Motivation and Helping People Learn, Make a Difference, and Have Fun

Tweet

"Why are we here?  To learn, to make a difference, and to have fun." - W. Edwards Deming 

Many years ago, I was fortunate enough on a couple occasions to attend W. Edward Deming's 4-day seminar.  Early in both seminars, Dr. Deming asked attendees, "Why are we here?" After waiting in silence and repeating the question, he would offer up the notion that we are here "to learn, to make a difference, and to have fun." 

Of all that I learned from Dr. Deming, this statement stuck with me the most.  When I searched the internet to make sure I remembered the quote correctly, I found that it seemed to have also made an impact on many other people. 

I've had a variety of jobs throughout my career, in both management and advisory positions and thought about these words many times.  It is such a simple and logical statement that one would think is a normal part of leading people - unfortunately, this is not the case.  After being promoted into leadership positions, many organizations leave people to their own devices to figure out how to do it well.  So rather than learning, making a difference, and having fun, team members end up stressed, overworked, and looking for their next job. 

What does it mean to help people learn, make a difference, and have fun?  It's something I've thought about for many years and have figured out at least what it means to me.  

Learn 

Besides the fact that many people want to grow in their careers, there is an innate drive in most of us to learn.  Recent studies have concluded that learning has physical effects on the brain which can influence motivation, energy, and confidence. 

Studies also show, though, that the desire to learn can be buried by poor teaching and coaching experiences.  To prevent this and help team members learn requires that leaders have the interest and ability to coach in real situations using problems that people face every day.  They must be able to make coaching a normal part of their job and ensure people are continually improving existing skills while developing new ones.  This can only happen when leaders understand that they must also continue to develop their own skills and abilities. 

Make a Difference 

There have been numerous examples and studies on motivation that point to things like engagement and purpose as critical factors in driving motivation.  When a person understands how the work he or she does contributes to the achievement of a worthwhile purpose, energy level increases as does the motivation to make it happen.  On the other hand, a purpose that is nonexistent or unclear can lead people to disconnect and focus on work as little more than a way to receive a paycheck. 

Enabling a true connection to the purpose requires that leaders establish a clear and logical purpose – often referred to in lean terms as True North – and that they continually drive the organization toward its achievement.  The company's leaders must define the organization's true north and never waver in steering toward it.  It should go without saying but, to be effective, true north should not change as the organization changes its leaders. 

This is one of the things Deming meant when referring to constancy of purpose.  When the reason for an organization's existence is clear and unchanging, people will better understand how the work they do contributes to its achievement and work hard to make it happen.  As much as people want to believe in a true north and be a part of its journey, they will always be looking for examples that demonstrate a lack of commitment or constancy.  This is a defense mechanism people have developed over the years to protect themselves from the disappointment that results from believing in something that turns out to be false. 

Have Fun 

Although there are a number of studies available, it should not take extensive research to understand the benefits of creating a work environment where people have fun.  The positive effects that happiness has on stress, motivation, productivity, teamwork, and employee turnover are well known.   

Learning and making a difference are two factors that can lead to having fun at work, but relying on these things alone will not assure continued success or prevent burnout.  I tend to think of learning and making a difference as having positive effects on performance, and having fun as something that prevents negative effects.  The human brain cannot continually perform at high levels without regular downtime and preventive maintenance.  Having fun is one way to ensure the maintenance is happening.  

Putting it Together 

Learning, making a difference, and having fun is something that should be critical parts of any leadership system. It is a clear way to demonstrate the respect for people that is so important to continually improving results for an organization.  Like much of leadership and lean thinking, though, it is much more difficult to apply than it appears on the surface.  There are often cultural and systemic barriers that need to be overcome to ensure its continued success. 

I have to say that I cringe whenever I hear a leader say that he or she doesn't want people to have "too much fun" because of a fear that they will forget about work.  This is a clear sign that the leader lacks the understanding that having fun is part of a system that includes learning and making a difference, and that all three must be present to work effectively. 

The more I've reflected on these three simple drivers of motivation, the more I realized that they apply to my own personal life as much as they do to organizational success.  They are three factors that truly connect the work-life balance that virtually everyone wants to achieve. 

Kaizen & Changing the Way People Think

Tweet

"If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein

For most people, structured problem-solving is not a natural process.  After years of being rewarded for quick answers and telling people what to do, along with the fact that most of us are overloaded, the ability to approach a problem without a preconceived solution is counter to the way people work.  Many see structured problem-solving as cumbersome and requiring more time than is necessary to address a problem - especially when they think they think they know the answer.

Because of this, coaching is critical to help a person move from jumping to countermeasures to following the process and actually learn about the problem before arriving at answers.  Even using a problem-solving A3 tends to result in filling in the boxes in a way that supports what we already know needs to be done.

Coaching is critical to changing the way people think about and approach problems. The advantage of using a tool like an A3 for this is that the coach can see what the person is thinking as he or she follows the process. An effective coach can review an A3 and, even without a deep understanding of the problem or related processes, ask a series of questions to help the person understand where they went wrong and how to improve the effort.

An A3 should provide a simple and clear overview of the issue, and the story describing how it was addressed. In fact, the simpler and more clear the A3, the better handle the team has on the problem, what caused it, and what to do to address it.

THE QUESTIONS 

There are a series of questions that can help someone learn to follow the process.  There is much more to problem-solving than following the steps listed on an A3.  The key is to help a person change the way he or she thinks. It's a tall order, but it can be done if the person is open to learning and the coach is experienced and patient (it also helps if the coach is also open to learning).

The questions below, along with a good deal of practice, can help to start the change in thinking that will lead to more effective learning and better problem-solving.

1) Why should I care? 

Right up front, the A3 should objectively demonstrate context for the problem and the benefit(s) of addressing it now.  An excellent way to do this is to connect it to the vision or high-level objectives for the business.  Getting the person to do this will help others agree with the importance of the issue in case support or help is needed to implement a countermeasure, and help to keep the team from straying away from the original objective.

2) Explain the logic? 

The steps in the process are not meant to be done independently; they must connect and build on each other. Going over the A3 backwards is a good way to get the person to see where the logic breaks down. A good check on the logic is to make sure that the units of measure throughout the effort don't conflict. Although it is possible that the units may change as the problem is broken down, there must be a logical relationship between them and, once the selected problem and target are defined (step 3 in the 8-step process), it remains consistent throughout the remainder of the effort.

3) What did you learn? 

A key objective of the structured problem-solving process is to learn. Besides making the problem smaller and easier to attack, the reason for breaking it down is for the team or person to learn something that was not previously known. Looking at data from a variety of perspectives (what happened, who was involved, when did the problem occur, etc.) should lead to discovery about the issue. By asking what the person learned during this step, it becomes easy to see if they began the process with the countermeasure already in mind and backfilled the steps to justify their idea.

4) Why did you move on from one step to another? 

Another question that can help a person learn where they didn't necessarily follow the process is to ask why they moved on from one step to the next. As they broke down the problem, for example, they decided that they had enough information to select the problem to attack and move to the next step. Question where they got the data – or if they used data to effectively prioritize the issues, and why they chose not to break down the data any further. Even if the person made a good decision in moving to the next step, asking why can help him or her realize how important it is to think about it during future problem-solving efforts.  Another benefit of asking why is that it helps the coach learn about the issue and ask good questions going forward.

There are many more common questions associated with coaching problem-solving – like who did you involve in the effort and how did you test the countermeasure? Although these are important, they are more procedural and focused on improving the mechanics of following the process, whereas the above questions help to get the person to change his or her thinking. Fundamentally changing the way people think helps them become coaches and can drive lean thinking in all situations rather than only when working on an A3.

Flattening the Organization - Probably Not the Answer

Tweet

One of the misconceptions about lean thinking is that it automatically leads to flattening the organization. Many people think that layers of management are always a bad thing and start removing layers as a way to empower employees, speed up decision-making, and improve innovation. While there is no shortage of organizations that suffer from too many layers, it should be noted that flattening does not necessarily lead to improved performance. Many organizations that flattened their structures have experienced little more than burned out managers, frustrated employees, and high turnover.  

Removing layers of management downplays the important role managers play in improving the organization's performance. This includes responsibilities like coaching people to solve problems, developing future leaders, and continually removing barriers to team member performance.  

When an organization removes layers and managers have large numbers of people on their teams, it is not possible to spend the time needed to develop problem-solving or leadership skills of team members. As a result, the managers resort to directing and telling, rather than coaching and teaching, leaving team members feeling stuck with little hope of improving their skills or growing in their careers.  

Flat organizations leave personal development completely up to the individual, something that rarely, if ever, works effectively. When people are left to develop on their own, the lack of objectivity will lead them to focus on the areas they want – rather than need – to improve. When this happens, the team member, as well as the organization, stagnates resulting in a deterioration in customer service and long-term performance.  

Understanding the Problem  

One of the reasons often given for eliminating layers of management is that managers get in the way and slow down processes. Although there are cases where this is true, eliminating layers is not necessarily addressing the root cause of the problem. The company can benefit more by understanding why its leadership is ineffective and its processes and systems are slow, rather than assuming it is because of excessive layers.  Firing managers without addressing the real causes of poor performance can magnify the problems and, after a short-term improvement in results, end up in worse shape than if no action was taken.  

No Quick Fix  

In spite of what many believe about management layers, they do have a purpose in organizations. Flattening the organization is a fad that ignores the importance of developing people and continually improving. As companies like Toyota, Facebook, and Google have proven for many years, long-term success still comes down to effective leadership, respecting people, and a never-ending focus on improvement.  

Driving Improvement Through Systems Thinking

Tweet

"Management of a system requires knowledge of the interrelationships between all of the components within the system and of everybody that works in it." - W. Edwards Deming 

One important discovery people make when they start on a lean journey is how much they still need to learn about their business.  Although they may have extensive knowledge about individual parts of their products, processes, markets, etc., lean thinking forces them to connect the components as a system, which is something many organizations have never done before. 

When starting an improvement effort, I usually ask about the minimum target the team is attempting to achieve.  The answer is often something made up on the spot or a generalization, like as much as possible.  Improvement efforts should generally be driven by the actual requirements of the business.  For example,  if a company determines that the time between a customer placing an order and receiving the product is too long, it should determine an improvement target based on what the business needs.  If it currently takes 42 days and customers expect to receive the product in 22 days because of their needs or what competitors are offering, the minimum improvement needed is 20 days.  Although the gap appears to be significant, people will look at it as if it is based in reality, rather than a target that management dreamed up.  So,  instead of thinking of it as an impossible target, it becomes possible and something that the business needs to survive.  Attempts to go beyond the 22 day target can be attempted later, but should still be based on strategic reasons. 

Although the concept appears simple, it can become much more difficult when applied to something deeper in the business than a product lead time.  In an oil and gas operation, for example, suppose it is taking too long to change out filters on a compressor.  Setting an improvement target would require first understanding what "too long" means.  This involves quantifying the compressor's contribution to the overall system, and includes things like: the overall production target; uptime of the facility required to meet the production target; uptime of the subsystem where the compressor is located in order to meet the facility uptime; the compressor startup time after maintenance; the current uptime of the compressor; and the time needed to change the filters.  By understanding how all of these elements connect and contribute to the production target, it becomes easier to accurately determine the gap between the required time to change out filters and the actual time. 

The more people learn the connections the components have with each other to achieve the overall business objectives, the easier it will be to see the problems and set improvement targets based on reality rather than gut feel.  It is not enough for people to know that the work they do contributes to the organization's purpose and objectives - they must know how.  This comes through a continual focus on coaching and basing improvement activities on learning, which happens through questioning, discussing, and connecting to gemba.