Whenever there is a problem, most managers look to solve the problem. They search and explore, peel the onion back to discover the cause of the problem. What’s the problem?
Most often I find the problem is never a “what.” Most often, I find the problem is a “who.” And, most often, I find that “who” is me.
“I don’t care that they hate the rule, but safety is safety, and the rule is the rule,” Rory explained.
“What’s your point?” I asked.
“The point is, I tell the guys, over and over, they have to wear their hard hats on the job site, but I hear, as soon as I am gone, they take them off. I know the hats are hot, but the job site is a dangerous place. Besides, if OSHA drops by, there is a hefty fine.”
“It’s seems like all your efforts are having the opposite effect of what you want. You sound like a behaviorist who has no children.”
“I have kids, what do you mean?” Rory resisted.
“If you have kids, then you know the futility of scolding over and over. I bet you even tried raising your voice. Probably had the same impact,” I said. “If I told you once, I told you a thousand times.”
Rory chuckled. “Yeah, you’re right. I just don’t know. I mean, these guys are grown adults. You would think they would listen to reason.”
“You think you are talking reason. I would bet the crew hears your reason as rules. And they hear your instructions as scolding. People learn faster and retain more in a positive environment than they do when they are criticized. Is the point of the conversation to demonstrate how angry you can get, or to persuade them to wear safety helmets, even when you are not around?”
“You look a little rigid today,” I said, looking across the table.
“Yes,” Roland nodded. “I am having an argument with my sales manager and I just cannot move him off his position.”
“And, that makes you feel how?”
“Frustrated. If he would just listen to me, we could solve this problem straight away.”
“How are you, when you don’t listen?” I asked.
“When I don’t listen, it’s because I am right,” Roland flatly stated.
“Does your sales manager thinks he is right?”
Roland stopped, shook his head. Deep breath. “Yes,” he slowly drawled.
“So, if you both think you are right, how are you going to find out who is wrong? You get to decide if you want to be frustrated or curious.”
As a manager, you are often faced with a problem to solve. And, you think, if I could just get my team involved, there are some benefits. Team problem solving –
So, why don’t we get our team involved more often?
Our objections are just head-trash. Every time the manager solves a problem for the team, it cripples the team from engaging in problem-solving behavior.
The team still needs a guide. And when you float the problem, they will resist, at first they will panic. Your job, as a manager, is to simply outlast the panic. If you want to build a team, give them a real problem to solve. -Tom
Sometimes people on your team don’t fit. Culture is that unwritten set of rules that governs our required behavior in the work that we do together. Some people don’t fit. It doesn’t make them a bad person, they just don’t fit.
Some companies hire for culture, assuming the company can train the technical stuff. Some companies require the technical stuff assuming the candidate can adapt to the culture.
Organizational structure is the way we define the working relationships between each other. Organizational structure is culture.
Based on your product or service, your business model, what is the relationship your customer wants with your organization? The Discipline of Market Leaders documents three types of relationships (why customers buy from us).
This narrative set the stage in 1995, and, now, there are more ways to define the customer relationship. (I would like to hear how you describe yours.)
Your customer relationship platform drives everything else, specifically your structure. It is the basis of your business model. When your organization structure (your unwritten set of rules) gets out of sync with your customer relationship, you will experience pain.
What will be the nature of work?
As we adopt technology into the enterprise, what will change about the work? Those who sit in my workshops know that I define work as – decision making and problem solving? What will be the nature of decision making and problem solving as we embed technology into our internal production systems?
Production Work (S-I)
Physical robotics are already creeping in to production work (S-I). Robots are most often adopted into physical work that is repetitive, requiring precision cuts, punctures, bends, dipping, pouring, lifting. Robots are also useful in production environments where human involvement is uncomfortable (cold, heat) or dangerous (hazardous exposure). As companies adopt robotics and other technology, what changes about production work? What decisions are left for humans?
Supervisory Work (S-II)
And, what of supervisory work (S-II)? Typical (S-II) tools are schedules and checklists, the role is accountable for making sure production gets done, on pace and at standard spec. If we can sense most critical items in a production environment, with precision, in real time, what decisions are left for humans? As companies adopt technology, what changes about supervisory and coordinating work?
Managerial Work (S-III)
And, what of managerial work (S-III)? Typical (S-III) tools are work flow charts, time and motion, sequence and planning. The role is to create the system that houses the production environment. Most sub-enterprise software (as opposed to full enterprise software) is simply a transaction system that records transaction activity through a series of defined steps. Most computer software contains embedded rules that enforce a specific sequence of task activity. If most systems are designed around software systems, what decisions are left for humans? What changes about system work?
Executive Management Work (S-IV)
With a concentration in Ops (COO), Finance (CFO), Technology (CTO), the essence of executive management is functional integration. Most enterprise (full enterprise) software is designed to integrate end to end functionality across the organization. It contains hooks that communicate from one function to the next, with a plethora of configurations possible depending on the desired integration. If functional integration is controlled by enterprise software, what decisions are left for humans? What changes about functional integration work?
These are not idle questions.
So, here is something I want you to think about. As technology is integrated into your business model, what does your company look like in five years, ten years? When we can measure all kinds of things in real time, in feedback loops with algorithms that detect meaningful change (or stasis), what does work look like?
Autonomous driving vehicles are tested and adopted in plain sight. The mining industry prefers autonomous machinery because accident rates have dropped to almost zero, component wear (brakes, tires) dramatically reduced, productivity dramatically increased.
What will happen to your company as you afix sensors to almost everything? Below is a little list. If you have something else you are measuring, let me know, I will add it. What will change in your business model? More importantly, what will be the new work created?
Your five year thinking will be a one year tactical plan in four years? -Tom
When you seek advice and counsel from others, you must reveal the whole story, not just the part that will yield advice you want to hear. Truly seeking advice and counsel from others means you have not made your decision and are interested in other perspectives and outside analysis.
If you seek only to locate opinions that support your skinny point of view, you violate the 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not kid thyself.”
My conversation with Tony (S-II) about his manager, Suzanne (SIV) –
I have to tell you, every time we get together, all she talks about is pie-charts, bar graphs and the big picture. It’s different down on the shop floor. Sometimes we get materials in from our vendors that are out of spec and we have to reject them. When we reject raw materials, sometimes our productivity goes down. And, remember the machine we were going to replace this year, but kicked it into next year’s capital budget. That machine breaks down a little more than it used to and when it does, our productivity goes down. I try to explain this stuff to Suzanne and she just keeps talking about the big picture.
My conversation with Suzanne about her team member, Tony –
Don’t listen to Tony, he gets all wrapped around the detail and loses sight of the big picture. He just doesn’t understand what we are all about here.
Not a personality conflict –
When we introduce the context of time span, we can clearly see the reason for this conflict. Tony is in a role with shorter time span decisions and problems, clearly having difficulty with the way Suzanne sees the world. Suzanne is in a role with longer time span decisions and problems, clearly having difficulty with the way Tony sees the world.
Translator –
The translator role (S-III) sits in between Suzanne (S-IV) and Tony (S-II), who can translate Suzanne’s big picture thinking (that is what we hired her for) into time span appropriate projects that Tony can drive on the production floor.
“Not sure what to try next,” Melissa lamented. “I have my best people on the problem and they are stumped.”
“And?” I asked.
“And, it just doesn’t make sense. We have tried every resolution, every best practice related to a problem like this.”
I waited for Melissa to stop, to take a pause in her thinking. “I talked to one of your new teammates this morning and he said he might have a solution,” I said.
“I know who you are talking about,” Melissa replied. “He’s new. He has never seen a problem like this. He needs to stick to his orientation training, maybe he will learn a thing or two.”
“Is it possible your new teammate can see the fix for your problem, and that if he completes the training, he might not be able to see it anymore?”