Weakness of Six Sigma

Organizational and management literature has criticized management processes that focus on process oriented methods of organizational change.  Inherent in their criticisms is that in order for any change to be successful, mangers must include all affected levels of the organization in the change process in a participatory spirit.  This week’s reading highlight the need for organizations to not only identify ways to improve, but also ensure that organizational members are on board with changes that need to be made.  In the article, “Creating readiness for organizational change”, the basic idea presented is that organizational leaders need to ensure ‘readiness’ among organizational member.  By preparing organizational members for change, organizational leaders can reduce resistance to change.

The approach I choose for this semester’s project, Six Sigma, uses an array of statistical and quality management tools in order to improve processes. According to Wikipedia,

“Six Sigma was originally developed as a set of practices designed to improve manufacturing processes and eliminate defects, but its application was subsequently extended to other types of business processes as well. In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as anything that could lead to customer dissatisfaction.”

It appears that this method of organizational change ignores the ‘human’ element of organizational change.  Management can devise the best plans for organizational change, but as this article highlighted, managers must build support for a change effort.  The article further highlights the need for managers to take a proactive role in organizational change, rather than reactively monitor the organization for signs of resistance.