Separating people from machines

Reading Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz latest opus, it becomes clearer than ever that:

1.     Knowledge drives performance

2.     Learning drives productivity

3.     Speed of learning drives competitiveness

Why is learning then so little considered in enterprise discussion? Why is so assumed that learning is the employee’s personal problem not the company’s?

Actually, it isn’t. There are in fact two ways to learn:

1.     Personal mastery of one’s existing tools

2.     Adoption of a new, more powerful tool.

In effect, managers readily adopt option 2. Not being very secure in their ability to support someone’s developing their personal mastery of their job, managers feel that to get people to learn one has to force them to adopt newer, richer tools.

To a large extent, it does work, but the upshot is often poorly understood oversized tools with low utilization and many unhappy side-effects for the customers of the process. A second unintended consequence of this process is blurring the distinction between people and tools, as you can tell every time you try to have a reasonable discussion with a call center but the person on the other side of the line is just a voice for a tightly scripted interaction they can’t deviate from.

The key to getting the best of both forms of learning lies in separating clearly men from machines, people from systems. If we understand what the person is supposed to achieve, what are the goals from the customers’ perspective, and then where the machine is supposed to help, then we can work on the personal mastery curve of the existing or new tools.

Obsession with our tools is hardwired in human brains (a credible theory asserts that tools made us humans) and as a result, it’s easy to forget that when the finger is pointing at the moon, we should look to the moon, not the finger. To avoid confusing tools and their use, we need clearly separate people from machines.

Shaving and the art of questioning

A few days ago, I was about to start shaving when my 6 year old daughter (Lucie) entered the bathroom. She wanted to discuss our upcoming day together, but quickly started asking me questions about shaving. Every step of the way, she asked me what I was doing, what my objective was, why I used a particular tool or product, etc... She also asked me to explain or clarify what she didn't understand. (She also told me every time I missed a spot.) I use a shave brush, and so the process is slightly more involved than with a can of shaving cream - she also wanted to know why I prefer the brush. 

Of course, shaving is not something I spend a great deal of time thinking about: I do it on autopilot, in the morning, sometimes while half awake and mostly while thinking about something else. Her questions forced me to consider my shaving process step by step, and to find a reason for everything I was doing.  

As I finished, I realized that between my automatic behavior and her pointed questions, this had been quite like a process audit in a professional environment. However, unlike in most process audits I've participated in, a few things struck me about her demeanor :   

1. the sense of wonder in her tone and questions - as if what I was doing was the most  amazing and important thing in the world (at least at that moment)  
2. the innocence with which she approached shaving - she has no preconceived notions about how it should be done and has a completely open mind 
3. the way in which she phrased her questions - she knows nothing about shaving (I'm clearly the expert), and so her manner was humble and positively inquisitive  
4. the kindness underlying her questions - she genuinely cares about me and (at that moment) expressed her care by wanting to know more about shaving   
5. the trust and confidence between us that allowed her to ask probing questions without threatening me and allowed me to answer in a frank and non-defensive manner, knowing I would not be judged for them

Of course, father-daughter interactions are quite different from intra-company or consultant-client relations, but I believe that I learned a lesson. The next time that I find myself observing a process and asking questions about it, I'll try to remember Lucie's 5 keys to a successful audit :  

1. wonder and amazement - I am privileged to observe an expert working his/her craft  
2. innocence - I will try to abandon any knowledge of the task to approach it with a fresh and open mind 
3. posture and phrasing - I will inquire humbly about what the expert is doing and my questions will be gentle  
4. kindness - I will care deeply about the individual and extend him/her the kindness I wish to receive in return  
5. trust - I will take the time to build a relationship based on trust and show myself worthy of the same 

Kindness in your organization

In a recent Atlantic article on successful marriage (that thorniest of relationships), Emily Esfahani Smith defines practicing kindness as "being generous to your partner's intentions". She explains that kindness is a mindset that assumes that the intention of the other person is positive. As an example, if someone is hurting your feelings, it is because of a misunderstanding, not because of an evil intention to hurt. 

This generosity towards others' intentions - we might also call it goodwill - is fundamental in the types of organizations that this blog concerns itself with. Tackling a problem or engaging someone with kindness is a way to recast the problem or relationship on a positive footing, and even more importantly, to stop a negative situation from spiraling out of control. 

That positive cast is crucial if one is looking for innovative or breakthrough solutions. If the debate comprises blaming and recrimination (downward spiral) there is no room for growth, exploration, and mutually beneficial feedback loops. Kindness, as considered here, is a fundamental ingredient in the very survival of the organization, particularly in a challenging environment. 

Treating others with kindness is particularly hard in corporate environments, where mutually exclusive 'success' is often conceived only as a zero-sum gain - a take-no-prisoners war of sorts. There are plenty of anecdotes of psychotic bosses that enjoy inflicting pay on subordinates, and a whole cottage industry of cathartic cultural items devoted to it. In fact, being kind to others can even be perceived as a sign of weakness, but only if it is misunderstood: being kind does not mean accepting anything or foolishly applauding any idiotic idea. The kind person can criticize, but in a positive and uplifting way, and will provide the other with a face-saving exit: "I know you've worked very hard on this project, and the results are encouraging, but sadly they do not meet the objectives that we'd set. What do you propose that we do?" 

The hope lies in that most of us (humans) like to be treated kindly, because it's simply much nicer than the alternative. We don't want our intentions misunderstood, and we certainly aren't all out to 'get' the other guy and inflict pain. Those not trying to step over others on their way to the top (the vast majority) just want to do their job as best as possible, in as meaningful a way as possible, and to be treated with kindness. 

What to do, then, to ensure that kindness is the default position in your organization given that it is not something "normal"? As with all cultural shifts, it is a long-term endeavor requiring significant top-brass buy-in. The most important person, in this case, is the organization's spiritual leader (a CEO, a chairperson, a sponsor, a coach, a widely respected employee) who can start and sustain a cultural shift towards the acceptability of failure, the importance of mutual goodwill, and the imperative of trust/confidence. These are the key elements of kindness that an organization must nurture on a daily basis. 

How will you know you've succeeded? I would state that it is when you can make yours psychologist Ty Tashiro's advice (quoted in the above article) : "A lot of times, a [person] is trying to do the right thing even if it’s executed poorly. So appreciate the intent."

Explanation and transformation

Thibault Brière, a corporate philosopher, stated recently that 'explaining is convincing people to do things they have not chosen'. He went on to show that choice is a fundamental driver of change, in that transformation succeeds when it results from a freely made decision to change. This raised a question: when change becomes necessary in an organization, how can the possible options be communicated to those who must change if 'explaining' is ineffective? What does it mean to communicate when one's aim is to precipitate a choice that is aligned with the common goal?  

I started to think about the nature of explanation and its role in corporate transformation, process optimization, the dreaded 'change management', etc. I looked at schools for inspiration. 

In schools, explanation is the favored mode of communication - and we are not afraid to call it that. When they 'explain', successful teachers in reality empower students to access knowledge - they make  knowledge available to their students while adopting a respectful posture towards knowledge. This implies that knowledge exists outside of the teacher, in a space between the students and the instructor, from where they can pluck it with the right learning tools.  

This makes intuitive sense; the Pythagorean theorem is Pythagoras' original brainchild, not any particular math teacher's. In this way, the teacher's ego is not part of the communication or explanation: she is a vessel who presents a greater truth - her explanatory skill comes from setting goals (find the length of the hypotenuse) and in presenting ideas and tools to lead students towards that goal (theory, drawings, textbooks, potential applications, exercises, etc.). Importantly, she sets her students on the path to using this theorem in its many advanced applications beyond planar geometry. 

This is in contrast to teachers who impart knowledge to passive students. These teachers are under the misguided impression that knowledge comes from them, and that they must transfer it to their students. They 'explain' the material, which is to say that they talk about formulas and rules rather than ideas and concepts. Students also retain this information, to be fair, but they cannot 'own' the concept - it remains the teacher's - and they might not be able to use it in more advanced settings. 

What, then, to make of the above observations in the changing corporate environment?  

Every organization seeking to improve itself attempts large and small transformations. Often, management will identify a new path to the future - more or less democratically, with or without external help, etc... These (path & future) must then be 'explained' to those who will transform themselves with the goal is that they will become 'engaged' and the transformation self-sustaining.  The new path can be as simple as changing the way a task is performed or as ambitious as upending the business model. The more ambitious the path and/or profound the changes, the more challenging and crucial the 'explanation' will be. 

Consider, as above, a company that experiences a crisis and must identify a path to salvation and success (the new goal). The crucial 'explanatory' moment comes at the root of the new path, when he company ventures into new territory to seek its new goal. The solution to the crisis usually emerges from a period of soul searching and can spring from a number of sources: 

• a collective exercise within the company
• an outside consultant's prescriptive report
• the CEO
• members of the executive team
• members of a special 'transformation' team
• a combination of the above, etc...

Unfortunately, independent of its provenance, the management team (or the CEO) might be tempted to claim ownership of the solution for any number of reasons:  

• to revel in the sheer joy of having found a brilliant solution
• to satisfy its collective ego
• to compensate for its lack of self-confidence
• to justify its existence
• to cast its collective self in the role of corporate savior

Whatever the reason, we have a situation akin to the teacher who doesn't realize that she didn't invent and doesn't own the Pythagorean theorem. This is particularly true because the solution to the company's crisis most likely involves the creative and clever combination of existing and new ideas, some of which might come from other countries or industries, and therefore only appear to be new. 

If the solution is presented as having sprung, fully formed and Athena-like, from the cranium of the almighty CEO - plus or minus the executive committee - it's unlikely to gain traction. The rank and file cannot own the solution: it is not theirs to seize, understand, manipulate, and revise or expand upon. The CEO and top management are essentially saying: "we know what's good for you, and we will now magnanimously explain it to you", treating employees like children and depriving them of initiative or ambition. There can be no common ground, no room for an expanded understanding of the concepts underlying the solution, and nowhere for each member of the organization to carve out a unique understanding of how following this new path will solve his or her problems.  

This type of explanation leaves the staff with one of two options: submission or resistance. Neither is a positive dynamic on which to build a collective future.  

On the other hand, management can present the solution to the crisis as an idea larger than any individual or small team: an idea that exists in the space between the individuals that make up the company; an idea from which they can take the concepts that they need to reach the new goal, individually and collectively. Because this solution can be shared by all equally (it is owned by none), individuals, small groups, and indeed the whole organization, can make it theirs in the most appropriate way, as suits their activities. 

This is easier to do if the solution emerged from a respectful, positive, and collaborative process, but if the solution did come from a small group, it must be presented as an owner-less idea - a theorem of sorts. The staff then need help grasping the impact of the theorem on their daily activities and acquiring the skills to implement it. They can also expand on the solution, proposing innovations and taking initiative, since they are not challenging the idea's owner. 

Much like later mathematicians used the Pythagorean theorem to explore new kinds of mathematics, so employees can share the common elements of the solution, and find individual, unique, and innovative ways to follow it to collective success. The confusing concepts that might need clarification and the uncertainties inevitably associated with change can be addressed both collectively and individually, through exercises, training, and problem solving, much in the same way that a classroom of 13 year olds might collectively teach themselves that a2 + b2 = c2 under their teacher's leadership - and remember it for life.