succeeded or why you failed. We've all been in meetings, or have run meetings where we speak to the need for an eraser at the end of a pencil, but how tolerant are we of failure? I was told by a senior person on many occasions that "you can't argue with success." But what she never said was, "We'll hang you out to dry you for failure, no matter what your past success."

And, in my experience, she never did.

There are multiple variables to solving this riddle, because each part of the equation has its own determining factors that vary with each problem and in each situation. Senior leaders are looking for short term results while middle managers are looking for implementation success and rewards. But what if there is a third part of this equation? Who is actually doing the work and will be the end recipient of changes made to an administrative structure? Who is actually delivering the services, and where or who is on your front line? Those staff members who are in the front line will be the recipients of praise or the brunt of someone's wrath. Either way, they are the representative of you, the leader.

In adapting to a new management style or adapting new ideas into your present management structure, other factors to consider are technology, decision making, and assessment of outcomes. Finally, there is the over-all risk of adapting to and adopting new ideas to your particular case. One example of this was the creation of a Work/Life Staff committee after it was determined that the executive team wasn't doing a good job communicating with staff. The committee set the agenda, and no subject was taboo. It was risky, but it was successful.

In the library of management writings, there are a number of authors who have written interesting books, essays, and articles that are helpful resources. There is Peter Drucker, the quintessential author on management. While he may have "aged out" of popular style, if you haven't read any of his books, I advise you to do so. Max Depree's book, "Leadership is an Art" is also a book I would highly recommend. Depree, not an academic, gives examples that should make you think about your largest resource - people. "No More Teams" by Michael Schrage is another book that I have used as a resource. And please note that no one management book is a complete answer. You'll have to find what parts work best for you, your culture, and the people on your team in the current environment in which you labor..