Kevin Meyer

Life and leadership at the nexus of lean and zen.

The Instinct to Learn… and Teach

by

By Kevin Meyer

I came across this TED video a couple days ago and have been trying to wrap my head around the implications… and opportunities… ever since.  It's an intriguing insight into learning, and the power of self-directed learning.  In effect the kids already knew how to learn, then learned how to teach, then learned what they needed to know… all without external intervention.  How could that improve education and even homeschooling?  And how can that instinctual behavior be leveraged into an organizational or business environment?  I'm still thinking and may come up with some insight that I'll write about later.  But I thought I'd share the video for you to noodle on over the weekend.

Enabling Brains

by

By Kevin Meyer

I often talk about the importance of the oft-forgotten second pillar of lean manufacturing: respect for people.  So many companies, usually driven by enslavery to traditional accounting methods, think of their people as just a set of hands – completely forgetting about the value in the brain attached to the hands.  Which explains why companies would run around the world in search of lower cost hands while casting off brains containing an incredible – but unrecognized on a balance sheet – investment in training and experience.

This morning I happened across a TED Talks presentation originally discussed on Presentation Zen.  While Garr was more interested in the delivery characteristics of the presentation, I found the content to be inspiring.  Here was a person that inspired 200 of her young students to create change, then helped that to cascade to 30,000 students in one city, and eventually to over 100,000 students across India.  Identifying a problem and enabling young brains to create and implement a solution.  Kaizen.

So if a schoolteacher can do it for young students, shouldn't we be able to do the same for our teams?  Take a few minutes to watch the video below and think about the power.  Not to mention what India might be like in a decade if this continues to take root.

Human Ideas, Aliens, and the Power of Sex

by

By Kevin Meyer

There was a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple days ago chronicling human development and especially the rapid evolution of the past few thousand years.  What prompted the acceleration?

Human evolution presents a puzzle. Nothing seems to explain the sudden
takeoff of the last 45,000 years—the conversion of just another rare
predatory ape into a planet dominator with rapidly progressing
technologies. Once "progress" started to produce new tools, different
ways of life and burgeoning populations, it accelerated all over the
world, culminating in agriculture, cities, literacy and all the rest.
Yet all the ingredients of human success—tool making, big brains,
culture, fire, even language—seem to have been in place half a million
years before and nothing happened. Tools were made to the same
monotonous design for hundreds of thousands of years and the ecological
impact of people was minimal. Then suddenly—bang!—culture exploded,
starting in Africa. Why then, why there?

Coincidentally yesterday I somehow got sucked into a History Channel series called Ancient Aliens which proposes several potential answers: aliens helping us develop so we could be temporary slaves, an ancient civilization that destroyed itself, visitors from our own future, inbreeding with aliens.  Lots to think about and some rather interesting evidence that even I as a one-time alien nerd hadn't heard about.

But let's get back to this world, and the interesting hypothesis of the WSJ article.

The answer lies in a new idea, borrowed from economics, known as
collective intelligence: the notion that what determines the
inventiveness and rate of cultural change of a population is the amount
of interaction between individuals. Even as it explains very old
patterns in prehistory, this idea holds out hope that the human race
will prosper mightily in the years ahead—because ideas are having sex
with each other as never before.

The article goes on to describe this idea in considerable detail, but what struck me was the correlation and application to organizations.  Once again we have demonstrable proof in the power of people as knowledge assets as opposed to a cost.

The sophistication of the modern world lies not in individual
intelligence or imagination. It is a collective enterprise.
Nobody—literally nobody—knows how to make the pencil on my desk (as the
economist Leonard Read once pointed out), let alone the computer on
which I am writing. The knowledge of how to design, mine, fell, extract,
synthesize, combine, manufacture and market these things is fragmented
among thousands, sometimes millions of heads. Once human progress
started, it was no longer limited by the size of human brains.
Intelligence became collective and cumulative.

So that begs a question I've asked our community before: what is the advantage of the "lights out factory?"  What happens when we "lower our costs" (really?) by removing all of the brains?  What happens to the collective intellect and creativity needed to improve?  How exactly do you improve if you focus purely on the cost of the hands without taking into account the value and asset of the brain?

The notion that exchange stimulated innovation by bringing together
different ideas has a close parallel in biological evolution. The
Darwinian process by which creatures change depends crucially on sexual
reproduction, which brings together mutations from different lineages.

Trade is to culture as sex is to biology. Exchange
makes cultural change collective and cumulative. It becomes possible to
draw upon inventions made throughout society, not just in your
neighborhood. The rate of cultural and economic progress depends on the
rate at which ideas are having sex.

There's a cheery modern lesson in this theory about ancient events.
Given that progress is inexorable, cumulative and collective if human
beings exchange and specialize, then globalization and the Internet are
bound to ensure furious economic progress in the coming century—despite
the usual setbacks from recessions, wars, spendthrift governments and
natural disasters. The process of
cumulative innovation that has doubled life span, cut child mortality by
three-quarters and multiplied per capita income ninefold—world-wide—in
little more than a century is driven by ideas having sex.

And there's your argument for diversity in the workplace, and in life.  Now go back to leading your organizations by focusing on the power of your people's ideas and exhorting them to have sex.  Their ideas that is.

Naysayers vs. Just Negative

by

By Kevin Meyer

Last week I discussed the value of listening to naysayers… and how that can make the difference between creating an Apple iPod and a Motorola Iridium phone. 

Jim Collins likes to talk about "getting on the same bus" and some
leadership gurus have then taken that concept one step further to say
that everyone needs to be in the right seat on the same bus.  Really? 
Perhaps that means that a bus-load of very smart people, all aligned
with blinders on, will be driven right off a cliff.  Even in the lean
world we often say that people who don't buy in to the magic of lean
need to be removed quickly before they irreversibly contaminate the
rest of the organization.

Perhaps their concerns should be confronted, discussed, and
analyzed.  Perhaps a lean tool is being implemented simply because it's
a cool new tool and doesn't have a defined need or problem to be
solved.  Perhaps the operating environment has changed.

Embrace the naysayers, the people that ask the tough questions and
present alternative views.

Several readers publicly and privately brought up an important point: there's a difference, albeit sometimes a fine line, between being a naysayer and simply being negative.  A naysayer may play devil's advocate, but is honestly trying to spur discussion and the consideration of alternate perspectives.  A negative person, who simply can't see a positive outcome in anything, is a contagious force and needs to be dealt with… as long as you're sure he's truly negative.

Not recognizing the difference can lead to some interesting management (not leadership) philosophies… such as the one described in a recent article in that bastion of leadership thought, The New York Times.

I fired the unhappy people. People usually laugh at this point. I wish I were kidding.

I’m not. I have learned the long, hard and frustrating way that as a
manager you cannot make everyone happy. You can try, you can listen,
you can solve some problems, you can try some more. Good management
requires training, counseling and patience, but there comes a point
when you are robbing the business of precious time and energy.

Which is true, to a point.  Some people are truly just plain negative and if action isn't taken they will create a negative organization, which will fail.

In the worst cases, the problem of a bad fit can have a bigger impact
than just one employee’s performance. Being in charge does not
necessarily mean you are in control, and being in control does not
necessarily mean being in charge. Have you ever seen a company or
department paralyzed by someone who is unhappy and wants to take
hostages? It is remarkable how much damage one person can do. If you
haven’t seen it, I suggest you watch “The Caine Mutiny.” Basically, one
guy takes apart the ship. He was unhappy. It only takes one.

Ok, enough.  Well before you get to that point there needs to be a lot of thought.  Lots of questions like "why?"  And a lot of introspection in terms of leadership style.  One comment put that concept succinctly:

As someone who left a position in economically disastrous times because
I was unwilling to work under the leadership of an irresponsible,
degrading and manipulative boss, I fear that this could be used to
justify the decisions of bad managers who choose to get rid of people
with legitimate complaints instead of addressing those complaints. In
these times, employees are willing to stay quiet in terrible
circumstances because they cannot or know they may not be able to find
another job.

I'm sure this is a good approach when used by good
people. Unfortunately, I expect it will prove most useful as
justification for managers who prefer to blame an employee than take
responsibility for an employee's legitimate concerns.

Bingo.  So perhaps instead of the simplistic "everyone on the same bus" philosophy, the Collins mantra should change to be something like "take the time to find the right bus by listening to those who are hesitant about getting on the bus but once you listen and think and analyze, then don't be afraid to drive off with some left behind… or to kick some off."

Sure beats "just fire them because they're unhappy."

Taking Care of Knowledge During a Downturn

by

By Kevin Meyer

The last couple years have been tough for many organizations, and for some the downturn is continuing.  How you treat your knowledge assets will be critical when business picks up.

Restructurings, consolidation, salary freezes, a shifting health-care
cost burden, furloughs, 401(k) match eliminations…this list, as you
know, goes on and on. Did your company cancel this year's Christmas
party? These are common responses to our changing corporate landscape. And
they can be necessary. Businesses that don't step up and react to
reality are unlikely to survive over the long term.

That's one side of the equation – the immediate issue.  But a long-term perspective is critical as well.


My concern is that, cumulatively, these negative actions are tugging at
and fraying the delicate bonds of loyalty that tie employees to their
employers. I believe it will be the companies that manage to deftly
balance the necessary tough competitive actions with genuine compassion
for their employees that will win big in the future.

People have long memories. What they don't have right now are a
whole lot of career options. And they will judge their employer by how
equitably they feel they were treated during the down market. So how
exactly do you steer your company through this in a way that won't
drive your people into the arms of the first headhunter who calls? Just as vital: How to take
the tough steps while energizing your workforce instead of paralyzing
them?

One common tactic is "share the pain."

As counterintuitive as it may sound, consider going deeper than you
might on staff reductions, rather than nibbling around the edges hoping
for a quick market turnaround. Some companies believe in "share the
pain" scenarios, where everyone gets to sacrifice equally at the
corporate altar. I'm not a fan of such strategies unless they address a
short-term crisis in which a company expects to be reducing forces and
hiring within the same year. In my view, these practices ensure that
100% of your workforce is demoralized, vs. the 10% to 20% whom you
really can't afford in the current climate.

Based on multiple experiences, unfortunately, I agree.  Forcing everyone to reduce hours works for one to three months.  After that morale issues, coupled with the fact that high performers can almost always find a new job even in the worst of economies, begin to take their toll.

And how should leaders act?

There's a strong tendency for executives in tight spots to simply clam
up, fearing they don't have the answers people want to hear. To avoid
appearing inadequate, they'll issue the occasional all-employee e-mail
or canned Webcast. But you'll find that you don't need to have all the
answers. You'll discover that the rumor mill has painted the most
pessimistic picture imaginable, and you will quickly be able to dispel
numerous falsehoods and present a clearer and more optimistic view.
These times call for a personal touch. Employees who get to see and
hear their leaders are far more likely to buy into a future beyond the
crisis.

Another power of a real gemba walk.  Get out and touch the process, challenge the process, teach your team… and talk to them.  Information – solid, open, true information – creates confidence.  And confidence in leadership will help create the high-performing team that is so critical to weather a downturn.

The Culmination is… Poof!

by

By Kevin Meyer

Mergers and acquisitions are a common activity in business, even if they rarely work our as originally envisioned.  At least that original vision is occasionally the creation of more value for customers.  Ok, occasionally is probably an overstatement.

A few days ago Tyco decided to acquire Brinks Home Security.  A couple of readers pointed out a rather interesting statement in the press release.

Bob Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Broadview said, “We are proud of all we have achieved as a company to
increase our customer base, and to grow our revenue and income in a
challenging economy. We view this transaction as the culmination of
these efforts, providing our shareholders with an attractive premium
for their shares, including cash consideration and an opportunity to
participate in the future growth of Tyco International.”

Interesting, or sad?

We view this transaction as the culmination of
these efforts…

All the efforts of so many brains… just to eventually create a transaction?  To be assimilated?  What a waste. 

I wonder what those brains thought as they were toiling away for the last several years.  I bet more than a few of them thought they were creating security for people, real people with families, and by doing so they were also creating value for their shareholders and stakeholders.

I wonder what they think after hearing Bob Allen's view of their efforts.  I wonder how that will affect the organization that Tyco will assimilate.  Or if Tyco will even notice.

Latest Tweets

Archives

Recent Posts

Subscribe by Email