|
Naming is a critical task, but also a delicate one. It is easy to lose
focus and be seduced by the promise of a quick fix or immediate progress.
Unfortunately the consequence is often much less.
Because of our action-oriented business
culture, many people start out
by speculating on the solution.
Often the first discussion of a problem is
a debate about potential solutions, not a
real discussion of what is going on.
The least common strategy — and potentially
most valuable — is applying some abstract
model to the situation to sort out the wheat
from the chaff.
|
False Focus
|
When we think of what might be linked to a specific symptom, the answer
is often endless. Historical
background. Personalities. Important
contextual variables.
Beliefs. Expectations. Market dynamics. Community politics.
Fantasies. Even what didn't happen. We usually
get overwhelmed before we even
get up to half speed. It is no
wonder that we often fall back
on some common but unfortunate
attempts to narrow the field:
- We only look at elements within a
functional category (Let's just
look at the Marketing part
of the situation first).
- We only focus on the financials (Let's do whatever
we can to reduce
costs and increase income.)
- We only consider events for which
we have a readily available solution
(Isn't there a training program
that would take care of this? Or We
just spent $1M on our TQM program;
let's put those people on this problem).
- We only look at the events which
are politically correct, personally
favorable, or acceptable to the CEO
(There's no sense in talking about
the "glass ceiling"; he won't
hear of it).
- We only look at symptoms we can address
quickly (We need to solve this
by quarter's end, so
let's not go after
world hunger).
These common approaches are so engrained
in American business that to argue against them could risk being viewed
as irrelevant or incompetent. Yet their impact is to prematurely narrow
our focus, or just optimize one part of a larger, more complex system.
In the worst case, our attempts to solve the problem become part of the
problem. That is, they reinforce the very segmentation of a complex problem
that has led people to short-sighted, localized efforts that only exascerbate
the larger problem. For example, attempting to improve sagging morale
by getting HR to conduct a survey and focus groups may only serve to
separate the symptom from the real cause, which could be concern over
a weak vision in the face of a turbulent market. If employees see the
problem being handed over to HR, it seems like it only worsens the problem.
|
False Clarity
These focus on the solution without examining the problem;
the 8 problem types illuminate the problem without presuming the solution.
|
To avoid bogging down in a mess, sometimes we impose a particular model
or lens for looking at a problem. Each model highlights certain features
of a situation and suppresses attention to
others. In
that sense,
it
seems "useful". If you picked the right lens!
The flaw in all of the lenses summarized below
is that they are actually about the solution, not about the problem.
That is, they are classes of solutions which are offered up as "analyses" of
the situation. The net effect is to narrow everyone's attention to
a small segment of the problem space without first considering the
full range of possibilities.
The Skills Deficit
Lens
The essential features in the world
are people and their individual skills. Problems
occur because people lack the requisite
skills. Problem analysis
consists of identifying the underlying
skill and then pushing for training,
mentoring, or some other skill delivery
mechanism.
The Communication Failure Lens
Communication is inherently fragile and difficult. We usually overestimate greatly the amount of actual understanding between people. Problems occur when the misunderstandings become so great that correlated action breaks down. The best approach is to revisit and redouble communications until someone finally understands.
The Personality Conflict Lens
People
are able to get along well with only
a limited proportion of the others
around them. People with conflicting
personalities are naturally and
inevitably unable to work together
smoothly. Some people just have “difficult
personalities”, which creates
problems for everyone around them.
Problems occur when two people with
discordant personalities are thrown
together. Separating them is the
best solution; otherwise you have
to just tolerate the friction. Really
difficult people must be counseled
or replaced.
Roles and Responsibilities Lens
Corporate actions require clear
and shared understandings of each
person’s role. Everyone
needs to know what is expected
of them, and what they can expect
of others. The organizational
chart and job descriptions are
the building blocks of successful
action. Problems occur when there
are misunderstandings of mutual
responsibilities. Changes in the
business environment typically
require some reorganization or
job clarification every few months.
Personal Power Lens
It is critical to “win” in
any encounter. If you let someone
else get the upper hand, then you
have “lost” and only
the winners will be survivors. Disagreement
and failure are dangerous moments,
since you might get the blame for
what happened. Problems occur as
a natural by product of competition
and conflict. They are the “collateral
damage” of passionate and
engaged players. If you can't stand
the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Hard Changes Lens
People are resistant to change; they would prefer to keep things as they are rather than change to even a better situation. Required changes often run afoul of an emotional adjustment period, during which most objections and obstacles are emotionally based, even if they are rationally presented. Such problems will eventually iron themselves out if you just give people a little time. And if you have a necessary change effort underway, it is important not to get misled by every complaint and concern that surfaces.
Quality Process Lens
Organizations are primarily horizontal
work flows. The vertical imagery
of the organizational chart blinds
us to the more dominant structure
of work processes. Problems occur
when horizontal work processes
are ignored and allowed to deteriorate
due to ignorance of process design
principles and failure to link
and reward people correctly so
they can explore process improvements
easily.
|