There are a number of variations to this myth of cause and effect. And it is easily the most pervasive. In its simplest form, it is simply the myth that whoever is standing closest to the problem is obviously responsible for it. An example of this would be management believing that the manufacturing person unable to keep sufficient inventory of odd-sized bolts is obviously responsible for the problem when production is halted rather than the designer who included an obsolete bolt spec in his design. Deming was particularly frustrated with this common management disease.
But the myth is more pervasive than this. As it turns out, cause and effect is typically defined in advance by the system, by context. Peter Senge used to ask who the leader on a ship was. Common answers included the captain who gave orders, the navigator who gave directions, the activity director who set the tone, etc. Senge pointed out that the ship designer is rarely mentioned as the leader even though the designer defines what activities can take place, how sharply the ship can turn, its maximum speed, etc. Once the ship is designed, all other parties are simply tweaking variables within some predetermined range. They are causing various effects, to be sure, but those effects are all within a normal, predetermined range. Getting "effects" outside of that range requires a change to the system, something an employee rarely has the responsibility or knowledge to do.
Management concerned with cause and effect is basically working to maintain the status quo. Transformative leadership changes the context, changes what is possible. Cause and effect is a given once a particular system is defined. Perhaps the biggest myth is to believe that the individual employees within that system can transcend its limits.
- Ron
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I absolutely agree about design. I would add that businesses, when implimenting design, increase problems when they don't coordinate between design and end users. Your example being the line worker with the wrong sized bolt.
Over the years I've represented a number of "specialty" manufacturers and contractors. Companies that manufacture and/or install scientific equipment, railroad lines and yards. When disputes arise during construction it is often the case that the problem was caused or made worse by designers that didn't understand how the specialty item fit with the "standard" trades - electrical, plumbing, etc. Other disputes were the result of the end users not getting what they want, or think they want. They got what the designer specified; but, that wasn't what they were expecting.
Making both of these problems worse, owners often don't want to pay for complete design.
The good thing about these disconnects is that I've made a nice living sorting out the problems.
Post a Comment