What happens when you've got two departments that don't get along? If people in each department don't trust those in the group down the hall, this fear, suspicion, and reluctance to even sit at the same table, puts a severe crimp in quality. In Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organziation Chart (Jossey-Bass, 1995) authors Geary Rummler and Alan Brache focus on managing the "white space" on the organizational chart. I love that image. Organization charts have lines vertically connecting boxes, but seldom show connections across the chart. This allows accounting to work independent of shipping and sales to disregard manufacturing. You know what I'm talking about.
I was curious to learn what practical ideas people use to build a bridge across this white space. Phil Landesberg, a civilian with the U. S. Navy, active AQP member, and a Director of the Washington Deming Study Group has this advice: “I learned the following technqiue from Peter Scholtes” – author of The Leaders Handbook (McGraw-Hill, 1998) – and have used many times. Construct a "needs and gets" matrix, asking members from different teams and departments, what they need from each other - and what they get. As these different work units understand what they need (but perhaps don't get) from each other and what they actually get (but may not need) they can start to work together more effectively. The needs-gets matrix should be updated as the diverse work units define how they work together as a system to meet a common aim in support of customer needs.
I like this technique because making a list gives people a safe way to begin a conversation. You can also take this a step further by asking each department to do a bit of self-reflection while that department prepares its “needs and gets” list. Add the questions: “What will the other department say it needs from us? What will they say they get from us?” Sometimes this moment of introspection can help members of a team see themselves as others do.
LeRoy Pingho, a vice-president in information systems at home-mortgage and financial-services giant Fannie Mae, offers another approach when tension is really high. "You have to drive a meeting that achieves two things (1) the understanding that despite the fact that you don't like each other and actually have reason to distrust each other, you must work with each other to deliver on objectives important to both of you. (2) within that context - i.e. I can't trust you, but need to work with you - agree on a short list of goals - quantifiable deliverables - and then meet every day if you have to to make it happen. What you owe in this equation is to deliver, and to make sure that the other side knows that you have 'skin in the game'."
The success of Pingho's approach rests on three things: 1)the guts to hold the meeting in the first place; 2) your committment to doing your part; and 3) the dogged determination to meet every day if necessary to ensure that progress is being made. When trust is low, actions are the only thing that speak — words count for very little. Even after the meeting, both groups may take a let's wait and see attitude. Nothing will get done if both sides wait for the other to move first. That's why it is critical to prove you have skin in the game. You're not just doing your half by taking responsibility for 60 percent of the result.
Pingho also advises that in the long-term you have to prove that you (and your team) are going to deliver and rise above the distrust/dislike - with full understanding that this issue may always be in the way. It takes a lot of energy and focus, but you've got to stay the course and always keep your eye on what the company wants both groups (people) to deliver.
Building bridges between departments – and between union and management - is critically important. Landesberg and Pingho's ideas are a great start. What's worked for you?
