Chapter 9
The problem log

In Chapter 8, we finally gave you the opportunity to represent the entities within which we propose to organize production. These are village-type organizations, with an elected board. The members of the board are not responsible for carrying out the roles of president, director, and treasurer, but rather for ensuring that the organization applies the rules of the art—those presented in this book—regarding the three roles they represent. We also saw that each role has a specific formalism imposed on the organization. We will not present the accounting associated with the treasurer's role, because it is a very well-established subject to which we have no significant changes to make.
On the other hand, let us now explain why we have added two journals: a journal of strategic reflections for the president's role, and a journal of problems for the director's role. Why not just one? Why not a simple report on collective deliberations and the decisions that follow, as in a typical association?

A real organization is subject to different types of problems: many very small ones, quite a few medium ones, and some large or fundamental ones. There are individuals who are naturally comfortable with small problems that need to be handled quickly and efficiently: these are the active types; and individuals who are naturally comfortable with fundamental questions, which allow for more time to reflect: these are the thinkers. However, there are no individuals who are naturally comfortable with all types of problems, because each type of problem requires a specific way of life to be comfortable with it.
Therefore, if we appoint—or elect—a 'leader' for our village organization, he or she will have a way of functioning that is natural to them and will prioritize the problems that align with that mode. This is precisely what we want to avoid. We want to ensure that we reasonably address both the small daily problems and the larger fundamental questions. To achieve this, we simply created two roles, each with its own formalism adapted to frame the associated type of problem.
We just mentioned 'quite a few medium problems', alongside 'many small ones' and 'some large ones', so why not a role specifically for 'medium 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 roles is necessary and sufficient to ensure that all types of problems are addressed.

The journal of problems, which we will now elaborate on, is the tool of the director, and serves as a record of the treatment of multiple small problems. Fundamental 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, the 'Observations' column, which indicates Who, When, What, and With What Consequences.
Then, the 'Analysis' column, which aims to identify the cause(s) of the problem.
Next, the 'Solution' column, which aims to propose a solution—often only partial—and which individuals will be involved.
Finally, the 'Implementation' column, which indicates whether the solution has been implemented, and When.

Each person in the organization adds entries to this journal, or more precisely, fills in the first column as they encounter obstacles in carrying out their mission. Then, other people—especially the director—regularly meet with them to help complete the other columns, following procedures that we will detail later in this chapter.

Some experts familiar with Lean will recognize one of their tools here.
The journal of problems is the director's working tool, much like accounting is the treasurer's working tool. A line is added to the journal each time an individual in the organization identifies a problem that hinders the proper execution of their mission.
Incidentally, this journal also allows an understanding of the organization's level of organization. It can therefore also be used by the treasurer to obtain new resources from the bank, and by operational control to assess the organization's performance level.

Reason for being

Why impose a formalism such as the journal of problems, i.e., the day-to-day history of the company, when in chapter 7 we affirmed that what should be reinforced to address Marx's updated problem was the decision-making process? It is indeed the journal of strategic reflections, presented in the next chapter, which is the direct response to Marx's problem, that is, an effort to take into account the global consequences in the long term. However, our experience shows that defining good objectives is not enough to be socially useful. One also has to be well organized to carry out the mission one has set for oneself. Put more simply, the two new journals are complementary: the journal of strategic reflections secures the right choices, and the journal of problems secures their proper implementation.

Too often, the following scenario repeats itself in current companies and administrations: a person addresses their superior to report a problem preventing them from performing their job correctly, and the superior responds with an evasion. Depending on the character of the superior, or possibly their mood at the time, the evasion can take many forms. It might be a compassionate 'I have understood your problem, and I agree that it is not normal, but we do not have a budget to improve the situation: it depends on the bureaucrats in the general management for which I, unfortunately, have no power.' It might be a more reproachful rejection such as 'You can always address the general management.' It might also be a devaluing 'You will find a solution!' or a moralizing 'We are a society of winners. I expect my colleagues to show initiative.' The initial evasion can eventually be completed, a little later, by some unpleasant remarks, or by assigning a more or less humiliating task to clearly indicate that problems must not be reported anymore. Any person with normal mental health understands the lesson quite quickly. If the superior is of a dominant temperament, they may push the vice even further by asking each morning 'Good morning Dupont, is everything all right today?' until the desired 'Yes, sir' is received. This 'Yes, sir' is the exact equivalent of the grimace a rhesus macaque gives when a higher-ranking monkey approaches in the documentary Primates of the Caribbean mentioned in chapter 2, and which marks the acceptance of an inferior position in the social hierarchy.
What these behaviors reveal is that company hierarchy is, above all, a matter of social status, as Parkinson revealed, and that the ability that allows climbing the hierarchical ladder is largely a myth, or more accurately, a façade, as revealed by the investigation in the book The Stupidity Paradox (1) mentioned in chapter 3. We also find at this level the two alternatives represented by Chester and Tony in the documentary Primates of the Caribbean. On one side, the manager who tries to establish their social ascension on the basis of benevolent exchanges, and who will choose the compassionate evasion, for example. They will also willingly speak about the notion of a winning team and their concern to be close to their colleagues. On the other hand, the manager who tries to establish their social ascension based on fear, who will prefer the evasion where colleagues must show initiative. This latter type will also favor speeches about the notion of competition, for example. What is important at this level is to understand that the problem is not so much the alternative chosen by the manager in terms of their strategy of power conquest, as the fact that in all cases, this conquest is done on the basis of the game of alliances, thus inducing widespread nepotism and high stress levels among all individuals.

In chapter 4, we saw the current modes of decision-making, that is, the downward flow from management to operational staff. What we see now is the upward flow from operational staff to management, which is a flow of problems. What we observe is that the objective of management is that there should be no upward flow, and this is quite logical. Since we saw in chapter 4 that the decision-making mechanism is generally incompetent, it is quite logical that decision-makers are not interested in the effective consequences of their decisions. Quite the contrary, all they expect is that nothing comes to contradict the discourse they will not fail to hold concerning the quality of their past decisions. Any upward flow is therefore a source of cognitive dissonance for them, and the preferred means to stop these flows is terror.
Put differently, the objective of those who have progressed significantly in the social hierarchy is to make decisions without having to bear their consequences, and the surest way to achieve this is to attack anyone who dares persistently to report problems. In reality, the vice does not stop there: since the incompetent decisions are claimed to be superior because they rely on the latest managerial myths, management expects them to result in satisfactory operational results. So not only do they make incompetent decisions, not only do they not want any feedback on the problems of the field, but they also require, for good measure, high operational performance, with the main tool being the threat on all intermediate hierarchical levels. This leads to the establishment in parallel of the decision-making downward chain, a downward chain of pressure and threats.
From this, we can understand the reason for the couple journal of problems / journal of strategic reflections, which is to reverse the loop: the journal of problems organizes the flow of information upward, and the journal of strategic reflections organizes the flow of solutions downward. Let us repeat it, the stakes are dual: on the one hand to limit the game of alliances for access to positions of power, and thus the stress at all levels. On the other hand, to allow rational decisions, and thus to actually face the ecological challenge, for example, rather than just pretend to.

If we now focus exclusively on the journal of problems, its main function is to provoke a change in the nature of exchanges between colleagues. More precisely, the goal is to shift the majority of these exchanges from the game of alliances to the virtuous cycle of addressing the difficulties encountered by the organization in the exercise of its purpose.
This also has a significant effect at the level of cognitive dissonance. Since we will see that it becomes socially recommended to meet other colleagues to discuss their journal of problems, we gradually acquire knowledge of a large number of specific facts regarding the organization, thus moving out of the fear of the unknown and the projection of stereotypical representations of how other departments function within the organization.
Not knowing is the preferred tool to lie to oneself, and thus to resort to coercion more or less subtly in the end, without having to admit it. Therefore, the fact of circulating precise and objective information about the functioning of the organization in all its corners to all colleagues is a powerful way to foster consensus. Indeed, once we know (in terms of cognitive dissonance: once we can no longer deny the reality of the problems), once we no longer operate in a closed environment with our social group (in terms of cognitive dissonance: once we no longer receive massive social support linked to certain myths of our particular social class), it becomes mentally less easy to oppose a solution that satisfies the general interest.

The second major characteristic of the journal of problems is its educational dimension. It is filled in by an exchange between two colleagues: one who searches and one who questions. These exchanges are the opportunity for each colleague to progress through contact with more experienced colleagues and thus acquire skills that will be doubly useful. On the one hand, they become more autonomous in their work. On the other hand, the training in analysis and problem-solving makes them gradually more effective in terms of strategic analyses that will be entrusted to them, thus allowing them to improve their strategic rating and the associated social prestige.
In other words, filling in a journal of problems 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 because certain situations will cease to be problematic due to the autonomy gained through learning.

Functioning

The role of the first column of the journal of problems is therefore to record problems, and to record only practical problems, not grievances or personal ambitions.
We then understand better the role assigned to the director in chapter 8: ensuring the good functioning of the journal of problems. He is the guardian of the flow of objective problems, not someone who makes decisions and tries to avoid the upward flow of problems as is often the case today.

The second box, analysis, aims to clarify the cause(s) of the problem. Often, at the moment the problem occurs, we find an obvious cause. But by reflecting more deeply, we can discover that the obvious cause is not necessarily the right one, and certainly not the one on which we have the most leverage. To fill this box, we need two people. One is the person who recorded the problem, the other can be the director or any other colleague. The director or the colleague's role is to question the person who recorded the problem, that is to say, to practice nothing more and nothing less than Socratic maieutics.

The third box aims to find a solution to the problem, which in many cases will only be partial. It also must specify who will be involved in implementing the solution. It is important not to rush into this box, at the risk of skipping the second one. Inefficient solutions are generally those where we go too quickly from box one to box three.
At the level of this solution box, we again appeal to the Stoic principles that we will see in chapter 22. In the case of problem resolution, the starting point is Epictetus' principle. The most classic way of not filling in this box is to consider that since we are not the best placed to solve the problem, we have nothing to do. But Epictetus invites us to begin by distinguishing what depends on us from what does not depend on us, and 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, the person who questioned agrees with the person who encountered the initial problem, thus taking the role of the one who seeks the solution. In the opposite case, if the person who questions is more experienced on the subject than the one who seeks, he may simply choose to let the seemingly naive solution be implemented, just to encourage initiative in his colleague, or because the solution seems unusual but not necessarily significantly worse. He may also take back control and clarify why his solution is preferable.

Link with the overall organization

We can now clarify the mission of the director at the level of the journal of problems.
First, he is responsible for ensuring that each colleague regularly fills in the journal of problems. The way to do this is quite simple: first go and see the colleague, and consult with him the list of problems he has recently recorded. If there are none, the director's role is to re-explain the purpose of this journal. If there are some, the director chooses one and leads the exchange to progress the analysis box or the solution development box. Under no circumstances does he try to fill in all the boxes. Then, the director asks the colleague which colleague they have visited to help fill in at least one box of the journal of problems. If necessary, the director re-explains the interest of this approach. Finally, the director ensures that there are not too many lines stopped at the solution box, i.e., for which implementation has not taken place. If needed, he addresses 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 about one hundred people in which we aim to have only one hierarchical level. Due to the implementation of the journal of problems, pedagogical exchanges take place very regularly, thus autonomizing colleagues, which reduces the need for supervision. In other words, with this journal, we reduce the resources allocated to supervision in favor of resources allocated to pedagogy, expressed through exchanges between colleagues.

Some advice

We will discuss in this last section some classical obstacles that any organization inevitably encounters in the functioning of the journal of problems, and propose ways to overcome them.

The first problem, and the most frequent at the beginning, is obstruction: 'I don't have time, I already have too much work.' This is why the director's role is a hierarchical role that allows the imposition, purely and simply, on any colleague to dedicate part of their time to the treatment of the journal of problems, whether it is filling it in, assisted reflection with a third party, or finally assisting in the reflection. However, what must prevail is tact, i.e., being clear that zero time is not acceptable and not acceptable, but then accepting a gradual increase, once the first positive results are felt, and thus the trust in the system progresses.

Then, there are more difficult problems for which one gets stuck on filling in the analysis box or the partial solution box. In this case, the solution may be to refer the problem to the journal of strategic reflections, which will allow assigning more significant analytical resources, possibly using external skills to the organization.

In some cases, the solution proposed by the person who noticed the problem is rejected by people involved in the implementation of the solution. There is therefore a disagreement on the solution to implement in the end. In this case again, we refer to the journal of strategic analyses, whose solution will have the value of an arbitrator.

There are too many entries in the journal of problems, we can no longer process everything!
This is a sign that substantial work has just begun. It can be perfectly normal that it takes several years before a controlled process is achieved, i.e., with a limited number of problems. At the beginning, we pragmatically choose the problems for which the quality gain (both in terms of product or service quality, and work comfort) on the implementation effort is the best.