Perception : Headlamps

I had a heated debate with a friend, today, about the silliest thing in the world.

No, really.

There's a sign on the freeway, right on top of the entrance of a long underpass tunnel, that instructs car drivers to turn on the headlamps while inside the tunnel. The argument started when I commented on another car with hazard lamps instead of the headlamps. Of course I turned on my headlamp first to avoid a 'touche' moment. I said, "Those fools, they are supposed to turn on the headlamps!" Of course it was with a sense of humor, it wasn't really a rant. But my friend may have taken it seriously, and said, "what's wrong with it? You're the one who's supposed to follow them. That was a stupid sign, anyway, why would you have to turn on your headlamps in broad daylight? You can see it doesn't even have any effect whether or not you turn on your headlamps. See?" She pointed at the front of the car.

I then explained it to her that the purpose of turning on the headlamps in that particular tunnel is to give light to the driver IN FRONT of us, to make them aware of our presence behind them, not to provide light for ourselves. It's to improve safety, that when a driver wants to switch to the fast lane, the driver can see whether or not there's a car already in the fast lane. "so, you see, it's not that we need light in that dark, long tunnel, it's for the driver in front of us to see us on his tail".

Then the debate extended to some kind of a newly-approved international regulation about having a system to blink / roll the cars tail lamps to increase drivers' awareness of the vehicle in front of them . . . which I obviously never heard of, because I responded with a softened "bullshit", and the debate continued. It's resolved with an apology and a coffee session at the Starbucks. No damage done.

Maybe she snapped because she also turns on the hazard lamps whenever she enters the tunnel when driving. But my point is, we were having a problem caused by different perspectives, which in this case, the function of the headlamps. To me, the car's headlamps are not merely used to provide light to ourselves so that we can see what's going on in front of us. The other use of the headlamps is demonstrated in that long, dark tunnel, through the instructions on the sign above the tunnel's entrance. On the other hand, my friend only knew the first - and primary - use of the headlamps. I'm a bit ashamed, knowing that I should have known better, that not everyone thinks like me. In fact, we ALL have our own unique ways in understanding something. What I can do better is to propose an idea about the function of the headlamps in the tunnel. She might also not accept it right away, but this way my chance in explaining it further to her is bigger, not to mention avoiding a pointless debate that may cause our friendship to suffer.

At work, we may encounter the same case with different perspectives. As a manager - or superior - we might possess a broader point of view compared to our subordinates. We as superiors sometimes whine about how ignorant our subordinates are, because they won't understand what we tell them about cutting cost in purchasing material that may be the cause of a harder handling and making the goods. Subordinates sometimes also whine about how ignorant the superiors are because they just won't listen to their ideas about the current situation on the production floor that may make their work easier and give more benefits, though need a little more budget.

Difference in perspectives can be reconciled with a simple two-ways communication. One might want to refrain from saying something as fact, and try to submit an idea which ends with an open question. Showing openness may stimulate others' curiosity, willingness to share more ideas, and may lead to a situation where people can enrich others with each others' ideas. Of course this is not easy, it needs practice and willingness from both sides. But, as long as we base it on goodwill, do it.

IT Implementation Failure

I've been around for quite some time throughout my career as a management consultant, and I've been involved with companies and organizations that implemented IT systems to support their operations.

And I've seen them fail miserably.

Just think about it : An organization spent hundred thousands of dollars to purchase and install a high-tech IT system to improve their manufacturing and supply chain operations. But in the end they suffer, generally from being unable to utilize it as they expected it in the beginning of the project.

See, this is the main problem of IT implementation : A radical change of mindset, work systems and management control systems is mandatory, which needs a thorough change management program to lead all the people towards the desired change of behaviors . . . and this is what IT implementors don't have in their protocols and methodologies. At least here in Indonesia.

What IT implementors need is to integrate people development programs in their methodologies, which involves - among others - change management. We cannot simply install a new system and setup training sessions to teach people HOW to use it, we also need to lead the people to WANT to use it appropriately. We need a plan to make people LOVE to use the system, which then lead them to utilize it and improve it.

We need to change people's mindset so that they FULLY TRUST the system.

Let me give an example : In one of the Productivity Improvement Projects that I'm involved in, there was this organization that installed a hundred-thousand-dollar Supply Chain Management software that was supposed to simplify access to up-to-date data, like, it should help a manager to find out today's production output from a specific production line at specific time and location. But in reality, they still need to go down and check it on the production floor where the WIP was placed. The problem lies on the admin at the production floor who was too lazy to make the input 30 minutes before the shift ends. Oh, the admin DID input the data into the system, but he didn't seem to see the benefit of the system. The organization had tried many ways to make the admin do his job at the designated time, but failed every time. Or maybe they succeeded and the admin DID do his job at the designated time, but the manager still can't believe it and keep checking it on the production floor, or through a manual report generated and sent by the supervisor.

The problem is that they didn't involve change management in their IT implementation, that is, to shape the people's ways of thinking to make them see the benefit of the new system. And that's just one among many things that need to be changed in order to make people want to use the system, like changing people's behavior from doing their paperwork manually to doing it through a computerized system, make people committed to follow the new instructions that's not there before, etc.

It's people we are dealing with. You can simply install softwares to our PCs and expect them to work as expected, given that all compatibility checklist is all green. But with people, it's a whole different story.

The Apple's Antennagate

Everybody should know about the woe around Apple's iPhone 4 antenna. Now that Steve Jobs held a press conference explaining about this, it means that the problem is real and they are taking serious effort to correct it.

There are some things from the conference that interest me. First of all, Jobs said it himself : "Apple isn't perfect". And the next best thing, he indirectly said that iPhone is not perfect just like other smartphones.

It always baffles me that many Apple products users seem to believe that Apple products are flawless, perfect and superior to other products of its peers. And some of them even condescend and look down to other products, even to the extent of treating non-Apple users with disdain. There's even a saying "Apple and non-Apple products".

Putting Apple aside, there's a good lesson we can learn from this case. You see, I've seen many superiors, or hear stories about superiors who see himself as someone who deserves the position. They feel that they are always right, people should look up to him, or worse, he look down to other people, specially to their subordinates. This is also the case in seniority. And being superior or senior, they have the power to behave that way.

These people tend to protect the image, and become perfectionist. They don't allow themselves to make mistakes or look "weak". When they make mistake, they try to look for a scapegoat to blame, or make it so that it's something normal and not a big deal. Oh, BTW, Jobs showed similar signal-drop case on OTHER smartphones and platforms.

Silly, isn't it?

What I'm saying, I remember I posted something similar, higher position does not give us power to do anything freely as we like. Higher position gives us opportunity to do MORE good things and good deeds. When we continuously make condescending remarks to others - or subordinates, or look down to them, people would love to look for our flaws. And when they DO find one tiny flaw on us, they will make it so big, it matters. And we will end up trying our best to look for justifications, which might make us look even sillier.

So, again, we may be a superior, be it a supervisor, manager, president director or anything. Even a teacher or a senior trainer. We may even be a smart guy who deserve our position. But that's not a reason to behave in such a way that we look down to others. Learn to be a good leader, and make your team a good team.

The Two Glass Bowls

I created this illustration on one of my management training in Medan.

I presented two glass bowls to the audience, and told them to think of a way to move the bowls two meters on the floor, but they are not allowed to move themselves.

One volunteer tried to slide the glass bowls on the floor to reach the desired distance, and succeeded. Another one tried to roll it, but found that the bowls, being only half a ball, rolled to the left and bumped the wall. Good thing it didn't break.

When the audience were out of ideas, then I proposed another way involving duct tape : I put the lids together to form a kind of glass ball - not a perfect ball, but at least it's close to a round tire - and bound it with the duct tape. Then, I rolled it on the floor, made it reach the two meters target, and roll beyond the line.

At work, people consist of two, completely different sides : Technical and tactical. People can be taught and trained about technical things, like - for example - good soldering methods, sewing techniques, SAP implementation, etc. People develop skills from years of experience doing his work, enabling him to do nice acrobatics through it, like, a mechanical engineer who can manipulate and modify the mechanisms of broken and malfunctioning machineries, or a machine operator who's able to make temporal adjustment to his workstation to keep it productive while waiting for the mechanics to come, etc. All that are the technical side of human being : There's no limit to what we can develop from people, thus we can keep filling the glass with knowledge forever.

The second part is the tactical part : Feelings, motives, courage, creativity, etc. People DO need to be encouraged. People DO need something to drive them to do their work.

But unfortunately, many organizations treat their people like robots, that is, only focus on the technical side. Companies arrange tight and intensive training program on how to operate the production machineries, upgrade their knowledge on new specifications and features of the company's products, or invite experienced and professional gurus to conduct a series of courses and training sessions, etc., while putting aside the fact that they also need to persuade and encourage the people to correctly and appropriately implement the knowledge in their daily activities. Not to mention to keep them loyal and implement their newly-acquired knowledge to the benefit of the company.

Treating people like robots is like sliding one bowl on the floor. While the bowl would eventually develop scratches, people will eventually develop stress and demotivation. Can people achieve when they are treated like robots? The answer is YES. Of course highly-trained people can achieve their goals. For example, a woman with countless hours of experience in sewing and spent many sessions on sewing methods training, will undoubtedly reach the pieces per day targets assigned to her. Or, a supervisor who just came back from his 3 months ISO training in the US would flawlessly know how to learn and implement the local company's standard operation procedures and management control systems. But it's people we are talking about, here. People may be able to keep their ideals high and do their work flawlessly after they walk out of the training room. But people will eventually face problems and obstacles in their everyday activities. Even an easily predictable problems can bring down people's courage.

And at time like this we need to help people back on their feet. Some problems are work-related, and some others are non-work-related. Even a brief argument with the spouse in the morning can cause a whole day of bad mood and unnecessary mistakes. Thus, it needs a good leader to come up with ways to tackle this kind of problems and bring him back to work.

So this is what duct-taping the bowls means : While we keep our employees technically updated, we also need to keep their spirit and morale up. Keep doing this, we will find ourselves see productivity improves with relatively smaller effort. We would start to see them exceed their targets because they want to give more. Remember the story about the two employees in the Toyota factory? Both guys have the same, simple job description : Pulling levers to mechanically and manually continue a small part of the assembly process. When asked about what they are doing in the booth, one guy said plainly, "I'm here only to pull these levers", while the other guy answers "I'm making Toyota!". I'm sure that the first guy never get encouragement and positive feedbacks from his supervisor, while the other guy keep getting positive inputs and encouragement from his superior.

So you see, it's all a matter of treating people as a complete human being. Hard? Yes. But it's learnable.

I don't want my people to do their best. I want my people to WANT to do their best.

Allegiance

During a Productivity Improvement Project, I asked this question to my trainees of managers : Do you want your people to do their work? As in, doing it properly, according to the system and the rules, following the do’s and avoiding the don’ts? They answered enthusiastically, “YES!” Well, of course we want our people to do their work correctly, mistake-free and flawless. We want professionals who know what they are doing and do it right.

Then, I startled them that if I were them, I DON’T want my people to do their job. Of course, some of them frowned and asked “why?”, to which I responded with a single sentence that made their frown even uglier : “I want my people to WANT to do their work”. Well anyway, it’s a strategy to give an opening for explanation . . . it keeps people focused.

I believe I explained it somewhere in my previous posts, that modern people are smarter and more critical. Instead of fully dependant on their muscles and physical traits, they use their brains and mental powers to improve themselves and make use of them to their benefit in everyday activities. Thus, it’s one of the reasons behind the term “work smart, don’t work hard”.

With all the skills and knowledge, people tend to think “why should I give more? It’s not worth my salary”. Well, this salary thing is so common. The company doesn’t want to pay more, but the employee thinks that his skills and hard work deserve better compensation. But it’s interesting to find that one guy feels comfortable with his salary and willing to give more, while the other guy keeps complaining and demanding more salary, although they are doing a relatively same job. I’ve seen courageous and motivated employee in one company, and depressed, complaining employee in other organization with the same job description.

So what’s wrong?

Later on, I’ll write something more detail about the 8 Effective Leader’s Behaviors, but now all I’m saying is that it’s people we are dealing with here. We don’t just want them to do their work correctly, but we want them to actually own and develop a sense to do their work right. We want them to – say – automatically do things right and flawlessly. Of course, we would want to implement control systems like Pokayoke, ISO, 5S etc. to improve our organization in a more systematic way, but again, it’s all about how eager our people want to make use it in their everyday life. Or, we might want to push them, squeeze them or bully them to use their skills and knowledge to the benefit of the company, but it would only make them robots who will only move on command, they will not start the initiatives to work and improve.

What should we do?

Be a good leader. Yeah, it may sound naive to you, but I’ve seen people willing to die for their manager, and dedicate their lives to serve under their superiors. It’s all about good leadership, maintaining good work environment and open communication. Win-win solution, involvement in problem-solving, mutual respect and two-way communication are a few among others in order to create a good relationship with our employees, which leads to courageous and creative employees who are willing to “die” for us. They are willing to give more to the company, they are willing to dedicate their skills and knowledge to the benefit of the organization. They might not become super employees, but they have enough sense of belonging to improve themselves, helping the organization and the company to improve itself.

So, back to the statement above : I don’t want my people to do their work, but I want my people to WANT to do their work. I want my people to have the will to work correctly, I want my people to follow the rules and implement well-laid system without me being depressed and stressed-out to make them do it, and I want my people to have the initiatives to improve themselves. I want my people to have allegiance to the company.

It is a cheaper way to improve the company. In a good way, that is . . .