The past few weeks I have been matching what have I learned about Continuous Improvement with the cultural perspectives of Spiral Dynamics. It brings all kinds of interesting insights. For example about problem solving:
Fire Fighting
A popular way to solve problems is called fire fighting. It involves emergency based action to find a short term fix for problems or the suppression of their symptoms. It is seen as a bad way of handling problems because it is largely based on preconceptions and therefore most fixes are only temporarily effective and the problems typically reoccur.
We are very good at solving problems.
Practice makes perfect…
We solve the same problems every day.
I associate fire fighting with a RED Power culture. Fire fighters are the hero’s of the organization and typically get a lot of status since they know how to save the day. Many even get promoted because of this ability.
Many fire fighters tend to resist finding and eliminating the root causes of problems, they tend to defend the status quo. They tend to defend their hero-like status.
Problem Solving
To really solve a problem, the causes of the problem need to be eliminated. In the case of a fire that might include the fuel, the oxygen or a high temperature. If we can prevent this mix of conditions to occur there will never be a fire again.
I associate problem solving with a BLUE Order culture that wants processes to perform consistently time and again. Very much in the Control Paradigm. By carefully analyzing the perceived facts, the causes for problems are identified and eliminated one by one and thus preventing emergency based actions.
There is little heroism in prevented problems.
Evolution (Kaizen)
The evolutionary kind of Kaizen is the most well known way of Kaizen and is very similar in nature to the problem solving described above so, I also associate this type of Kaizen with the BLUE Order culture that wants to perform according to a defined standard.
Standard:
Best known method for producing a product or service.
There may be times that it is not possible to work according to the set standard and there is a gap between the current performance and the standard performance. This is the Lean definition of a problem.
In the beginning it may be possible to work, for example, 90% of the time according to the standard. During 10% of the time there may be a gap. By eliminating the causes of these gaps the performance may improve to, for example, 95% of the time according to standard. So, over time the performance improves in small steps, hence the evolutionary nature of this type of Kaizen.
Innovation (Kaizen)
Many may be surprised to see innovation as Kaizen but Toyota explains Kaizen as:
Kaizen:
The Toyota Way 2001
We improve our business operations continuously, always driving for innovation and evolution.
I find it interesting that innovation is mentioned before evolution. To me, as a Toyota Kata practitioner, that makes a lot of sense. If you want to improve do you want improvement in small or big increments?
The small increments may just be too slow to stay successful in business. Step changes may be needed. Therefore I associate the innovative kind of kaizen with a ORANGE Succes culture.
In Toyota Kata terminology you try to reach a challenge by working on successive target conditions to achieve a level of performance in the (near) future that is currently not yet possible.
Target Condition:
My definition to contrast a Target Condition with a Standard
Better unknown method for producing a product or service.
Kaizen’s Balancing Act
Both the evolutionary kind of Kaizen as the innovative kind of Kaizen are very much in the Control Paradigm and build on perception.
But there is a very distinct difference between a BLUE Order culture and a ORANGE Succes culture. In the BLUE Order culture it is important to defend the status quo, to adhere to the standard. In the ORANGE Succes culture it is important to create progress, to change the standard.
To keep the standard or to change the standard. That is the question.
Rebecca Herbert says
I fell into the trap of thinking that there was a binary choice to be made about culture. Either you work within (emergent/systems approach) or you direct the system. I lean towards one more than the other. But I also know that both can deliver results so can’t argue that one is inherently better than the other (and preference for one or the other is quite subjective.)
So what I liked about this piece is that we can apply a methodology to problem solving (which I think can scale up or scale down depending on the size of the problem.) The methodology can be framed to adapt to the culture – so more directive cultures can set ‘standards’ and more relational cultures can set ‘target conditions’ – the underlying capability (i.e. structured problem solving) is the same but the mindset can vary depending on how comfortable the system feels with change/or how loose they can be about standards. (I call this flex in a framework.)
Emiel, you introduce the ‘investigator’ vs ‘innovator’ mindset – which resonated with me because of the work I do – but also brings to mind diversity of thought. People who see and think differently should not be on opposing teams! Bring them together and let the magic happen – which links back to my earlier thinking trap that the choice is binary or somehow either/or.
So coming full circle – we know we need to work with the system as it is. Not requiring all the ‘perfect’ conditions to be in place, or predicated on a specific culture– but helping to create a common language of ‘problem solving’ that investigator or innovator can understand and work with to achieve common purpose.
This then made me think about ‘capabilities’ and an article I read recently https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/07/radical-help-hilary-cottam-review-revolutionise-welfare-state
A fundamental change is needed in which “the emphasis is not on managing need but creating capability” says Social Activist and author of Radical Help, Hillary Cottam. She describes how the postwar welfare state “an original and brilliant experiment” is unable to deal with the reality of modern life: it has become a “management state” in which 80% of the resource is spent on gate-keeping. In her work, the focus is not on managing problems but creating capability to help people learn, work, live healthily and connect to one another.
What can we learn from this approach in how we deliver our services to citizens? Many will have heard the proverb
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for his lifetime.
So I am left wondering- if we teach structured problem solving as a core capability –are we creating a common language to talk about and share data to tackle some really ‘wicked’ problems? Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
Emiel van Est says
Thank you for your thoughtful reaction!
“First we build people. Then we build cars.” is a well known phrase from Toyota’s former president Fujio Cho.
https://www.emielvanest.nl/lean-culture-what-about-toyotas-culture/
I think that links to managing need vs creating capability.
Culture is not binary at all, it is very fluid. It is also very multi faceted, type of problem solving only being one of them. Language being another.
In a previous post I pointed out that we need to change our focus. The lean community has been tool focused for decades. Thanks to Mike Rother the focus has shifted to the skills aspect of humans. But humans are not just a bag of skills. So, I think we need to address more human and cultural aspects. How do humans develop? How does culture develop? I think that so far we have had it backwards, trying to progress from tools to skills towards culture. I think we need to start with culture. https://www.emielvanest.nl/why-it-is-so-hard-to-get-continuous-improvement-into-your-culture-and-dna-and-what-to-do-about-it/
First we build culture. Then we build people. That is how I currently think about it, expanding on Cho’s phrase. It is only in a suitable environment that people can develop.
I think Spiral Dynamics provides a very helpful framework to guide us. So, if a culture is predominantly BLUE the next developmental stage is ORANGE. How can we facilitate this transformation? And then from ORANGE to GREEN, etc. Oh, BTW, why do we need to change? Is there a change in life conditions or is BLUE a perfect fit for current circumstances?
So much more to discover…