A decision is a choice, made in the face of a problem.
Problems, at their core, have only two sources:
Uncontrollable events.
Flawed processes and their application.
These two sources have entirely different paths to a solution.
Flawed processes need to be subjected to some sort of continuous improvement program, resulting in a clearly articulated process that can be taught. This improvement process can become a normal part of activity, given the appropriate leadership and focus. A key part of the improvement process is the application of critical and creative thinking. Having a highly optimised process is not the same as having a truly effective one.
Uncontrollable events are entirely different, by their nature, are very difficult to unable to be forecast. They emerge with little if any warning, generally from the outside of an enterprise, so the solutions need to be arrived at in an entirely different manner.
Two factors contribute to the options facing us as we set out to address these random events:
- People put far more weight on the problem directly facing them, than even a much more serious problem that has little short term impact. It is also true that most people have a better idea of the dimensions of a problem that directly impacts on them, than others that may carry more corporate clout, but are do not directly affect them.
- We can only deal with a very few problems at once, we simply do not have the cognitive bandwidth to deal effectively with a number at the same time.
Therefore, considering these two factors, it makes sense to democratise the manner in which we deal with problems. In other words, enable those who face the problems to deal with them by giving them the resources and responsibility to do so, within clearly understood boundaries.
Two mental models to consider.
The first is a pyramid, full of problems. If the only person who has the power to address the problem, is the one or two at the top, only a few will be addressed at all. Democratising the power to address them enables others at lower levels to address those problems they directly face, so it follows that many more will be addressed. There may be some stuff ups on the way through, but overall the outcome will be beneficial. However, most corporate cultures make this very challenging, built as they are on a hierarchical structure.
The second is also a pyramid, but turned on its head. In this case, the base of the pyramid is facing outwards, towards the customer and various elements in the supply chain with whom the operating personnel have contact. This is where most of the operational problems occur, so give them the resources and power to fix them.
Do these seemingly simple things, and those usually seen as the bottom of the hierarchy have the opportunity to address the emerging problems as they are molehills, before they turn into mountains. It does however necessitate the devolution of power from the top of the organisations structure, and all the way down through and across the functional silos. This may be a scary prospect for most, but it enables the enterprise to be agile and efficient.
The impact of this sort of culture shift cannot be underestimated. It does however take a special and unusual strength of leadership to enable the change to evolve.
US general Stanley McCrystal achieved stunning results in Iraq with one of the most rigidly hierarchical of organisations, the military, so you should be able to do it. General McCrystal’s experience is recorded in his book ‘Team of Teams’ which is a compelling account of a culture being turned on its head.
