Framed II

So, to follow on from yesterday's post: whether you are in Sales or Accounting or Parts or Design; problem-solving is a big part of every day. Last time I said you might have a small problem if you assumed that everyone else framed a problem the same you did; and a much bigger problem if it turned out you were right. Unpack that, please...

Here's an example that will make things clearer (if you want a different one, go to the bottom of the Previous Posts list and click - you should then see Building Better Boards; that post contains a four-colour-coded example).

You can measure a person's approach to two closely-related thinking activities: the way they tackle problems and the way they come up with ideas. The first we can set up as scale from Linear (address the presenting problem directly using steps A,B and C to get the most immediate solution) to Global (step back from the presenting problem and try to understand the context in order to come up with the most comprehensive solution). The second we can also set up as a scale, this time from Concrete (analytical thinkers, who break things down into their "atomic" parts, and who want concrete results - preferably by yesterday) to Conceptual (synthetical thinkers, who combine known facts to come up with new constructs in a creative manner - possibly by tomorrow).

Ignoring the middle ground on each scale for the moment, that means there are four broad possibilities for the way any person is wired: Global+Conceptual (big picture, new ideas - sometime), Global+Concrete (see the big picture but want results by yesterday), Linear+Concrete (step-by-step analysis and solid results in a timely manner) and Linear+Conceptual (constantly improving upon a detailed step-by-step approach).

Let's assume for the moment that you are Linear+Concrete, you have three colleagues standing with you and you are looking at the smouldering ruins of one of your high-street retail shops. You say, "well, it's obvious what we do next" and they say "yes, it is".

What do you all mean?

You probably mean that someone needs to get the manual on disaster recovery from head office, find the relevant scenario and follow the instructions. If you know there is no such manual then you will be thinking "get details of our insurance, find out how much stock and equipment was there and collect the documentation thereof," and so on.

Does anybody else mean that?

Possibly, but in a random sample we would expect at least one of the other perspectives would be represented. So at least one of you colleagues may be thinking "what opportunity does this represent to change our retail presence in this town; I must give this some thought" (Global+Conceptual) OR "what opportunity does this represent to improve our disaster recovery processes; I must give this some thought" (Linear+Conceptual) OR - if I am standing there with you - "I bet we could get short-term emergency accommodation in a couple of other locations in town (by this afternoon) and analyse performance from those temporary sites to decide where we want to be once this gets sorted" (Global+Linear).

Which perspective is right? They are all right, but none of them complete of itself.

The real problem only arises if we fail to articulate what each of us is seeing. If, having agreed that what to do is "obvious", we all set about doing what is "obvious" to us, the next scenario is likely to involve a certain amount of "what on earth did you think you were doing????" To avoid this, after agreeing that we each see something "obvious", it is worth asking exactly what that is and why. Then we can get some perspectives we mightn't have thought of ourselves, and come up with a plan that takes many or all perspectives into account (but which may prioritise certain actions over others). In other words, assume there are many perspectives at work and bring them all into play; don't assume unanimity of vision.

But what if you have just a single vision and perspective at work?

The four of you stand looking at the smoking ruin, and indeed all any of you can see is the need to follow established procedures, establish and remediate actual loss and so forth. What's wrong with this picture?

At one level nothing - certainly nothing that any of you will notice. You will have lost an opportunity to think of new options, but will be happy in your unknowing. Maybe that isn't a big deal - today. But over time, if the four of you consistently only see the Linear and Concrete aspects of your work and none of the Global and Conceptual perspectives, it is likely that you will lose significant ground to competitors or even your basic viability as a business. And hear this: the same would be true if you were all Global and Conceptual, or any other combination you care to mention.

In summary, diversity of perspective makes for better problem-framing and therefore problem-solving; provided that the diversity is a) recognised and b) valued and put to work. Uniformity of perspective makes for a quiet life - and usually a sad ending...

Framed

It is hard to think of an activity more central to organisational life than problem-solving. Strategy may set the direction, production/performing may keep cranking the handle - but problem-solving is where all the significant stuff happens. Every day, virtually every member of an organisation solves (or attempts to solve) problems of all shapes and sizes.

So here's a thought: if problem-solving is so central to organisational life, what activity is at the centre of problem-solving?

How about: problem-framing?

What do I mean by that? It sounds like it might be another way of saying "analysis" - working out exactly what the problem consists of. But analysis only happens when framing has been done: analysis is a generally fairly logical process; framing is about perception. Framing identifies what the problem is; analysis breaks it down into its component parts.

Here's the challenge: take any three people, point them at a problem you know about and ask them what the problem is and what needs to be done. They may all preface their remarks with "well, it's obvious..." But just how often do they actually see exactly the same problem you do?

Answer is "not often", which suggests there may be a problem with problems. Of course, if when you try it, they do in fact all come up with the same way of framing the problem as you did, you have an even more serious problem.

More tomorrow...

What Price Benchmarking?

Colleagues in the US had a runaway success, doing work for a company running a fleet of inshore and river barges (think massive Mississippi bulk carriers, not Grand Union Canal narrow-boats!). With around 600 personnel, this company's new hire turnover rate of 97% in the first year (you read that correctly: only three percent of new hires were still in job at the end of the first year) was costing them a seven-figure sum every year. And they were a good employer: caring, good policies, leave and benefits. Recruitment was carried out professionally - over and over again.

Using the breadth of the Birkman Method® (around 100 scales in total) they produced a profile of the statistically significant differences between the hires who stayed (and shone) and those who didn't. There were only a handful, and at first sight some of them looked insignificant - a difference of one decile for example in their "Production" scores - 9 and 8 respectively. 8 is still a really high score! But by using this profile in new hiring, in just the first year the turnover rate dropped from 97% to 43% (since then it has fallen even further). And that made a seven-figure difference to their bottom line - every year.

What is going on here? Firstly, all applicants were going to have a lot in common; living on a big barge for weeks at a time with just a couple of other crew members hauling often dangerous cargoes doesn't appeal to everyone. But secondly, not everyone who thought they would enjoy it really did once they found themselves out there on the Big Muddy. Only those who fit an even narrower profile were actually going to thrive. Sometimes a difference of one decile or a few percentage points was enough to accurately predict match or mismatch.

Look at the areas of your business with the highest staff turnover. Unlikely to be the executive suite (if it is, may be time for everyone to leave!); more likely that it is in the call centre (assuming you operate your own) or on the shop or factory floor. Easy to view these people at best as warm bodies, at worst as a commodity or a cost centre. And yet you undoubtedly have real stars there, as well as people who simply wish they were somewhere else (and who manage to produce a similar desire in your customers)*.

So if you could accurately distinguish - on the basis of probably just a small number of distinctives - between the stars and the rest, and hire ever more stars; what might that do for your business: what price benchmarking?


* a friend conducted research for a major call-centre operator in the UK who discovered that the bottom 10% or so of performers in their call-centres were so successful in making customers angry, that the company would have been more profitable had it paid them all to stay at home every day.

Partnerships

Working together is not new - countries as well as companies were forming alliances long before anyone thought to neologize "coopetition" or sign the first PFI or PPP agreement. That isn't to say, however, that partnership working is easy. If you are in Local Government it just got more important with the new White Paper...

The core challenge of partnership working is obvious: it is very unlikely to find two organisations (let alone half-a-dozen) whose strategic and tactical interests are so closely aligned as to be indistinguishable. Finding win-win-win solutions involves sophisticated analysis and give-and-take from all sides. But here is the rub: each person involved in the partnership working comes with a bundle of personal perceptions and assumptions which may have absolutely nothing to do with the distinctives between the partners, but which yet may cause untold complications if they are not understood and factored in (or out) of both the negotiations and the actual joint working.

That is why investing time and effort in building mutual understanding of the strengths and perceptual filters of the people involved in any new partnership (or indeed any ongoing partnership) can bring about a great return on investment. So Midge and his insistence on getting to the detail doesn't represent an attempt by his organisation to slow the process down, and neither does Carol's desire to change the rules of engagement mean a lack of commitment on the part of her organisation (actually it was in order to seize a new opportunity that has arisen). Understanding that, in fact, this is how each of them is "wired", means we can begin to make use of that "wiring" and those perspectives for the common good.

The final warning of course is that trying to analyse how people are "wired" without recourse to objective data, is at best a case of playing guessing games and at worst Russian roulette - with an automatic. That's certainly why we work the way we do...