Senior Leadership Team Meeting - Notes from Breakout Session

November 20, 2006

Big Lessons

• Tone from top important – need to create a sense of common purpose and goals when confronting big changes.  Create a sense of “we” instead of “we – them”
• Creation of very cohesive team – relieved from current job requirements, very committed to university goals, sense of urgency, intense shared sense of purpose – cohesion
• Those not in 100 Day Plan felt left out; poor communication to those who were not affected
• Based on Project X, be aware of and receptive to negative comments after 100 Days
• Made clear it would not be perfect – modifications would be needed, but that we were going ahead anyway.  In contrast to it needing to be “perfect” at Yale before we begin.  Not paralyzed by striving for perfection
• Clear goals, clear timelines, clear deadlines – quick decisions.  Focused group.
• Tone at top – engagement and made decision
• Decisions made at top eliminated extensive discussions and focused group on action
• Need to make sure we capture benefits from new process.  What did we improve?  How to use that to make all systems and processes work better.
• Didn’t have staff to backfill group members so it was difficult—and perhaps not sustainable—in the long term.  Need to think about home departments and taking care of day-to-day operational work.
• Need to develop “utility players” to backfill
• Forced units to rethink their work when lost members
• Did Yale look deep enough to find people for group? Or rely on same people? Develop others?
• 100 Day focused on Science Hill and YSM; less on Central non-science departments, so it might not be easily transferred, especially without the sense of urgency
• Pent up demand to accomplish extraordinary things
• Compliance focus took us out of ordinary environment of getting things done
• Don’t delay changes until there’s a crisis
• “The perfect” is the enemy of “the good”
• Honesty about issues was refreshing
• Yale needs a mechanism (or two) for expressing problems we know about going forward
• We need leadership’s institutional priorities that are linked and informed by “line management”
• How are we preparing to support “Globalization” and other key university strategic goals?
• We (F&A leadership) need to think more broadly to include leadership and strategic goals so that we are proactive
• Don’t reinvent the wheel!
• Dedicated resources are required for “quantum change;” we can’t do this in the margins – departments or center. Even with the 100-Day Plan resources were shy in areas.
• Involved Business Managers in group
• Stress points of the infrastructure were tested
• Clear who was directing this operation – the top!
• List of priorities always too long. Could/would this have happened without government intervention?
• Options not to work together or not get it done didn’t exist
• Training is imperative – must be continued. Need core basics taught
• Need to build expertise at all levels
• Good enough is ok.  Learn from mistakes as we go
• Forcing to think about what’s really important
• Worked with facts
• Communication and participation from the top.  President Levin was obviously involved and supporting goals with the faculty.  Greatly helped implementation.
• Distribution of responsibility and decision making
• Pushed accountability down
• Empowerment at all levels
• Question:  How do we sustain change without creating crises or lurching from crisis to crisis?
  • Leadership Endorsement
  • Clear Focused Goals
  • Give up Autonomy/Standardize
    • Create standardization that allows elements of customizations to preserve uniqueness and excellence (e.g. professional schools), where appropriate
  • Provide Air Cover/Allow Risk Taking
  • Recognition:
    • Compensation
    • Celebrating Success
  • Use Deadlines to Monitor/Regulate Activity
  • Cover for Resources that are Diverted and Required to Reach Goal
  • Communication to:
    • Stakeholders
    • Those impacted by change
    • The team
    • Ensure message is relevant and focused to its unique audience

WHAT WORKED WELL

• Researchers knew more about SciQuest and EMS because of good communication
• Also 100 Day com was good; e-mails; hand-delivery, websites; newsletter
• Focus and execution produce results (e.g. SciQuest in 100 Days went faster than the prior year and with focus and leadership support)
• Leadership (President, Provost and VPF&A) communications were refreshing and invaluable in getting 100 Day work done
• Leadership can see that we can execute if we all row together and if they set the direction
• There was tremendous good will and dedication to get this done
• Cross functional teams created value and helped produce a better outcome
• Communicate from the top!
• Didn’t ask a lot of permission
• Early visible deliverables – war room construction in 2 days
• Common goals – common mission
• Right people picked to serve

WHAT COULD WE HAVE DONE BETTER?

• Use project management disciplines to help ensure resources (even with 100 Day initiatives) are used effectively and that you’re working on the right thing
• Communicating effectively . . .
  • Develop good mechanisms
    • Feedback and communications
    • Plans targeted to audiences at an appropriate frequency
    • With vetted messages
• Need to share more of the information on the project specifics (e.g. Cost Transfer Project; new Portal Project)
• We need a “change management” protocol and infrastructure “badly” so we don’t keep reinventing the wheel.
• Too much with too little resources
• Conflicting priorities
• Maybe some routine things didn’t get done?
• How to take care of people left behind?
• Pause button put on some initiatives – disappointed people
• Use of same old people
• Difficult to get definition requirements (particularly IT). Didn’t always say what was wanted
• Need more formal training in process project management for SR leadership
• Sometimes end result was lost. Quick fixes didn’t always totally fix the problem. Need to keep long term view.
• Communicate – reduce red tape – even if everyone doesn’t agree with results. How do you get buy in?
• Need to assess risk/benefit and communicate. Might need to accept less. Need scale of risk out front in measuring success.
• Conflicting messages?  
  • team vs individual initiative
  • quick decisions vs caution
  • top down decisions vs consensus

YALE’S CULTURE AND STRUCTURE

• Open, can give feedback; even faculty are commenting on procedures
• 100 Day is model for change – caused people to look at greater good; that change can be efficient;
• A different kind of decision-making (not consensus but participation) can work work – especially in storm – but not necessarily always?
• Group felt their input was valued.
• Visible outcomes that achieved goals and were implemented – positive
• Personal contacts make a difference
• Action orientation made progress
• Don’t fall back into committee mode
• Appropriate involvement is key
• Openness to change was refreshing
• Faculty engagement is critical and refreshing
• Strategy discussions were missing and are refreshing
• Provost’s office was here!!! And supportive
• Stability in new leadership is allowing us to let go of old institutional memories.
• “Hierarchy matters but sustained leadership matters more.”
• “What’s in it for me mentality” cannot be allowed to stop critical initiatives
• Don’t always optimize for the university but for our own units
• Was a functionally led project (new to the process) depending on who you were this was a positive or a negative
• Don’t want sponsored research to take over everything
• Need to stop second guessing decisions. No whining.
• Reduce ability to “game the system” once a decision is made
• Need to embrace course corrections. Can’t wait too long.
• Need to get rid of penalties for getting it wrong! Need to encourage risk.
• Need carrots for those who give their resources.

THOUGHTS FOR MANAGING FUTURE INITIATIVES

• Current Initiatives To Be Helped By 100 Day Lessons
  • EMS and SciQuest rollout
  • More Effort Report Training for Business Managers to deal with faculty
  • Elimination of Travel Reqs
• Continue 100 Day communications
• Cluster of Business Managers each with different specialty for support (one knows awards; one travel)
• Recognize success/recognize talent
• Set clear goals
• Backfill or absorb
• How many initiatives can we handle?
• Tension between conflicting goals
• Burnout is a risk
• Use folks with longtime experience at Yale University
• How to Gain/Retain 100 Day Plan Intensity?
  • Air-cover * needed
  • Firm deadlines!
    • Reduce scope creed
  • ID people resources and pay them with hire supplemental staff
• Training on systems
• Refresher training
• Communicate why changes need to be made
• Flexibility of staffing lev to address emerging needs
• Take away some distributed controls
• Can’t keep stress level at sustaining model
• How will the faculty now step up to the plate??
• Going forward need to keep to finite timeline
• Reinforces need for professional development – succession planning. Need pipeline
• Need to leverage beyond grants and contracts
• Need to drive down deeper than this room
• Need to manage “scope creep” and take things off our plates as we add more.  Tendency at Yale to keep adding projects, items, features—trying to do everything rather than a few things really well.