My recent post about the dangers of problem solving has attracted thousands of readers. I have never expected to receive so much positive feedback and valuable comments.
For those of you who have missed it here is the link:
16 dangers of problem solving. Read with caution.
One particular response caught my eye. The author agreed for me to publish it in full. Enjoy!
Quality and Problem Solving
The question you ask can only be found when you apply systems thinking and systems analysis. This means your viewpoint has to be through the lens of a social-economist and organizational theorist.
In my opinion, the problem is short-terminism that dominates the executive leadership mindset. This mindset is caused by hedge fund who demands unsustainable YoY profit. Take the case of 2-3% GDP growth versus desiring a 7% ROI. That means your team has to return on a positive variance over a long period of time. Regression to the means going to hit you sooner or later. The hedge fund demands this return because we as citizens demand this in our retirement portfolio. You go to bed with the hedge fund because they provide capital to achieve your goal.
Also, consider this simple statistic, the average tenure of CEO is 1-5 years. In other stats, I read it’s 3 years. So if you know you have 18-36months before you are gone, what policies would you use? Personal self-interest (aka free market thinking) would suggest using the small win / short term approach because it’s easier to get a group to make incremental improvement versus a transformation.
Since this is the case, some leaders have dumped the Quality Management principles because their timing is longer term. You may not see the effect of policies for 2-3 years. Peter Scholtes in his leadership handbook says principle change takes 18 months and Dr Kano said it’s probably closer to 3 years. Knowing this and if you are the CEO what kind of problems do you solve? Low hanging fruit / short term.
If we examine this from an organisational view, real change requires power to influence others to do what is mutually beneficial. Sometimes this is a compromise, and that too becomes a problem later. In America, we have no child left behind and Obamacare as example of compromise. It’s an improvement but leaves a lot to be desired. The political efficacy is hard to determine and measure, which is why people complain about the Quality of action and the Quality of leadership.
At the end of the day, enlightened leadership is needed across the organization with a consolidation of power to the top leader to create that new aim and purpose for the organization. Historically, transformational change happens in the crucible, mostly because of organisational inertia. Institutional leaders don’t want to change or improve because their power may become uncertain. They only do so when compelled. Nothing to do with methods, etc… everything to do with self-preservation and unrealistic market demand of leadership.
My two cents.
22 Comments
Leave your reply.