A few months later, the first minor storm of the season hits the area.  The force of the waves and current suck the sand out from under the house and it crumbles.  The owner is furious.  He contacts the builder asking how this could have happened; how this was missed.  The builder says all he did was build to the plan and meet the timing demands of the owner.  Besides, he believed the owner had it all taken care of, so how could he be responsible.  To which the owner replied – that’s what I paid you for….

How many times does this happen?  We need to get a project done because the customer has told us how important it is to complete, we collaborate to develop timelines, resource allocations, etc., we brush over foundational items because they don’t seem relative at the time and should be in place, and, if brought to our attention, rationalize it away that it must be there, and we don’t have the time to effectively start over – the customer wants it now.  But what if the customer (and team) is wrong?  What if the basis of their assumptions is flawed?

Did they check their fundamental assumptions in an honest and objective way?  The importance of verifying assumptions fundamental to the success of our project cannot be overlooked, and is critical to the success of any project.  Don’t assume, verify.

Let me know your thoughts!

I have taught Lean Sigma Green Belt classes and defined the goal of Lean as “the elimination of waste” (and Six Sigma as the elimination of variation), but as I have progressed through different organizations, my view of Lean has changed, or should I say, evolved to one that focuses more on increasing value.  However, how one defines Lean depends on the situation.

For example, when trying to first implement Lean in an organization, especially an organization that is hemorrhaging cash, trying to sell a higher level, more philosophical (to some) view of Lean is the surest way not to ever get it implemented.  Selling Lean as a way to eliminate waste (interpreted as “cut costs”) provides the best chance for success (with success being defined as the approval to start introducing the concepts in the organization).  After all, these executives are in a “show me the money” mode, and Lean can certainly do that!

Most organizations start Lean as a program or initiative, but many times it never really gains the traction to become ingrained in the culture, or become the “way the company does things.”  Part of the reason for this results from never being able to get past the initial focus of elimination of waste, which most managers translate to cost cutting, to the higher level view of increasing value (with respect for people).

As practitioners, evangelizers, or philosophers of Lean, I believe we need to keep moving organizations toward the goal of increasing value, and to do that, we need to change the conversation.  One that moves us from minimizing (wastes) to maximizing (value).  Although it can easily be argued that by eliminating waste, value will be increased; it can also be argued that by increasing value, waste will be eliminated.

As humans, we are conditioned to respond to certain stimuli and form opinions base on the way information is presented to us.  To that end, think about your first thoughts on the following statements:

“I want to eliminate waste in the organization”

“I want to increase value in the organization”

Which one invoked more positive thoughts?  Which one had you thinking about the long term with growth and expansion, and which one about the short term with cutting and contraction?  Minimizer or Maximizer?

Back to the three word response for the question, “What is Lean?”  My answer: Value, Respect People.  With a more expanded goal of “increasing value through continuous improvement with respect for people.”

What are your thoughts?

When entering a new organization, the first thing one must remember is it has it’s own culture – and that how important that culture is to each person will vary.  So what a new person says in meetings, emails, and hallway conversations becomes very important as to how they will fit into, and be perceived by, the culture.  Understanding and respecting the culture is critical, and it can’t be learned through reading a mission and vision statement – it must be learned experientially.

So while I may be tasked with helping improve lots of systems and processes, the first thing I need to understand is what makes the company tick, and how I can use my skill set to make it tick better.  Too often new executives try to make instant impacts and impressions, implementing (or trying to implement) new programs and ideas in the first few months – after all, why else are they there.  Often times they fail, not because the ideas were bad, but because they did not understand how the idea would work in the culture of the organization, especially if that organization has a very deep, strong culture.  The conundrum is, they often times don’t have a choice, as the CEO who hired them wants immediate results and expects nothing but success, regardless of the culture; almost as if the CEO is blind to it (which could be the root cause of the problem…).

I’m fortunate enough to work for an organization that can take a longer term view, and although there may be opportunity for immediate impact, it is more important the impact is sustainable, and not a “flash in the pan.”

So for now, it’s simply time to sit down, shut up, listen, and most importantly, learn!

Any thoughts?

I’m working on developing a method based on the principles of Design Thinking, as presented by Tim Brown, CEO of the design firm IDEO, and the Build-Measure-Learn feedback loop that Eric Reis, author of The Lean Start Up has developed, both of which I feel are fantastic.  I believe there is an opportunity to better engage our stakeholders in the Inspiration space of the design thinking process, and to use the Build-Measure-Learn feedback loop during the Implementation space to provide faster feedback.

However, one thing I have noticed about both approaches is, although they say they are applicable to established organizations, neither explicitly mentions the use of a tollgate, or approval to proceed process.  It’s as if the team pursuing the idea only needs an approval to start the process and does not need to check back in until complete.

Every organization has limited resources, and the deployment of those resources on programs and initiatives determines the organizations actual strategy, or as Henry Mintzberg refers to, it’s emergent strategy.  Not that it is difficult to put in control mechanisms to ensure the organization is properly allocating resources, I just found it interesting that neither approach seems to specifically address this dilemma – is the idea worth spending the organization’s resources on?

I’m sure it’s implicit in the process, but with so many people looking for silver bullets, should it be more explicit?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

The premise is renowned chef Gordon Ramsay spends a week in a restaurant, which is failing, trying to revive the business.  He brings an intense brutally honest approach to the owners and staff, basically telling them – you’re not good (he adds a few adjectives not suitable for publication here).  He looks at many aspects of the restaurant, the menu, the quality of the food, the décor, and the lack of passion and pride in the owners/management.  Then the changes start – usually with the quality of the food and a switch to fresh ingredients.  He simplifies the menu, updates the décor and instills a passion back into the staff, management, and owners that has been missing.  The show usually ends with everyone feeling good about the chances of the business turning around and being successful – a feel good moment.

But, in reality, many of the restaurants Chef Ramsay helps go out of business – as is the case with many consultants who try to help struggling businesses.  Now the restaurant business is brutal and success hinges on a very fickle public, plus these establishments are almost always in extreme financial disarray when Chef Ramsay attempts the impossible, so this is not to put the failure on Chef Ramsay – these places were heading for disaster long before he arrived.  He comes in, upgrades the standards of quality, redecorates, and instills passion back into the staff.  What is not evident is a fundamental change in the way the restaurant operates – the way it does things.  On one episode I watched, J-Willy’s (originally aired Oct 2008), he changed the menu, raised the quality standard, infused passion into everyone, but it still took over an hour to get food out, and then when it was delivered, much was sent back because it was wrong (under/over-cooked).  The next night, after a rousing pep talk, they “pulled themselves together” and delivered better service.  The show ended with Chef Ramsay wishing the staff at J-Willy’s the best and was hopeful for their success.  J-Willy’s closed in February 2009.

In any business, not just the restaurant business, providing a quality product (service) that is not overly complicated to the customer, in a clean, safe environment is critical, and these are things Chef Ramsay helps his “clients” achieve.  Rah-Rah speeches and getting everyone “fired up” for the dinner crowd will provide benefits – in the short term.  Long term, sustained improvements need to come from fundamental changes in the way the organization operates; process / continuous improvement is required.  This is the job of management.  All too often, management recoils back into its comfort zone after the “project” is over, doing the same things they were doing before with a result that is all too predictable.  Pride and Passion are necessary, but not sufficient for sustained performance; Process and Persistence are also demanded.

The restaurants in “Kitchen Nightmares” are not unlike organizations that are given second chance at success through the hard work of hired experts or consultants; but management must step up to the plate and truly do something different.  For most, this takes a great deal of courage and is a step out of their comfort zone, but to really turn things around, it is an action that is not just recommended, but required.

One organization actually had, at one time, a VP of PI, and 4 black belts leading up the effort to transform the company.  However, as it turns out, transformation was not what the leaders really wanted.  This became evident when the 1^st of the BBs left 3 years ago and was not replaced, but was taken as a “cost savings”.  Over the course of the past 3 years, one of the remaining was promoted to another area of the organization (not replaced), one left to another healthcare organization (not replaced), and the VP left to pursue other opportunities (not replaced).  Today, the last one is leaving – tired of living on an island alone.

The other organization did not invest the resources as the first, but placed the PI position somewhere in the Quality department.  Not having a voice at the senior table, it is no wonder that PI does not get the senior lever attention and flounders there.  Today, they will be losing their PI resource, the second in as many years.

Why are these organizations, who desperately need to change the way they do business failing when in comes to sustaining a solid process improvement effort?  My belief is because they do not view PI as a way to fundamentally change the way they operate, but only as a project methodology to cut costs.  With all the needed transformation required, these organizations seemed to be fixated on doing things the same way they always have and not taking a hard look in the mirror – which a transformative PI effort will require.  And guess what – sometimes when you look, you don’t always like what you see.

It’s a shame to see this transpire and we can only hope that leadership will one day become enlightened enough to really want to do something about it.  Only time will tell.

Want to see PI sustained?  Then quit treating it as a project and start viewing it as the way to change the business.

The thing about common sense and rationality is that it typically works very well when use it in the realm of the physical world (think physics – equal and opposite reaction, and that kind of stuff), but when we try to apply it to behavioral science, we often find that our so-called “common” sense is not so common.  Grabbing the first available parking space is a perfect example – it is only common sense to do this IF time is the most important preference.  Perhaps it is more important that one parks closer because they will be carrying out a lot of bags, or it is going to rain and they do not have an umbrella, or they sprained their ankle a few days earilier, or some other overriding preference other than time.  We also see this at work when someone turns down the promotion that was a “no brainer” – big office, pay raise, perks, etc. – and we say it was only “common sense” for them to take the job; that them not taking the position was “irrational.”  What we did not factor in was that the job is going to be more hours, more travel, and the person helps coach their daughter’s soccer team and they don’t want to give that up.  We looked at the preference as though career success was more important, where they chose the preference of family time.  How can we say this is irrational behavior?

If we looked at the first example and knew it was going to rain and they did not have an umbrella, then driving a few extra minutes to get closer might seem very rational.

Before we get on someone for not having “Common Sense” or behaving irrationally, we need to make sure what we’re talking about is something we can apply common sense to and not just an opinion in which we are imposing our views based on our perspective without regard for theirs.

Let me know your thoughts!

Management has been defined as: doing things right; being what you do and how you do it; and getting work done though others.  Leadership, on the other hand, has been defined as: doing the right thing; what you say and how you say it; and creating and articulating a vision, inspiring people to pursue it.  There are many other definitions that can be used, but the fact remains that people see a clear distinction between management and leadership, or more specifically, managers and leaders.

It is interesting the way the relationship between manager and leader has evolved.  Back in the early parts of the 20^th Century, when management as we know it was invented, managers were needed to organize and control the work people, who just a few years earlier had been performing work as farm hands, craftsmen, or some other independent trade.  Mass production brought about mass management.  Leadership came from the very top of these newly minted organizations and there was very little focus or need for it in the lower to middle levels since there was so much work to be done.  This work had to be organized, controlled, and done through others.  Management and managers were required.

As time has passed, we now see that the work to be done, while still tremendous, has been made much more efficient through the use of technology (computers, automation, etc.) and that the work of managers as they were originally intended is no longer as essential.  What has become necessary is the ability to motivate people to perform at a high level, to do the right things, and to create and share a vision.  Leadership is needed.

However, before we rush off and cast aside all the managers, we still need to perform some of the fundamental roles of management – things need to be done right, work needs to be organized and performed through others, and while the amount of control needed is certainly less than in the early 20^th century, there remain some actions that need to be disseminated and executed through the organization.  Managers are still needed.

We need to do the right things, but they also must be done right.  We need to create and share a vision, but need to make sure others can execute the vision.  We need to say the right things and do the right things.  We need management and leadership.  We need managers and leaders.

The problem is: as the needs of the role of managers have evolved, our definition of what makes a manager has not.  Managers have traditionally executed the rules of the organization.  Those employees that were able to follow those rules and perform the work assigned were deemed as “outstanding” employees and were put on “next up” lists and the like.  When management promotions opened up, these employees were “rewarded” with the promotion.  The basis of the promotion was simply their ability to follow the rules, do a good job, stay out of trouble, and possibly educational background.  Or worse, our fear that they will leave the organization if we don’t give them a management position! (Solution to this problem: create Technical Specialist positions with pay equal to that of managers.  What they really want is more likely the money, and if they are that good, then they should be worth it)  Their ability to lead was only a minor consideration, if any at all; besides, any leadership shortcomings would be addressed at the company’s “leadership training” sessions.  And so, we end up with managers (by title) with little or no leadership skills or ability; a perilous cycle.

It has been driven into our heads by countless leadership gurus that to be a leader, one does not need to be a manager.  But, in today’s environment, can one really be a manager without being a leader.  Sure someone can have the title “Manager”, just as one can have the title “Leader”, but just because someone gives you the title “Manager” or “Leader” doesn’t make you one.  The latest push by HR departments to have “Department Leader” instead of “Department Manager” will do nothing to actually develop and make sure we put in place leaders.  All it will do is ensure that in a few years we will be talking about “Leaders” the way we are talking about “Managers” today.

People should become managers because they are leaders and can inspire and motivate people to get the work done.  Some may have better management skills and some may have better leadership skills.  Their success will depend on the situation, as some roles require more management skills and some more leadership skills.  The good ones recognize which one is needed and supplement the other with a strong team around them.

The paradigm must change.  You don’t have to be a manager to be a leader, but you better be a leader to be a manager.

Your thoughts?

So many times executives spout the importance of new initiatives like wellness programs, safety programs, or improvement projects like Lean, Six Sigma, etc.  They talk about how great they are and how everyone should embrace them so the company can improve, but when push comes to shove, their actions indicate they really don’t believe in them.  Instead of becoming a new way of operating the company, a true change in the company culture, it remains simply just a program to try to improve profitability, either through reduced healthcare costs in the case of wellness programs, or operating costs / revenue in the case of Lean/Six Sigma.  They “talk the talk” but can’t “walk the walk”.

When starting new initiatives it is essential to clearly understand the purpose – the reason why you are starting the initiative and be able to articulate it to every employee, board member and customer as needed.  Then comes the relentless constancy of purpose – which comes not only through articulating the purpose, but in living it.  And that’s hard because it means change – not just the organization changing, but personal change from the executive.  It requires constant re-evaluation and “looking in the mirror.”

So how do you “get it” – by getting up each day and asking yourself, “am I getting it?” then by going out a proving it in words and deeds.  Remember, actions speak louder than words.  So when implementing the new wellness program, next time, take the steps.

Let me know your thoughts!

Here is the typical situation:  A work group is struggling to meet deadlines, morale is low, they are not meeting objectives, and people are looking for jobs in other departments, or leaving the organization entirely – a pretty toxic work environment.  Management decides it needs the group to function better as a team, so the managers get with Human Resources to come up with a plan.  HR researches the landscape and finds a Team Building retreat that has received positive reviews, meets all requirements outlines in the 50-page vendor agreement contract, and schedules the group for a day or two retreat.  The group attends the retreat, learns more about themselves and each other, performs some team building exercises, bonds, and gets excited about working together.  After returning to the workplace, the excitement typically wanes over time, taking from days to months, and things return to how they were before.  The organization simply sucked the life right out of them.

How many times have we heard about situations like this or experiences it ourselves?  It has become all too predictable.  Why do we continue to let this happen?

I do not believe there is a single answer on the surface to this complex issue.  However, there are several contributing factors that make it challenging to solve.  The first is our traditional organizational structures.  Most organization structures are based on the ones created in the first half of the 20^th century, and modeled after Alfred Sloan’s GM.  Based on a command and control focus these organizational structures are designed with the intent that the employee is there to work, not think, and in essence gets treated as a machine.  A lot has changed since these structures have been created – we have moved from an industrial based society to an information based one, we now treat people better at work and provide better work-life balance, but our fundamental organizational structure has not changed.

The second contributing factor is management’s ability to create goals and objectives which may enhance departmental efficiency and perception, but do not contribute toward the organizations overall strategy, making them meaningless and inconsistent.  The focus on local optima takes limited resources away from the larger picture of global strategy – with reward systems structured to encourage this behavior.

These organizational structures, with their command and control hierarchies do not lend themselves to effective communication, which leads to a lack of understanding and resonance of purpose.  The communication gets filtered as it moves down the structure and the people who actually perform the work do not understand the value they provide and who they provide it for.  The structure leads to an increasingly de-motivated workforce, which in turn means any benefits from Team Building exercises/retreats are temporary at best.

Who, then, has the responsibility to motivate and inspire the workforce?  It is obviously management, but the problem is management typically delegates task such as employee motivation or engagement to Human Resources.  Management, it seems, is always too busy for such “soft” skills.  But isn’t that the fundamental reason management exists?  Which leads to the question: What does management really do?

Managers need to manage people and process.  People do the activities (processes) that create value for an organization.  Managers make sure the people have the proper tools and resources to do the activities (processes) that create value.  They identify problems and develop solutions (hopefully with the people that perform the process) to solve the problems.  Throughout time, managers have had to coordinate, collect and discern data that is generated from the activities the people did to determine if the people did them correctly.  Historically, this has taken a tremendous amount of time, and, since there are only so many hours in a day, management becomes focused on the outputs, and the reporting of the outputs of the process.

Managers spend most of their time managing the outputs of the people and not the people themselves, the inputs of the process – how people are trained, how they interact, how they learn and communicate.  Managers pay little attention to this, as these soft skills are left to Human Resources.

With the advent of technology to automate so much of the work that managers do to manage the outputs, the coordinating, collecting and discerning of data, management should shift its focus from controlling the outputs to managing the inputs – the people who actually perform the work.  Management should strive to make the work performed significant and seek to educate, elevate and enlighten the workforce.  It should also seek to ensure there is a resonance of purpose for what the organization is trying to accomplish.  This applies not just to those that manage the “front lines” but also to the managers of the managers.  This means re-thinking the organization and perhaps turning it upside down.

Managers who attempt to shift this focus in an organization that maintains the archaic organizational structures with their command and control hierarchies will become quickly frustrated.  It is akin to serving two masters – something has to give, and unfortunately, it is usually the enlightened manager who succumbs either by becoming another de-motivated cog in the wheel, or by leaving the organization.

The key to enable this transformation is for Senior Management to understand the need for change and trusting the people they have hired to make decisions that are in the best interest of the organization.  This represents a huge culture change in most organizations and is not one that will occur quickly.  Once the need for change is identified, management must be very careful not to expect too much too quick.  There are hundreds upon hundreds of leadership and management books that tell us how and what we need to do to change our culture, each of them providing glowing stories of success from those organizations that were successful in this endeavor.  However, what is often glazed over in these manuscripts is the amount of time, dedication, persistence, and hard work on the part of not only senior leadership, but on all employees in the organization.  Transformations like this take anywhere from three to five years, and our organizational structures do not support long term thinking – but it must be done!

Now is time to start rethinking how we manage and on what we focus.  It will take time.  It will take persistence.  And it must be done with great caution and awareness, else the very thing we are trying to change will be the reason we fail.

Your thoughts.