Skip to Content

Improve Something Today

Posts on page 9

The Strategy / Culture Bicycle: one picture that replaces an infinite amount of bullshit

A strategy method that gets right at the good stuff.

Putting together a coherent, useful strategy for a group is hard.

  • When strategy gets too complicated, intelligibility goes out the window. Nobody will adhere to a strategy they can’t remember. But…
  • When strategy is too simple, it’s merely a container for people to toss their assumptions and pet projects into.
  • And often a group is required to keep a strategy document in order to unlock funding, etc., even though nobody is excited to create it or use it.

Now—as a consultant—I’ve been called upon to create strategic plans and the like that I knew were going to collect dust. The complete and immediate uselessness of the strategy was a foregone conclusion. I’m not proud to say it, but I’ve flown across the country, eaten lousy hotel breakfasts with those weird runny eggs, and hosted elaborate multi-day sessions all in order to generate complicated, detailed strategic plans that nobody wanted, nobody used, and ultimately helped no-one. What a waste!

A couple years ago, in an effort to never do that again, I hit the books. Here’s what I found—it’s my go-to method to help a group of people generate and explain their strategy.

The Strategy/Culture Bicycle:

A wheel for Strategy. A wheel for Culture. And three questions on each wheel which can produce real, meaningful, shared understanding of a group’s intent. When guided by an attentive facilitator, you can get it done in an hour or two and create something amazing. (A detailed facilitator’s guide is available. It is excellent.)

Not part of the Strategy/Culture Bicycle: setting goals, establishing performance measurement, planning. But each of these are way easier to do once there’s consensus on thoughtful answers to these questions.

In my experience, Strategy/Culture Bicycle works for three reasons:

  1. It cuts directly to the big questions without getting mired in a bunch of the inventory-making throat-clearing, fussing about contingency, or working backwards from preferred / “management-approved” actions that overtake many strategy efforts.
  2. The inquiry-based affinity mapping that generates a Bicycle prevents any one person from defining strategy in a way that others can’t, or won’t, support. Autocracy is incoherent.
  3. The Bicycle reminds us that a group needs to have both strategy and culture operating in parallel. Too many strategy documents exist in a timeless void, severed from the people and ways of being which might realize that strategy.

The Strategy/Culture Bicycle was created by Eugene Eric Kim and Amy Wu. I’m grateful for it. It’s in the public domain. Go for it: start with the web-based intro, then move onto the detailed instructions.

And here’s a secret: if you want to figure out who to become and where to go, you can prepare a Bicycle for yourself, by yourself. No lousy hotel breakfast required.

On speeding things up

A cute little snake sunning itself on the woodpile.
Photo by Brian Kerr.

Learning from the hourglass & the snake.

People want to go faster. I’ve made my career helping people speed up things they care about: foster care placement, order-to-cash cycles, school transportation, weather radar rendering, customer support escalations, replacement part ordering, academic award selection, environmental site reviews, and on and on.

During these adventures, I learned two points about speed—one from the hourglass, the other from the snake.

1. The hourglass isn’t listening

Imagine an hourglass. Two glass bulbs, a skinny bottleneck connecting the two, an enclosed volume filled with sand.

  • The rate at which sand falls is controlled by the width of the bottleneck. This bottleneck is what makes it an hourglass, not a jar.
  • The hourglass is filled with an amount of sand, and an amount of air.
  • The duration it takes for the sand to fall from one side to the other is a function of these two: the rate at which sand passes through the bottleneck, and the amount of sand.

Hourglasses are compelling because all parts of the system are in clear view. To see an hourglass is to use it.

Complicated systems tend not to be self-documenting like this. It’s work to make the underlying rates, amounts, and durations they produce visible enough that they can then be adjusted with skill and care.

Bottlenecks & key constraints

The simplest way to adjust an hourglass is to add or remove sand. Sand is easier to change than glass.

You don’t make an hourglass run at a faster rate by yelling at the bottleneck, or putting it onto a performance improvement plan, or taking it to a baseball game. Tell the sand to do more with less and see where that gets you.

To adjust a complex system, first, figure out what the bottlenecks are. In this line of work, you might call them constraints. Go look, measure, count. Once you’ve found those constraints, get comfortable with them. There’s always a key constraint. Remove the key constraint and the second-worst constraint rises, smiling, to take its place. Continuous improvement is the practice of removing constraints, one at a time, without hurting anybody. Contrast this with typical improvement projects that merely push problems around until they are held by the unluckiest manager.

To adjust the system, you must discover the system under adjustment. We learn from the hourglass that it’s possible: rate, amount, duration.

2. The snake & its skin

A page from ‘Be Here Now’ by Ram Dass (1971).

This page from Ram Dass’ Be Here Now helps me find patience. And patience makes me effective.

  • For example, on the meditation cushion, I appreciate and laugh off moments where I notice a desire to produce more stillness—and faster.
  • For example, when working with clients, I remember that things only happen at a certain rate, especially inside large, dysfunctional organizations, where people suffer under autocratic leadership, and where safety is neither established or maintained.
You can’t rip the skin off the snake.
The snake must moult the skin.
That’s the rate it happens.

Please don’t take this as discouragement against change. It is a reminder that each moment prefigures the next. Let us allow change to happen, to remain steadfast in our conviction that it will, and that we create the conditions for it, and that we’re not to rip the skin off the snake.

August 6, 2024: Edited for length.

How to make any meeting better with 3 simple fenceposts

How to make any meeting better with 3 simple fenceposts
Photo by Brian Kerr.

Identify a purpose, rational aim & experiential aim—quick actions with a huge effect.

Before your next meeting, write down these three things:

  1. Purpose ← the topic or problem that brings a group together.
  2. Rational aim ← the action, decision, or outcome the group must arrive at.
  3. Experiential aim ← how the group will feel changed by the experience. Express this as a feeling: something like resolved or open or refreshed.

Many meetings begin with only one of these known. The best have all three.

Here’s how to use them:

  • At the beginning of a meeting, share the meeting’s purpose and the rational aim. For example: “We are here today to X. We’ll get there by creating Y and Z together.”
  • Keep the experiential aim to yourself, but keep it in mind.
  • At the end, close with a question that reinforces the experiential aim.

Consensus Workshop

The Institute of Cultural Affairs’ Consensus Workshop is a more elaborate facilitation method. Consensus workshop uses the rational aim and experiential aim to build a fence around group work, and then offers structured planning tools to make sure those aims are met.

For today: keep it simple

Even for short, informal meetings, take a few moments to get clear on the meeting’s purpose and identify both a rational aim and an experiential aim.

  • Knowing the purpose will help the group begin.
  • Knowing the rational aim will help everyone walk the same path.
  • And knowing the experiential aim will help you produce the experience of change or transition that is needed.
May 15, 2024: edited for length.
Featured

5 ways to approach goal-setting. Only one is worth a damn

Sunset behind some wispy clouds. It’s a view of some mountains across a body of water.
Photo by Brian Kerr.

Better to have an impossible goal than one you meet-&-exceed always.

A few games people play when it’s time to set goals:

Game #1

Set easy goals that are super attainable within the limits of current behavior. In this game, every goal is always met and nothing ever changes.

Game #2

Set goals that are more ambitious, but are less likely to be met. Real progress can be “hidden” behind partial progress towards unmet goals. But that is OK so long as everyone is playing the same game.

Game #3

Set goals at the theoretical limit. Error should be 0%. No one should be harmed. Everyone must be free.

Game #4

People loiter about, trying to figure out what kind of goal one is meant to set from various context clues, possibly inscrutable or obscured. Then, they play the appropriate game from the list above. Whatever you do, don’t guess wrong! Do what everybody else does, but a little more, but not too much!

Discussion

Of these, game #4 is the one I see played most frequently.

But as far as I’m concerned, game #3—setting goals at the theoretical limit—is the only one worth playing. Why? Because I never want errors to be OK. No one should be harmed. I’m in this for the liberation of all beings.

Cue the voice from the back of the room. Who are we kidding, it comes from the front of the room. This voice is heard to proclaim: “That’s not realistic!”

So yes, as a pragmatic concern, a lot of times people do want to see tidy little goals attained relentlessly, quarter after quarter. When I find myself in that scenario, I’ll play a new game:

Game #5

Near and far—Set a goal at the theoretical limit, describing the world we should have. Then, set a target that would inch the system’s performance toward the theoretical limit. This target is what we’ll commit to going after right now.

Three benefits of this game:

  • First, it creates space for small, incremental achievement. It is the zone of daily kaizen, of ongoing practice, and of continuous improvement.
  • Second, it allows for huge, transformational shifts—so long as people demonstrate improvements that move things closer to the goal, and there is a supportive management framework.
  • And third, it brings trade-offs into view.

Trade-offs revealed

Suppose we want a particular error rate to be 0%, and it’s at 50% right now. Half of the time, we do a thing and something screws up.

It’s likely that we can find small, reversible changes that brings that error rate down from 50%. Just ask the people who do it every day, they can tell you what to fix. Listen to them, do what they suggest. This is where a lot of projects are.

Now suppose that things have become better, but still not good enough. The error rate is now 5%. One out of twenty times, something screws up. We are in the zone where not everything we try will actually prevent errors. Or we might identify things that bring the error rate down further, but are not “worth it”—and there, is where the discussion happens:

  • What is acceptable harm, according to the people who sign the checks? At some point further improvements will be revealed to not be “worth it.”
  • What amount of pain, damage, loss, is an organization willing to actively produce in its regular workings?

Play this game, set goals at the theoretical limit, and eventually you’ll find out what the organization and its toleration really is.

August 1, 2024: Edited for length.

Ditching ‘assume good faith’ as a way to talk about respect

Time to fix problems at the source rather than tolerate awful behavior.

Looking back at some courses I taught in 2015, I noticed that I had been teaching the lean principle of respect for people using these 4 pillars:

  1. Develop skills; give authority.
  2. Assume good faith.
  3. Create space to share ideas, problems, wisdom.
  4. Show how today’s work fulfills the organization’s purpose.

It’s #2, ‘Assume good faith,’ that I’m no longer comfortable with.

Two things this misses

  • The idea that people are conditioned to behave in certain ways, and that there are causes underlying behavior. This is true for behaviors we need more of (e.g. thoughtful collaboration) as well as those we must extinguish (e.g. discrimination, cruelty).
  • The reflection that causes and conditions of individual behavior run impossibly deep. All of the hurt in the entire world is contained therein. We move through the same process of dependent origination. Most of that motion occurred across lifetimes, before everybody came to work or into being. What we can still do—today—is work our asses off to produce better conditions, with kindness.

My regret

I regret recommending that people ‘assume good faith’ as a way of enacting respect for people. Why? Because it assigns extra work to the person dealing with whatever trash someone else has handed them. It opens a door through which a bunch of sexist and otherwise awful shit enters. It tolerates behavior and hides problems that are intolerable.

A huge part of the project of lean is to fix problems at the source. The exhortation to ‘assume good faith’ sets us up to do precisely the opposite.

I am grateful for I could not care less about your positive intent, a short, illuminating article from Lauren Howard that clarified the situation.

And I’ll keep working at a better articulation of a principle I believe in, but have only clumsily expressed.

Optimization & other failures

“By what method?” ... “To what end?”

I joined a call where people spoke about “optimizing” this and that, and it gave me some time to reflect.

Optimization is ultimate jargon. It means less than nothing.

The idea of optimization—especially that of prescriptive optimization, where optimization is committed to or smuggled in instead of a strategy—is an absolute liability unless you can answer two questions:

  • First, Dr. Deming’s pure but irritating question, “By what method?”
  • Second, a generic concern for human flourishing, expressed as, “To what end?”

If you tell me you have 50 top-priority focus areas to optimize, and don’t say how you’ll do it (no method) and why you’ll do it (no purpose), we’re all just wasting time and effort.

“By what method?” is the easy question

Methods exist, many of them super well-tested. All of the bumps and squiggles ironed out. The best methods will replace or upgrade themselves as you apply them over time.

“To what end?” is the hard question

First, you have to actually have an answer. Then, everyone you share the answer with must agree—or at least reach a working, tentative consensus—on the content of that answer in order to fully engage or commit to the project of “optimization.”