Chapter 9 The problem log
In chapter 8, we have finally allowed you to imagine the entities within which we propose to organize production. These are village organizations, with an elected office. The members of the office are not responsible for exercising the functions of president, director and treasurer, but just for ensuring that the organization applies the rules of the art - of this book currently - concerning the three functions that they represent. We have also seen that each function corresponds to a formalism imposed on the organization. We will not present the accounting associated with the function of treasurer, because it is a very largely mastered subject to which we have no significant changes to make. On the other hand, let's now explain why we added two journals, a strategic reflections journal for the function of president, and a problems journal for the function of director. Why not just one? Why not just a report of the collective deliberations and the resulting decisions, as in a simple association?
A real organization is subject to different types of problems: lots of small ones, quite a few medium ones, and a few big or substantive issues. However, there are individuals who are naturally comfortable with small problems to be dealt with quickly and efficiently: these are the active ones; and individuals who are naturally comfortable with fundamental questions, for which we have time to ask ourselves: these are the thinkers. But there are no people who are naturally comfortable with all types of problems, because each type of problem requires a specific life organization to be comfortable. So, if we appoint - or elect - a 'leader' of our village organization, he will have a mode of operation that is natural to him, and will favor the treatment of the problems which correspond to it. This is precisely what we are trying to avoid. We want to guarantee that we will reasonably deal with both small, everyday problems and major substantive questions. To do this, we simply created two functions, each with a formalism adapted to framing the associated type of problem. We have just mentioned 'quite a few medium problems', alongside 'many small ones' and 'a few big ones', so why not a function specifically addressing 'medium sized problems'? Because, according to Montesquieu, “the best is the mortal enemy of the good”. In other words, the best system is a balance between perfection and simplicity. Having two functions is necessary and sufficient to ensure that we will deal with all types of problems.
The problem log, which we will now detail, is the manager's tool, and the record of the handling of multiple small problems. The substantive questions will be addressed in the next chapter, with the journal of strategic reflections.
Presentation
The problem log is a register with 4 columns: First of all, the findings column, which indicates Who, When, What, with What consequences. Then the Analysis column which aims to establish the cause(s) of the problem. Then the Solution column, which aims to propose a solution which is often only partial, and which people will be involved. Finally, the Implementation column, which indicates whether implementation took place, When.
Each person in the organization adds lines to this journal, or more precisely fills in the first column as they encounter obstacles in carrying out their mission. Then, other people, first and foremost the director, come to speak regularly with her to help her complete the other columns, following procedures that we will specify later in this chapter.
Some Lean initiates will have recognized one of their tools here. The problem log is the director's work tool, a bit like accounting is the treasurer's work tool. A line is added to the log each time someone in the organization notices a problem that hinders the proper execution of their mission. Incidentally, this journal also allows us to understand the level of organization of the company. It can therefore also be used by the treasurer to obtain new resources from the banker, and by operational control to evaluate the level of organizational performance of the company.
Reason for being
Why impose a formalism such as a problem log, that is to say the day-to-day history of the company, when in Chapter 7 we stated that what needed to be strengthened to respond to the problem of Marx updated, is it the decision-making process? It is indeed the journal of strategic reflections, presented in the next chapter, which represents the direct response to Marx's problem, that is to say an effort to take into account the globality of the consequences in the long term. However, experience shows us that it is not enough to define good objectives to be socially useful. You still have to be well organized to carry out the mission you have set for yourself. Put more simply, the two new journals are complementary: the strategic reflections journal secures the right choices, and the problems journal secures their proper implementation.
Too often, the following scenario is repeated in today's companies and administrations: a person approaches their superior to report a problem that is preventing them from carrying out their work correctly, and the latter responds with a dodge. Depending on the character, or possibly the disposition of the superior at the time, dodging can take very diverse forms. It can be a compassionate “I understand your problem, and I agree that it is not normal, but we have no budget to improve the situation: it depends on the bureaucrats in the general management on which I unfortunately have no power.” It can be a more reproachful rejection like “You can always go to senior management.” It can also be a demeaning “You will find a solution! " or even a moralizer "We are a society of 'winners'. I expect my colleagues to show initiative.” The initial dodge can possibly be supplemented, a little later, with a few disparaging remarks, or the assignment of a more or less vexatious task, to make it clear that the problems should no longer be brought up. Any normally constituted person understands the lesson fairly quickly. If the superior has a dominating temperament, he may push the vice to the point of asking every morning “Hello Dupont, is everything okay today? » until you get the expected “Yes sir”. This yes, sir, is the exact equivalent of the grin that the rhesus macaque gives when a monkey of higher social rank approaches it in the documentary Caribbean primates that we discussed in Chapter 2, and which marks the acceptance of the position of inferiority in the social hierarchy. What these behaviors reveal is that the corporate hierarchy is above all a matter of social rank, as Parkinson had revealed, and that the competence which allows one to climb the hierarchical ladder is very largely a myth, or more exactly a facade, what the book's investigation reveals The Stupidity Paradox (1) which we mentioned in chapter 3. We also find at this level the two alternatives represented by Chester and Tony in the report Caribbean primates. On the one hand, the manager who tries to establish his social advancement on the basis of benevolent exchanges, and who will instead choose compassionate avoidance, for example. He will also happily give speeches on the notion of a winning team as well as his concern to be close to his colleagues. On the other hand, the manager who tries to establish his social advancement on the basis of fear, who will instead choose to dodge employees who must show initiative. This one will also favor speeches on the notion of competition for example. What is important at this level is to understand that here again, the problem is not so much the alternative chosen by the manager in terms of his strategy of conquest of power, as the fact that this conquest is made in all cases on the basis of the game of alliances, and therefore it induces generalized nepotism and a significant level of stress among all individuals.
In Chapter 4, we saw the current modalities of decision-making, that is to say the downward flow in organizations from management to operational staff. What we see now is the flow from operational to management, which is a flow of problems. But what we see is that management's objective is for there to be no escalation, and that is quite logical. Since we saw in Chapter 4 that the decision mechanism is generally inept, it is quite logical that decision makers are not interested in returning the actual consequences of their decisions. On the contrary, all they expect is that nothing contradicts the speech that they will not fail to make concerning the quality of their past decisions. Any escalation is therefore a source of cognitive dissonance for them, and the preferred means of stopping these escalations is terror. In other words, the objective of those who have been able to progress significantly in the social hierarchy is to make decisions without having to assume the consequences, and the surest way to achieve this is to attack anyone who commits the imprudence of persisting in reporting problems. In reality, the vice does not stop there: since inept decisions are claimed to be superior, because relying on the latest fashionable managerial myths, management expects them to translate into a satisfactory operational result. So not only does it make inept decisions, not only does it not want a return of problems on the ground, but in addition it demands, for good measure, high operational performance, always with, as a preferred means, the threat on all the intermediate hierarchical levels. So that in parallel with the descending chain of decisions, a descending chain of pressure and threats is established. From there, we understand the reason for the problem journal / strategic reflection journal pair, which is to reverse the loop: the problem journal organizes the feedback, and the strategic reflection journal organizes the descent of the solutions. Let's repeat it, the challenge is twofold: on the one hand to limit the game of alliances for accession to positions of power, and therefore stress at all levels. On the other hand, allowing rational decisions, therefore making it possible to effectively face the ecological challenge for example, instead of pretending.
If we now focus exclusively on the problem log, its main function is to provoke a change in the nature of exchanges between collaborators. More precisely, the objective is to shift the majority of these exchanges from the game of alliances to fueling the virtuous circle of dealing with the difficulties encountered by the organization in the exercise of its reason for being. This also induces a significant effect in terms of cognitive dissonance. Since, as we will see, it becomes socially recommended to meet other collaborators to discuss their problem log, we gradually acquire knowledge of a large mass of precise facts concerning the organization, so we escape from fear of the unknown and the projection of stereotypical representations of the functioning of other departments of the organization. Not knowing is the preferred tool for lying to yourself, and therefore resorting more or less subtly to coercion in the end, without having to admit it to yourself. So the fact of circulating precise and objective information to all employees on the functioning of the organization in all its corners is a powerful way of promoting consensus. Indeed, once we know (in terms of cognitive dissonance: that we are no longer able to deny the reality of the problems), that we no longer operate in isolation with our social group (in terms of dissonance cognitive: that one no longer receives massive social support linked to certain myths of one's particular social class), it becomes mentally less easy to oppose a solution that satisfies the general interest.
The second major characteristic of the problem journal is its educational dimension. It is completed by an exchange between two collaborators: one searches and the other questions. These exchanges are an opportunity for each employee to progress through contact with more experienced colleagues, and therefore to acquire know-how that will be doubly useful to them. On the one hand he becomes more autonomous in his work. On the other hand, training in analysis and the search for solutions makes him progressively more efficient in terms of the strategic analyzes which will be entrusted to him, therefore allowing him to advance his strategic rating and the associated social prestige. In other words, filling out a problem log is a powerful way to reduce the number of problems actually encountered, on the one hand by the solutions that will be found and implemented to limit the problems, and on the other hand by the the fact that certain situations will cease to be problematic, due to the gain in autonomy linked to the associated learning.
Functioning
The role of the first column of the problem log is therefore to identify problems, and to only identify practical problems, and not resentments or personal ambitions. We therefore better understand the role assigned to the director in Chapter 8: ensuring the proper functioning of the problem log. He is the guarantor of feeding this effective flow of objective problems and not someone who makes decisions and seeks to avoid the escalation of problems as is too often practiced today.
The second box, analysis, aims to elucidate the real cause(s) of the problem. Often, when the problem arises, we find an obvious cause. But by thinking better, we can discover that the obvious cause is not necessarily the right one, and especially not the one over which we have the most control. To complete this box, two people are required. One is the one who reported the problem, the other can be the director or any other collaborator. The role of the director or collaborator is to question the person who registered the problem, that is to say, to practice nothing more and nothing less than the maieutics of Socrates.
The third box aims to find a solution to the problem, which in many cases will only be partial. It must also specify who will be involved in implementing the solution. You should not rush towards this box at the risk of stepping over the second. The solutions that will prove to be inefficient are generally those where we moved too quickly from box one to box three. At the level of this solution box, we once again appeal to the Stoic precepts that we will see in chapter 22. In the case of problem solving, the starting point is the precept of Epictetus. The most classic way of not filling this box is to consider that since we are not the people best placed to solve the problem, we have nothing to do. Now Epictetus invites us to start by differentiating what depends on us from what does not depend on us, to then focus exclusively and intensely on what depends on us. This third box has several possible outcomes. The simplest case is that the two protagonists agree on the solution to adopt, that is to say that the one who questioned is of the same opinion as the one who had encountered the initial problem, and therefore wanted the role of the one who seeks the solution. Otherwise, if the questioner is more experienced on the subject than the one searching, he can simply choose to let the solution that seems a little naive to him be implemented, just to encourage initiative among his colleague, or because the solution seems unusual to him but not necessarily significantly worse. He can also take control, and explain why his solution is preferable.
Link with the general organization
We can now specify the director's mission at the problem log level. First of all, he is responsible for ensuring that each employee regularly completes the problem log. The way to do this is quite simple: first go see the employee, and consult with them the list of problems they have recently identified. If there is none, the role of the director is to re-explain the reason for the existence of this newspaper. If there is one, the director chooses one, and leads the discussion to advance an analysis box or a solution development box. In no case does he seek to fill in all the boxes. Next, the manager asks the employee which colleague he visited to help him fill out at least one box in the problem log. If necessary, the director re-explains the benefit of this approach. Finally, the director ensures that there are not too many lines stopped in the solution box, that is to say for which implementation has not taken place. Possibly, it is addressed to the various people concerned by a solution box awaiting implementation, to redefine and note with them when they will carry out the implementation.
We now understand better why we chose (Chapter 8) organizations of around a hundred people in which we seek to have a single hierarchical level. Due to the implementation of the problem log, educational exchanges take place very regularly, so we empower employees, which reduces the need for supervision. In other words, with this journal, we reduce the resources allocated to management in favor of resources allocated to pedagogy which is expressed through exchange between collaborators.
Some advice
In this final part, we will discuss some classic obstacles that any organization inevitably encounters when it comes to problem log operation, and propose ways to overcome them.
The first problem, and the most common at the beginning, is obstruction: 'I don't have time, I already have too much work'. This is why the function of director is a hierarchical function which makes it possible to simply impose on any employee to allocate part of their time to processing the problem log, both filling in and reflection assisted by a third, that finally assistance in reflection. However, what must take precedence is tact, that is to say being clear on the fact that a zero time is not acceptable and not accepted, but then accepting a gradual increase in power, once that the first positive results are felt, and therefore that confidence in the system is growing.
Then, there are more difficult problems for which we stumble over filling the analysis box or the partial solution box. In this case, the solution may be to refer the problem to the strategic reflection journal, which will make it possible to assign more substantial means of analysis, possibly using skills external to the organization.
In some cases, the solution proposed by the person who noticed the problem is rejected by people involved in implementing the solution. There is therefore disagreement on the solution to be implemented in the end. Here again, we report strategic analyzes to the journal, the solution of which will act as arbiter.
There are too many entries in the problem log, we can no longer process everything! This is a sign of in-depth work that has just begun. It may be perfectly normal for it to take several years before obtaining a process under control, that is to say with a limited number of problems. At the beginning, we are pragmatically content to choose the problems for which the ratio of quality gain (both in terms of the quality of the product or service provided, as well as working comfort) to the implementation effort is the best.
(1) The stupidity paradox: The power and pitfalls of functional stupidity at workby Mats Alvesson and André Spicer, chapter 5, paragraph 'Faith in the system'
|