[nfbmi-talk] Random thoughts...

[Fred wurtzel]

Hi Bob,

 

I certainly am inclined to take the "Appreciative inquiry" approach to
management.  I also believe that the Demming ideas around "Zero Defects" is
an appropriate way of framing management issues. One of the principles of
both of these is measurement.  Transparency is also critical in a public
agency.  Within MCB all decisions must embrace the concept of "consumer
driven" as it relates to P.A. 260.  

 

As I see it, we will never rid ourselves of these claims and counter claims
around expectations and performance until we develop a broad measurement
system which is reliable and open to the public.  This is not a critical
statement.  I simply believe we need to work from the facts, in as nearly a
real time frame as possible and share the facts with stakeholders, no matter
their implications. 

 

Regarding returned phone calls, the anecdotal data is overwhelming and
widespread.  The 48 hour policy is routinely not observed at most levels,
though support staff seem better about observing it than others. Until we
measure it and improve it, it will remain a hot button issue for consumers.


 

Regarding accessible data, progress is being made with the recent
consolidation of some data on the MCB web site.  I am personally aware of
repeated requests for information in an accessible format (not from me)
which have gone unanswered.  With the exception of confidential client data,
all MCB information is public.  Under ADA this information is required to be
provided in an accessible format.  This ought to be ironclad SOP.  I do not
understand why MCB continues to allow this to be a thorn in its side.  It is
a distraction and is petty.  Further, it causes distrust and separates -MCB
from its customers in an unnecessary atmosphere of apparent lack of concern
for customer needs.

 

I view these issues as more systemic than people driven.  MCB needs systems
to automatically provide information in a timely way in a format of the
customer's choice.  MCB needs a management system which measures and
improves customer responsiveness on all levels, including returned phone
calls, requests for information about blindness, referrals to appropriate
sources for assistance and so on.  Such responsiveness includes job
placement, development of employers who will hire blind people, attending
IEP's of transition students to help them with navigating the college and
job-seeking landscape.    System 7 is not functioning properly.  This needs
to be repaired and made to serve the staff and customers of MCB.  

 

I would suggest that contrary to what you said in your statement, returned
phone calls are not solely the purview of MCB management.  The Commission
Board is designed to be a consumer based mechanism for delivering quality
rehabilitation services to blind consumers.  It is in the interest of
consumers to receive timely responses to inquiry's.  In a public agency
there is always a variety of interests and levels of accountability.  Every
public employee has 1 boss and many stakeholders and constituents.  It is
necessary to keep these stakeholders and constituents in mind and better to
maintain a positive working relationship with them to the maximum extent
possible.  

 

Inevitably, there will be conflict.  It is the manner in which these
conflicts are handled that will make a difference.  Data collection and
management will greatly assist in supporting decisions and improving
services.  Staff training is an integral part of the feedback system around
data-driven management.  It seems to me that to begin to close the
expectation/performance gap, MCB must, immediately and in a dramatic way,
adopt a comprehensive training program for all new and existing staff that
incorporates a positive philosophy of blindness, openness toward including
consumers in agency functioning, policies and data elements as a core design
feature..  Today is not too soon for this change to take place.

 

I do not feel that any of the forgoing is personal toward anyone.
Demonizing or villainizing consumers or staff is distracting and does not
address the matters at hand.  Measurement of job performance is just 1 more
data-driven part of the MCB system and will root out issues of
accountability.  It is certainly relevant to the MCB system which is not, in
my opinion, operating at near top efficiency.  Management and staff need to
be accountable for following the law and Commission policies.    

 

$25 million is a lot of money.  Only a third (or less) is being spent for
case services.  Only three fourths or less is being spent of the small
portion for clients.  The unspent budget is a prime example of this
inefficiency and is a fact supported by data.  Placements are too low.  This
is a fact and is supported by data.  Too few placements with unspent funds
is clearly a contradiction and is factual and supported by data.  The cost
of closing a case unsuccessfully is nearly as much as closing a case
successfully.  This is a fact.  Why not finish the job and close these cases
successfully instead of giving up?  If blind people were getting jobs in
their chosen career fields and not being thwarted by the system in attaining
the best education possible these facts would begin to swing in the positive
direction hoped for by anyone who cares about the ability of blind people to
assume our places as first-class citizens along with our sighted peers.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Fred

From: Michigan Comma for the Blind Vision 20/20 List
[mailto:MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV] On Behalf Of Robertson, Bob (LARA)
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:58 PM
To: MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV
Subject: Random thoughts...

 

 

For those of you who might recall, one of the principles of the 2020 process
within MCB was that of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). More traditional change
management philosophy requires that people look at a problem, analyze it,
and then try to find a solution. The old-time focus is on that which is
broken or not working as well as it should. By focusing on the problem
areas, we naturally amplify them to the point where negativity takes over
everywhere. At the other end of the spectrum, AI says we should look at what
works in the organization. It says we should look at those things we do well
and agree upon and then build from there. 

 

There are several "assumptions" that go with Appreciative Inquiry. I will
not go into all of them but some of the key ones are:

 

1.       In every group or organization, something works.

 

2.       What we focus on becomes our reality.

 

3.       If we are going to carry parts of the past forward, they must be
what is best from the past.

 

With this in mind, I wish to address two issues which seem to be "hot
button" topics. One is materials in accessible format and the other is staff
returning phone calls. Now, before I go any further, I want to make it clear
that the information posted here is mine. I have not consulted anyone. I
have not cleared this with anyone. I may catch hell for these remarks from
my co-workers as well as others on this list. Regardless, I wish to point
out what I see as an exaggeration of facts.

 

Some members of the community have been quoted saying we do not provide
materials in accessible format. Some like to quote from a satisfaction
survey done in November 2008 where consumers were asked if materials were
provided in their preferred format. Of the 78 people who responded to the
survey, 6 said never. (That is usually where the quoting of the survey
ends.) In addition, 13 said sometimes and 59 said always. I think we can all
agree that 6 is too many yet when the main thrust for an argument that the
agency never provides materials in accessible format is 8% of the
respondents on a single survey, that's a bit of exaggeration. Is it
acceptable to look at that number and say it needs to be improved?
Absolutely! However, when making the argument for improvement in this area,
maybe we should focus on the 76% who say they always get the materials in
their preferred format, learn what is working, and try to replicate that
across the entire agency.

 

The second issue is returning phone calls. Clearly this is a concern because
it seems to come up from time to time in different settings. I would argue
that citing a handful of random comments off a survey or quoting a couple
people from a public meeting is hardly evidence of widespread negligence.
Are there situations where staff do not call back in a timely manner? More
than likely. Are there a thousand and one possible reasons (not excuses) for
this? Probably, sometimes. Nevertheless, it is a management issue that needs
to be addressed by agency management and nobody else.

 

There are other areas we could discuss. I just happen to pick these two
because they have been the focus of recent activity on this list and
elsewhere. I bring them up because if we were to use Appreciative Inquiry
principles, instead of focusing on the 8% who state they never receive
materials in their preferred format, we'd focus on the 76% who said they
always did and say something like "hey, we're doing an okay job but we can
do better.how do we improve it?" 

 

Let me just end these ramblings with another thought. In major league
baseball, if a batter is successful 30% of his career, he's a shoe-in for
the Hall of Fame. Yet, if you're running an airline and have 1000 planes
take off and only 999 of them land safely, that's a major disaster. I say
this because we need to put things in perspective. It would be great if
every single phone call was returned immediately and every single client got
materials in the preferred format 100% of the time. Unfortunately, we do not
have a magical wand to create a perfect workplace. However, we do have a
staff made up of over 100 dedicated, hard-working, caring professionals and
sometimes those professionals (even me, believe it or not!) aren't perfect.
So instead of creating an atmosphere of distrust and disrespect, let's focus
on the things that are being done right and work hard to make them even
better.

 

Bob Robertson

MI Commission for the Blind

 

 

 

 

From: Michigan Comm for the Blind Vision 20/20 List
[mailto:MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV] On Behalf Of Robertson, Bob (LARA)
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:58 PM
To: MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV
Subject: Random thoughts...

 

 

For those of you who might recall, one of the principles of the 2020 process
within MCB was that of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). More traditional change
management philosophy requires that people look at a problem, analyze it,
and then try to find a solution. The old-time focus is on that which is
broken or not working as well as it should. By focusing on the problem
areas, we naturally amplify them to the point where negativity takes over
everywhere. At the other end of the spectrum, AI says we should look at what
works in the organization. It says we should look at those things we do well
and agree upon and then build from there. 

 

There are several "assumptions" that go with Appreciative Inquiry. I will
not go into all of them but some of the key ones are:

 

1.       In every group or organization, something works.

 

2.       What we focus on becomes our reality.

 

3.       If we are going to carry parts of the past forward, they must be
what is best from the past.

 

With this in mind, I wish to address two issues which seem to be "hot
button" topics. One is materials in accessible format and the other is staff
returning phone calls. Now, before I go any further, I want to make it clear
that the information posted here is mine. I have not consulted anyone. I
have not cleared this with anyone. I may catch hell for these remarks from
my co-workers as well as others on this list. Regardless, I wish to point
out what I see as an exaggeration of facts.

 

Some members of the community have been quoted saying we do not provide
materials in accessible format. Some like to quote from a satisfaction
survey done in November 2008 where consumers were asked if materials were
provided in their preferred format. Of the 78 people who responded to the
survey, 6 said never. (That is usually where the quoting of the survey
ends.) In addition, 13 said sometimes and 59 said always. I think we can all
agree that 6 is too many yet when the main thrust for an argument that the
agency never provides materials in accessible format is 8% of the
respondents on a single survey, that's a bit of exaggeration. Is it
acceptable to look at that number and say it needs to be improved?
Absolutely! However, when making the argument for improvement in this area,
maybe we should focus on the 76% who say they always get the materials in
their preferred format, learn what is working, and try to replicate that
across the entire agency.

 

The second issue is returning phone calls. Clearly this is a concern because
it seems to come up from time to time in different settings. I would argue
that citing a handful of random comments off a survey or quoting a couple
people from a public meeting is hardly evidence of widespread negligence.
Are there situations where staff do not call back in a timely manner? More
than likely. Are there a thousand and one possible reasons (not excuses) for
this? Probably, sometimes. Nevertheless, it is a management issue that needs
to be addressed by agency management and nobody else.

 

There are other areas we could discuss. I just happen to pick these two
because they have been the focus of recent activity on this list and
elsewhere. I bring them up because if we were to use Appreciative Inquiry
principles, instead of focusing on the 8% who state they never receive
materials in their preferred format, we'd focus on the 76% who said they
always did and say something like "hey, we're doing an okay job but we can
do better.how do we improve it?" 

 

Let me just end these ramblings with another thought. In major league
baseball, if a batter is successful 30% of his career, he's a shoe-in for
the Hall of Fame. Yet, if you're running an airline and have 1000 planes
take off and only 999 of them land safely, that's a major disaster. I say
this because we need to put things in perspective. It would be great if
every single phone call was returned immediately and every single client got
materials in the preferred format 100% of the time. Unfortunately, we do not
have a magical wand to create a perfect workplace. However, we do have a
staff made up of over 100 dedicated, hard-working, caring professionals and
sometimes those professionals (even me, believe it or not!) aren't perfect.
So instead of creating an atmosphere of distrust and disrespect, let's focus
on the things that are being done right and work hard to make them even
better.

 

Bob Robertson

MI Commission for the Blind