Why Teams Fail, Part 9: Democratic Bias

One common source of bias that people bring to the team setting is the desire to make decisions by voting. As Americans, we are culturally conditioned to vote for our choices, and voting connects with our sense of fairness and equality. But as a team decision-making process, voting has significant shortcomings.

Let’s use a courtroom analogy for illustrative purposes. Perhaps you’ve seen the classic Henry Fonda movie, 12 Angry Men. The movie begins as the twelve men of the jury begin to deliberate the guilt of a young man on trial for murder. At first, only one of the jurors is unwilling to vote for conviction. And as the drama unfolds, more and more questions are raised in the minds of the jurors who, one by one, change their vote to not guilty. Had it not been for the one person willing to disagree with the rest of the group, the young man on trial would have been convicted for a crime he didn’t commit. The movie is an interesting study in team dynamics, in part because it shows how we tend to see things selectively. As the jurors discuss points of evidence, they begin to see the evidence from a more objective point of view. To put it differently, the discussion helped each juror see past his personal biases.

In a team setting, we have the tendency to rely on “majority rule”—a simple majority of the team carries the vote. But what about the minority? In effect, the minority view is nullified by the majority. The team becomes fragmented along the lines of the decision. (Or, in the absence of a majority, the vote ends in a stalemate.)

Rather than relying on individual votes, the preferred approach is for the team to see itself as one organic whole. Like the jurors in a capital trial, the team must speak with one voice. In this way, everyone must be heard and understood—even the team member who stands alone. And once the decision is made, the team maintains its unity.

The word that is used to describe this approach to decision-making is consensus. The team has achieved consensus when everyone supports the final decision—there are no dissenters. As such, the decision-making process can be viewed as a form of conflict resolution—reaching a unified decision from a starting point of two or more differing views.

Here’s how to see that consensus decision-making differs most fundamentally from a majority vote. As the decision-making process gets underway, two or more choices are in play with supporters of each choice locked into their positions. Voting your way out of this disagreement produces the choice with the most supporters—not necessarily the best choice. The winners feel good and the losers feel disenfranchised. The team walks out of the room with just as much division as it had before the vote—and perhaps some hard feelings, as well. Voting may be the fastest way to reach a decision, but it makes for a disappointed minority and fails to create the synergy we hope to achieve when a team works together.

Consensus means hammering out a decision that everyone supports. That may involve taking the best elements of every idea and coming up with a brand new solution that never would have been in play by merely voting. In this way, building consensus can lead to truly creative solutions.

J.R. Dickens

© 2013 Woodland Park Research Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Seeing the Obvious for the First Time

Improvement often follows a change in one’s paradigm about the way things are done. A recent example illustrates the idea—and shows that a paradigm shift can be right under our nose.

The shipping department of an apparel manufacturing company is responsible for applying printed paper tags to the finished product before it is placed into the shipping queue. The company VP singled out this process for improvement due to the excessive amount of time required for tagging a particular line of outerwear.

A day and time was selected to take a closer look at the process on the shop floor. In attendance were the company owner, the VP, manufacturing manager, production scheduler, warehouse supervisor, product designer, and a warehouse employee to demonstrate the tagging process.

The existing process involved: (1) removing a folded garment from a box; (2) unfolding the garment and spreading it on a table; (3) visually inspecting the garment; (4) applying tags with a tagging gun; and, (4) refolding the garment for storage or shipment.

As we observed the process, several improvement ideas emerged and began to coalesce. Why were the garments folded and boxed by the production department (which was literally 20 feet away)? Why were the garments being inspected? Why were the garments tagged with a gun instead of using string to attach the tags to a button?

Then an interesting thing happened. Someone grabbed a nearby rolling rack and started taking garments out of the box and hanging them on the rack. Now it was possible to stretch out the garment and inspect it more quickly. And as an added bonus, the garment was much easier to tag on a hanger than on the table. The production department no longer needed to fold the garments, the shipping department no longer needed to unfold the garments, and the necessary work of inspecting and tagging could be done more efficiently.

With that success in view, the next steps are as follows. First, track down the source of the oil spots that necessitate inspection and rework of the garments. Next, try attaching the tags with strings in order to eliminate the need to pierce each garment with a tagging gun.

This improvement event took less than an hour, was a tremendous learning experience, and ended with smiles all around. Simpler process, less labor, less time. And some good ideas for making the process even better.

J.R. Dickens

© 2013 Woodland Park Research Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Can You Afford Improvement?

Many companies are understandably hesitant to commit their limited resources to improvement. This is no surprise when businesses are spread thin from a weak economy and may be struggling to keep the doors open. Who has the time and money for improvement? Maybe the question we should be asking is, “Can you afford the status quo?”

Ask yourself whether any of this sounds familiar:

• less than 10% of total labor adds value to your product or service
• 5-10% of your finished product has at least one defect
• one-third of total labor is spent on rework—doing things over that weren’t done right the first time
• your “quality process” relies upon multiple inspections to catch the defects before they go out the door—and damage control for the defects that escape
• inventory turns are well below 12 per year
• product cycle time is measured in weeks (from order of raw material to delivery of finished product)
• a sizable chunk of capital is tied up in inventory (along with the required storage space)
• accounts receivable is well in excess of 30 days
• just about every problem you “solve” seems to come back again—and again
• nothing seems to work consistently from day-to-day
• you have difficulty making sense of your operational data
• you struggle to maintain customer loyalty in an increasingly competitive marketplace
• your perception is that customers choose your product mainly because of price
• finding and keeping the right employees is a growing challenge—turnover is a significant sources of rework and causes difficulty maintaining continuity of product and service quality
• lack of alignment and poor teamwork places different parts of the organization at odds and contributes to a silo mentality
• managers spend most of their time working with the low-performing employees (or having to do the job for them)
• lapses of integrity cause friction in the workplace and contribute to unmet customer expectations
• sacred cows (obsolete people, procedures, and processes) are eating up your resources without adding value

If any of this describes your company, can you afford the status quo? Not in the long run.

J.R. Dickens

© 2013 Woodland Park Research Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Do You Have SMART Goals?

Everybody has goals, but let’s face it—some goals are better than others. What does it take to formulate a SMART goal? Let’s look at the five elements.

SMART goals are Specific—there is nothing vague about your intentions. The more detail, the clearer the goal.

SMART goals are Measurable—which means you know where you’re starting, and you’ll know when you’ve made it to the end.

SMART goals are Aggressive but Achievable—they lie just beyond the edge of your comfort zone, but not so far out that you’re discouraged before you start.

SMART goals are Relevant—they are deeply rooted to a specific purpose which helps establish priority and sustain a sense of urgency.

SMART goals are Time-Bound—which means they have a defined deadline with accountability for completion. The deadline has to be close enough to move us into action—typically a few days or weeks at most.

In addition to building SMART goals, what else can we do to improve our chances for success?

• Differentiate between the desired results and the things that produce the results. If I want to lose weight, I may measure the goal in terms of “pounds lost,” but I should also formulate goals around things like diet and exercise.
• Break big goals into smaller pieces—identify the intermediate goals that will move you in the right direction. If you want to run a marathon, start by running a mile.
• Put the goal in writing. Writing down our goals—and regularly reviewing them—keeps them in our mind and helps us avoid being sidetracked. Distraction is the enemy of achievement.
• Talk to a trusted advisor who will provide constructive feedback on your goal.
• Turn to a friend who will offer encouragement when things get tough and you’re ready to quit.
• Look for a collaborator. Most goals aren’t accomplished in a vacuum.
• Take time to celebrate when you cross the finish line.

J.R. Dickens

© 2013 Woodland Park Research Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

“Five S” for Workplace Organization

Five S (5S) is a very simple workplace improvement method developed by the Japanese to aid in daily improvement (kaizen). It is based on five complementary steps which are primarily accomplished by workers on the shop floor.

The first “S” can be called Sort or Separate. The objective is to remove everything from the workspace that is not used regularly (e.g., less than once/month). Conversely, examine the workspace to make sure everything is available that is used regularly. With the first “S,” we want to put extraneous items into storage areas (or otherwise discard them), and bring items out of storage that need to be close at hand. This step is also a good time to review the stocking level of supplies in the workspace, along with the inventory management process.

The second “S” can be called Systematize or Straighten. The objective is to organize everything in the workspace for maximum efficiency (minimizing waste due to unnecessary time and motion, e.g., retrieving commonly used tools from different storage areas). In addition, labels (or addresses) are used to indicate the correct location of all items when not in use. Visual labels (i.e., tool outlines) can be helpful as well. Once organized, a quick glance is all it takes to ensure that every item is in its proper location.

The third “S” can be called Sweep or Scrub. The objective is to remove dirt, grime, trash, and scrap material from the workspace while making a visual check of all equipment. This is an opportunity to ensure that everything is in place and in good working order. When the equipment is kept clean, it is much easier to detect problems like cracks, leaks, and loose fasteners.

The fourth “S” can be called Standardize or Simplify. The objective is to make good habits into routine practice by communicating new work procedures with labels, signs, instructions, etc. In this way, everyone’s work task is performed in a way that is consistent with best practices. This step can also include determining proper work attire such as clothing and safety gear.

The fifth “S” can be called Self-Discipline or Sustain. The objective is to monitor and follow-up to ensure that everyone is up-to-date on procedures and workplace habits.  A regular review of progress (and updated improvement goals) will help ensure an ongoing effort. Regular evaluations can be accomplished by management and peers. Management also has a responsibility to provide recognition and rewards for success.

Taken together, the steps of Five S help maintain an orderly workplace and thereby set the stage for further improvement of the work.

J.R. Dickens

Further reading: Gemba Kaizen, pp. 65-78

© 2013 Woodland Park Research Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Why Teams Fail, Part 8: No Facilitator

The value of a skilled team facilitator is often overlooked. If the team leader is analogous to the quarterback, the facilitator is analogous to the referee. He is there to make sure everyone plays by the rules.

Another helpful comparison is to think about the team members as the gears in a machine, while the facilitator is the oil that ensures all the parts work together smoothly.

In both analogies, the facilitator plays a vital role while remaining in the background. Thinking of the facilitator as a referee helps to show that he is not part of the team, per se. His role is to impartially moderate the team interaction without being directly involved in the team’s decisions. His concern is that the process of decision-making works smoothly, but he has no stake in the decisions made by the team.

Like the referee, the facilitator relies on a set of shared rules. Each team should establish a set of ground rules during the early stages of the team effort. The ground rules, in turn, allow the facilitator to moderate the team’s interactions. One of the most important ground rules is to maintain an environment where every team member’s contribution is valued. The facilitator can also play an important role in helping constructively manage team conflict while working toward team consensus.

The next post will discuss the importance of consensus in more detail.

J.R. Dickens

© 2012 Woodland Park Research Group. All Rights Reserved.

How to Waste Time and Look Busy, Part 1

Meetings can be one of our biggest time-wasters. Today we’ll discuss some guidelines for getting the most out of your routine meetings.

1. The first step is to eliminate the meeting if at all possible. Make sure there is a legitimate reason for the meeting and that it’s not a carry-over that no longer meets a pressing business need. Remember to look at your activities through the eyes of the customer to discern whether they truly add value.
2. If the meeting cannot be eliminated, reduce the frequency of the meeting. Try cutting it in half.
3. Shorten the meeting time and don’t allow it to run over. Cut the length of the meeting in half. Force yourself to stay focused on the topic. You will find that you really can accomplish more in less time.
4. Make use of an agenda that spells out specific action items and decisions that must be made.
5. Reduce the meeting size so that only the people who need to be there are invited.
6. Communicate the purpose of the meeting ahead of time, along with the contribution that each participant will make.
7. Be disciplined about starting and ending on time.

Now let’s apply these ideas with a thought experiment. Suppose you have a weekly meeting that includes 12 people and lasts an hour. If you use the rule of halves, by reducing the frequency of the meeting, shortening the meeting time, and eliminating unnecessary team members, you’d end up with one meeting every other week with six people that lasts 30 minutes. The result?

You have freed 6 people of an hour of wasted time each week. The other six people have been freed of 45 minutes of wasted time each week. And the real bonus? You actually get more done with fewer people and shorter meetings.

In the next article, we’ll consider how to make the best use of reports.

J.R. Dickens

© 2012 Woodland Park Research Group. All Rights Reserved.

The Paradigm Crisis

“When a paradigm shifts, everyone goes back to zero.”¹

A paradigm shift can be so powerful that it wipes out entire industries. One of the most notable examples that Joel Barker uses in his book is the invention of the quartz movement which put the Swiss watch industry into its grave. The irony? The quartz movement was invented by the Swiss, but commercially developed by the Japanese. As Barker relates the account, the Swiss were not able to see their own future. Within a matter of a few years, electronic watches replaced mechanical watches.

Other examples of game-changing technology abound. How many of you still use a camera that requires film? New technology allows us to take (and share) digital photos (and videos) with cameras built into our wireless phones. Film is so yesterday. And so are Fotomat huts (and pay phones). Now, most of the cameras that still use film are disposable. Those are but a few examples of how technology can create new industries while rendering old industries obsolete.

The crisis occurs when a new paradigm suddenly appears on the scene. Now everyone is starting from scratch—even the legacy company that has been fantastically successful in the old paradigm. The new startup company is able to compete in the new paradigm because the legacy company may try to hang on to the old paradigm for a while longer. This illustrates how success can be an obstacle: there is so much inertia in the old paradigm, that it takes time to even notice when a change has occurred.

The paradigm shift is like a reset button. Nothing that happened before the reset really matters—it makes no difference how good you were up to that point. Success (or survival) now depends upon the manner in which you respond to the reset. Barker identifies three options: (1) change your paradigm; (2) change your customer; (3) change both.² And there is a fourth option—change nothing…and lose everything.

Next article: Where Does the New Paradigm Come From?

J.R. Dickens

Footnotes:

¹Barker, p. 140. Paradigms: The Business of Discovering the Future

²ibid., p. 166.

© 2012 Woodland Park Research Group. All Rights Reserved.

Why Teams Fail, Part 7: Weak Leadership

The team leader’s primary job is to be the influencer who steers the team toward its stated objectives.

Let’s look at some of the ways we can describe what the leader is and is not:

• The leader is in front. There is no such thing as leading from behind. That’s called following.
• Once the decision is made to go from Point A to Point B, the leader keeps the focus on moving toward Point B.
• The team leader continually reinforces the objectives of the team and watches carefully for the tendency to expand the scope of the work beyond the original objectives.
• The leader sets the pace of the team by setting the agenda for each meeting, assigning tasks, and monitoring progress.
• The team leader maintains a “parking lot” to capture useful ideas that are out of the scope of the team’s work.
• The leader communicates with stakeholders outside the team, particularly the team sponsor.
• The leader is part of the decision-making body of the team. Only the facilitator is impartial to the content and direction of the team process.
• The leader must not try to be the facilitator.

Because of the complementary relationship between team leader and team facilitator, we’ll discuss the facilitator’s role in the next article.

J.R. Dickens

© 2012 Woodland Park Research Group. All Rights Reserved.

The Road to Improvement is Littered with Waste

The road to improvement is often a process of elimination: specifically, getting rid of the waste. In order to do that, we have to know where to look for it.

Waste fits into one of two categories: what we’re doing (active waste), and what we’re not doing (passive waste). For now, we’ll examine the category of active waste since it is easier to get a handle on.

To begin our study of waste, let’s start with a brief look at work. Again, we find it helpful to consider two categories: value-added (VA) and non-value-added (NVA). Value-added work only includes the activities the customer is specifically paying you to do. Everything else goes into the non-value-added category of work. Immediately we see that most of the work that takes place (75%-90%) is not value-added. This is one of the first mental hurdles we must cross—acknowledging the reality that most of the work adds no value to the customer.

Waste can be found everywhere, but since NVA work typically exceeds VA work by a large margin (e.g., 4:1), it makes sense to start looking for waste in the NVA work. NVA work includes many activities that are necessary to the operation of the business: marketing, sales, purchasing, billing, receiving, accounting, reporting, etc.—“back office” or administrative processes. Also in this category we have time spent traveling, waiting time, and time off work.

Often, one of the largest portions of NVA work is rework—doing something over that wasn’t done right the first time. Another term for this type of work is firefighting—reacting to the process/product problems that come to your attention each day. Some examples include: reworking/repackaging defective product; marketing/selling defective product at a reduced margin; reprocessing incomplete paperwork; looking for lost paperwork; inspecting for defects; routine testing for conformity; fielding customer complaints and returns due to errors or defects; and, repairing equipment that wasn’t fixed or maintained properly. With those examples in mind, you may be able to think of many more types of rework that take place in your business. You may also begin to see that we sometimes devote the resources of an entire department to the task of firefighting! The paradigm shift that is needed is for us to get out of reactive mode (firefighting) and get into proactive mode (anticipation and prevention).

As we explore this topic further, we’ll begin to look at some specific sources of waste, and develop an overall strategy to guide the improvement effort.

J.R. Dickens

© 2012 Woodland Park Research Group. All Rights Reserved.