The Strong Boss [Matt Schlegel]

One of my clients is a strong leader. She is a strategic thinker and as smart as they come. She guides herself and her team to deliver consistently great results. Yet, she complains to me that her team fails to think for themselves. As such, she has to maintain a hands-on approach and monitor the team continuously. She finds this tiring and aggravating and wishes she could delegate more. What is happening here?

As I began to interact with my client’s team, I discovered that the team was very good at reacting to direction from the boss. The team understood that the boss highly valued action; therefore, they took direction from the boss and turned that into action as quickly as possible. There was very little need to highlight problems since the boss set the agenda on the important problems to address. Also, the team minimized analysis and planning activities since these activities took time and slowed progress toward action-oriented results.



The figure illustrates the problem-solving dynamics of this organization. The leadership style of the boss created a strong tendency towards action – Git ‘er Done (step 7). The team members attracted to this type of organization are those that respond well to that leadership style. For instance, once the boss set the direction, the team found little need for further conversation about the problem (step 1). By moving directly to step 2, people would organize and figure out how they would respond to the boss’s direction. Ideas would be generated (step 3), but the team would find there was little value in analyzing the ideas (step 4) and building plans (step 5) around those ideas. Rather, the team would present a promising idea (step 6) to the boss for review and approval. The boss, being the smart strategic person that she is, would be able to quickly assess the idea and approve it, modify it or send the team back to the drawing board. In that way, the team would quickly move into the Execution Phase (step 7.)

This action-oriented problem-solving style is very effective in that it produces results quickly. One way to characterize this method is as an iterative method. Another description is “Fail Fast.” This is a great methodology to try different approaches and quickly iterate to a successful solution. And, because the leader in this case was as talented as she is, the probability was high that the ideas she directed the team to pursue would be successful. The cost of this approach is that she had to spend a tremendous amount of energy setting direction, reviewing ideas and monitoring results.

In working with this team, I found that I had to start at the end with the neglected Debrief Step (step 8), reviewing with the team how they solve problems, and determine what was working well and what not so well. Out of this discussion came a list of potential problems (step 1) that the team considered important to address. Reviewing this list with the strong leader, we quickly came into agreement on the important problems. The big difference was that the problems were now the team’s problems, not the boss’s problems – the team was highly vested in solving these problems.

Working with the team, I had them spend more time on analyzing different ideas for solutions and putting together a well-thought-out plan before presenting the plan to the boss. The team put together a terrific proposal in which they genuinely held pride. They presented that to the boss who was equally pleased and gave the team permission to move forward, which the team did with considerable enthusiasm.

The strong boss learned how her personal leadership style was impacting the performance of the team. The problems she experienced with her team were as much the result of her own behavior as that of her team. By allowing the team some say in choosing the problems to solve, the team delivered great results and took far less oversight from the boss, which made the strong boss happy.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.
More...

Bumps and Dips on the Path to Solving your Problem [Matt Schlegel]

In past blogs I have described a problem-solving process. When I describe it, it is a nice smooth process flowing from one step to the next. Funny thing is, when you use the process in practice, it may not be so smooth. What if we could look down the path to anticipate likely bumps and dips in the process. We may not be able to avoid those obstacles, but we can brace ourselves to move through them. In this blog I will describe a method to let my fellow problem solvers identify in advance those bumps and dips.

People tend to play to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. Your problem-solving team is comprised of people and their various strengths and weaknesses. Depending on where you are in the problem-solving process, your team members will resonate or not with the phase at hand. If the phase requires a strength that is absent in your team, the team can get stuck and have trouble moving to the next phase. If the team is overrepresented by a particular strength, again the team can get stuck or repeatedly go back to the overrepresented step.

The figure illustrates a team that is generally well represented by team members with various strengths, but has an underrepresentation in the Get It Done Step (step 7) and over representation in the Identify the Problem Step (step 1). What can happen in this case is that team would move around the process to the point of underrepresentation, get stuck, and then move back to the overrepresented step, a discussion about what is wrong, without ever taking the action to solve the problem.



This is just one example. You can see that depending on your team make-up, there can be any number of bumps and dips encountered as you move around the process. It is important for the facilitator of process to understand the team make-up, anticipate the trouble spots, and ensure that the team can move through the obstacle. In the example above, the facilitator needs to clearly identify the Driver role in step 7 and ensure that that role is filled with a willing and able team member. Also, when the team restarts the discussion about the problem, the facilitator needs pull the team back on track by reminding the team that a problem statement already exists.

As I work with teams and see how the strengths and weaknesses influence progress, I realize that there are many well-known clichés that describe these bumps and dips. To name a few: paralysis by analysis, half baked idea, heart in the right place, look before you leap, etc. On your problem-solving teams, what bumps and dips have you encountered and what clichés have come to mind?


_______________________________________________________
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.

More...

Corporations are People, Too! [Matt Schlegel]

A US Supreme Court decision on January 21, 2010 has re-ignited buzz about the rights (and responsibilities) of corporations. When this buzz happens, and it periodically does (here is an example from 1886), I wonder why it is that we humans are inclined to organize ourselves into ever larger groups? What do those groups afford us? And, what can we learn from this behavior about how organizations solve problems?

When I think about these questions, I first think about what it means to be an individual. The brain is a good place to start thinking about this (literally!) Each of our brains (and I am including all vertebrates here) detects our individual needs and communicates those needs to us in the form of feelings or actions. Satisfying those needs is the problem that the brain is constantly endeavoring to solve. A big part of the brain is dedicated to understanding the problems of one part of the body, and then translating and transferring that information to other parts of the body to help solve the various problems. Our individual brains enable us to be good at solving some problems and not so good at solving others.

Some of the needs identified by our individual brains are best met in collaboration with other individuals and their brains. (2 heads are better than 1!) Our brains figure out what other individuals are good at, and we tend to collaborate with other individuals that help us meet our needs. In that way, collectively we are able to accomplish more and meet each other’s needs better than if we worked individually by ourselves. And, this characteristic is scalable. As the collection of neurons in our brains grows more numerous, and those neurons communicate better with each other, the better the brain becomes at solving problems (fish, reptiles and birds, mammals, culminating in the human brain.) And, this appears to be true for collections of those brains (schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of animals, organizations of people.) I suppose it is not surprising that brains will tend to use the same successful formula for both internal scaling and external scaling.

When, as individuals, we join a larger group, we create an identity associated with that group. In a sense, as we become part of it, it becomes part of us. As the organization takes on members, it starts to reflect the traits of the individuals. Often, like-minded individuals attract one another, and these individuals may share similar characteristics, including similar strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses can be reflected as strengths and weaknesses of the organization. In the coming blogs, I will share with you some of my experiences about the strengths and weaknesses of organizations for whom I have consulted and show how those strengths and weaknesses affected the organization’s ability to solve problems. Remarkably, the tools that I use for analyzing individuals seem to work very well for analyzing larger collections people. Maybe corporations really are people.

___________________________________________________________________
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use this methodology to help companies solve big challenges, and he folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at http://www.sakinoconsulting.com/.

More...

Think Outside the Tool [Rino Jose]

Remember this one?

In the figure below, find a way to draw four straight lines through the nine points without lifting your pen from the page.

The answer, of course, is to allow the lines to extend beyond the boundaries of the implied box:

This puzzle gave rise to one of the biggest business cliches ever: "Think Outside the Box".

The next logical challenge then is, can you find a way to draw two straight lines through the nine points without lifting your pen from the page? Not possible, you say? Can't make the box big enough? Here's a hint: "Think Outside the Tool".

What if you used a pen with a really wide diameter? Then you could do something like this:

This is a better tool for the job. Less work for you. Faster results.

Every tool has built in assumptions

When you use a fine-tipped pen, it's assumed that you want thin strokes so you can draw or write with fine detail. You wouldn't want to use this type of pen to paint a wall. Likewise, a paint roller is great for painting walls, but you wouldn't want to use it to sign a contract.

Assumptions aren't necessarily bad things. A more generic tool designed with fewer assumptions often requires more effort to use for a particular job. For instance, spreadsheet applications are great for summarizing tabular data and doing quick computations, but using them to manage projects requires a lot of thought and work (and rework) to set up -- and ongoing effort to keep updated.

Specialized tools make specific assumptions about how they will be used. If you use them as they were intended, they can make your job a lot simpler and easier.

When you start using a tool, understand what assumptions it's making and how these assumptions relate to the work at hand.

Learn Your Tools

If you find yourself using a tool every day, it's probably worth blocking off an hour this week so you can browse the documentation. Skim the table of contents or the index and jot down the features you're not familiar with. Do a websearch on the tips and tricks for the tool so you can get an idea of what others have found useful.

If any of these are relevant to your work right now, figure out how to use them today. If not, keep them in the back of your mind for when the time is right. Investing an hour to learn the tools you use every day can pay for itself many times over down the road.

When all you have is a hammer...

When your tools aren't working well, or when you and your team seem to be spending too much time fighting them, even after you've taken the time to learn them, you might need a different tool.

Take a good hard look at your current tools. What assumptions are built into them? Do they help you do your job, or do you need to hire someone just to keep them running? If you're not using the right tool for the job, find (or build) a better one.

Don't just get by with the tools you have. What if you could save 4 days of effort per week with the right tool? Wouldn't that have a huge impact on your organization? There are tools like this (I've built one). Use them.
(originally posted on Management Revolution)

_________________________________________
Rino Jose is the principal co-founder of Lakeway Technologies, a startup that develops web apps for automating engineering and project management. He has developed software and managed software teams professionally for over 15 years. As a manager and management consultant, he has led turnarounds for multiple engineering teams. Rino holds a B.S. from U.C. Berkeley and a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania with cross-disciplinary focus between Engineering, Computer Science, and the Wharton Business School.
More...

Problem Solving and the Black Swan [Matt Schlegel]

In past blogs I have described the importance of creating a clear statement of the problem before you jump into a problem-solving project. The challenge with creating this problem statement is that not everyone has the same problem. In fact, during good times the types of problems that people have grow diverse and less severe. Then, in flies the Black Swan, a disruptive event that impacts a great number of people. This event presses the problem-solving reset button.

In The Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes the impact of infrequent events. Taleb calls such an infrequent event, “a Black Swan.” In terms of problem solving, the impact of a Black Swan event is clear – a large number of people come to share a common problem. Whatever smaller issues those people may have faced before, there is a huge problem in front of them that many must address.

In the corporate world, a Black Swan event may be any number of situations: the departure of an important leader, customer or vendor; the restructuring of a division; a merger or acquisition of another company. The list goes on and on. Any of these events gets the attention of everyone in the company and creates a natural urge to want to help solve the problem.

The great news about a Black Swan event is that it gets everyone focused and working together. In large organizations this is hard to do, but when it does happen, seemingly miraculous accomplishments can occur. For instance, once Apple was at the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990’s, the company became very focused on its “core” values and has thrived every since.

When people share a common problem, they are naturally compelled to work together to solve that problem. The important first step of any problem-solving process is the creation of a clear problem statement. Black Swan events grab everyone’s attention and help create a common problem for all. As if a reset button were pressed, it brings everyone to the first step in the problem-solving process. As organizations get larger and larger, these Black Swans can perform an important function in re-aligning people and creating a common problem statement. With that common problem, people focus their energy and overcome even the most difficult challenges. Today, as I reflect on the US and how divided the nation has become and remains, I wonder what Black Swan will cause us to focus our energies again.
_________________________________________
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.
More...

Borrowing Borrowing Brilliance [Matt Schlegel]

In my previous blogs I have described a problem-solving process. By no means am I the first to describe a problem-solving process; there are many, many examples. In fact, I have recently come across David Murray’s book, Borrowing Brilliance, in which he describes a 6-step process. What is the same about Murray’s process and the one I have described in previous blogs? What is different? Why?

Murray provokes his readers by asserting that creativity is, in large part, simply borrowing ideas from others. He says that if you and your team allow yourselves to do this, you will enjoy much better solutions arrived at more quickly. Murray describes the first steps in this process by a series of four meetings:

So here’s how to incorporate the creative thinking process into the daily practices of your organization. Separate the concept development process into four different meetings, each with a different goal and different set of rules. These are:
1) a problem-definition meeting;
2) a borrowing-ideas meeting;
3) a new-idea meeting;
4) the judgment of these ideas at a separate time.

Holy smokes, these are exactly the same first four steps in the process that I have been describing! Coincidence? I hardly think so. If there truly is a fundamental method in the way that humans solve problems, and that method is somehow connected to the way the human brain works, then we would expect to see similarities in any problem-solving process described by a human. And, I think we do.

Here are the steps that Murray uses to describe his entire process:

The Six Steps to Business Innovation
Step 1: Defining ➜ Define the problem you’re trying to solve.
Step 2: Borrowing ➜ Borrow ideas from places with a similar problem.
Step 3: Combining ➜ Connect and combine these borrowed ideas.
Step 4: Incubating ➜ Allow the combinations to incubate into a solution.
Step 5 Judging ➜ Identify the strength and weakness of the solution.
Step 6: Enhancing ➜ Eliminate the weak points while enhancing the strong ones.

While Murray’s process gets off to a great start, it seems to get stuck in the latter steps. Incubating, Judging and Enhancing all seem very much part of the analysis process. Where is the part that the team makes a decision about the solution? Where is the part where the team sells that decision to management? Where is the part where solution is implemented and delivered? Murray’s process seems like a great methodology for an R&D department that is not required to deliver a final result but only well-formed ideas. The great clarity of vision with which Murray describes the first part of the process and the lack of clarity in the delivery part tells me much about Murray and what is important to him. It also provides me with clues about the part of the problem-solving process in which Murray excels – we all like to play to our strengths.

Every problem-solving process has its strengths and weaknesses (including the one that I have described.) In many cases, it is simply because the process is trying to solve only a very specific problem and not a general problem. In many cases, those strengths and weaknesses are attributable to the world view of the author. I love to analyze different problem-solving methods as I attempt to discover fundamental truths about human problem solving. Maybe you can help me? What is your favorite problem-solving method? The Scientific Method? A Bug Resolution Process? The Six-Sigma Method? Please share your methodology here and let’s discuss the similarities and differences between the different methods.
_________________________________________

Matt Schlegel has been developing his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process
More...

Problem Solving, the Brain, and the Enneagram [Matt Schlegel]

On the topic of problem solving and the brain, I want to bring to your attention a fascinating book called Personality and the Brain written by a local computer scientist and entrepreneur, Peter Savich. Peter became interested in the Enneagram and realized that there must be a link between how the brain operates and the core modality described by the Enneagram. His book makes a very compelling case for this link.

Peter asserts that there are two parts of the brain that drive personality, an old brain component, the amygdala, and a new brain component, the prefrontal cortex (PFC). The amygdala is in essence the fear processor, and the PFC is the optimism/pessimism processor. He goes on to describe how each of these brain components has a right side and a left side, corresponding with the right side and left side of your brain. And, each half invokes dominant characteristics. For instance, one side of your amygdala is your fear-aware processor (the flight processor) and the other is your fear-unaware processor (the fight processor). Likewise, one side of the PFC is your optimism processor (glass half full) and one side is your pessimism processor (glass half empty).

Just like there are 3 states of handedness, right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous, Peter asserts that both the amygdala and the PFC have three dominant modal states, and it is the combination of these states that give us the 9 states of the Enneagram. How cool is that! He goes on to examine studies from the body of neuroscience literature to show how pathologies in these brain components accentuate or diminish the behaviors that map to the behaviors described by the Enneagram, thereby making a very compelling case for connecting the dots between the brain and the Enneagram. I cannot thank Peter enough for developing and publishing this fascinating thesis.

With the help of this understanding, we are able to connect the dots from 1) a problem-solving process described by the Enneagram, to 2) the behaviors and capabilities important for each phase of that problem-solving process, to 3) our own unique set of behaviors and capabilities and, finally, to 4) our brain which governs those behaviors and capabilities. Just like the brain determines whether we end up being right-handed or left-handed, it also plays an important role in how we contribute to the problem-solving process.
____________________________________
According to Peter Savich’s framework, Matt Schlegel has an amygdala that is fear-aware dominant and a prefrontal cortex that is pessimistic processor dominant. This makes Matt uniquely suited for that part of the problem-solving process he characterizes as “finding the path of least danger.”
More...

Take stock of your problem-solving talents [Matt Schlegel]

In the last blog, I wrote about a talented right-handed pitcher. When it comes to throwing a ball, it is pretty easy for most of us to figure out which arm throws best. But what about problem solving? Each of us has a style that lends itself to contributing to the problem-solving process. How do we figure out what that style is and how we best contribute?


As you have read through the previous blogs describing the problem-solving process (and I hope that if you are reading this you will have done that), you may have been thinking to yourself about how you contribute at each phase in the process. You may have recognized those areas in which you feel you are strong or which you enjoy the most. Those are important clues in understanding where your personal talents lie when it comes to solving problems.

If we accept the 8 steps of the problem-solving process and acknowledge that as individuals we are strong in a few of the steps but perhaps not all of them, what happens when as individuals we attempt to solve problems? I can tell you from personal experience, I will focus on the steps in which I am strong and minimize or skip over the steps where I am weak. Here is how I would characterize myself: Firstly, I am not one to even make a big deal about problems. I may ignore them, live with them or tough them out. On the other hand, occasionally I get a “brilliant” idea that I want to try out. This idea will be a solution to a problem that I may or may not actually have. Yet, I will be so enthused about the idea that I will move forward and implement it, and I will be tenacious in doing so. After implementation, I will take steps to measure how effective the idea is in order to determine if it performs as I envisioned. At this point I usually stop and move on to the next thing.

So, which steps of the problem-solving process are my strengths and which are the weaknesses? Let’s start with weaknesses. I did not start off by having a clear problem statement, nor did I have any goals. I did not enlist the help of others. I did not consider many ideas, just the one that popped into my head. I did not explicitly analyze my idea, but there was the implicit analysis that my brain did to come up with the idea in the first place. I got very enthused about the idea, but I did not necessarily get others enthused about it. And, I worked hard to implement the idea and went back to see how well it worked. From this, you can see that I am personally weak in steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the process. On the other hand, I tend to be strong on steps 5, 7 and 8. Good to know.

And, dear reader, in terms of the problem-solving process, which steps do you identify in yourself as strengths? I encourage each of you to take stock of your strengths and understand how you best contribute to the problem-solving process.


Matt Schlegel lives in a household of 5 people, each contributes differently to the problem-solving process and two are teenagers. Matt’s keen awareness of his own problem-solving inadequacies may come from the constant and frank reminders of these inadequacies voiced by these teenagers. Kindly, his wife reminds him of his strengths.

More...