Variation is intrinsic to every  activity in an organization. An excessive amount of variation often indicates

a) procedures that are highly inconsistent with  the goal of the system
b) mistaken assumptions about the roles and tasks of those who work in the organization.

Apart from  control charts, some of Goldratt’s Thinking Processes are useful for stabilizing the system and preparing the ground for improving performance,  specifically the Transition Tree and Misalignment Cloud.
Both these Thinking Processes tools offer useful support in empowering people in the organization.
 

Empowering people successfully

What  prevents us  from empowering people successfully?

Our goal is, of course,  to manage effectively. In order to achieve this we must satisfy two necessary conditions:
1. in order to  manage effectively we must make sure the work is always carried out.
2. On the other hand, to  manage effectively,  we must empower our staff (we have recognised the value of empowerment).

This brings us into a conflict:
to empower our staff  we must not interfere with their work.
At the same time, in some cases, to guarantee that the work gets carried out  we have to interfere.

What is the assumption underlying this second logical connection?
In other words, why do we say we are obliged to interfere?
Because people are not able to carry out the job on their own. Therefore, the only way to achieve effective empowerment is to make sure people are able to do their work on their own.

At this point the key question we must ask ourselves  is: Why can’t they do their work on their own?

We feel there are two valid answers to this question:
Answer one: people do not have all the authority required to carry out the tasks they are responsible for.

In order to realign authority and responsibility we use the Thinking Process tool called the Misalignment Cloud.

The Misalignment Cloud is  a logical tool which allows us to identify and  objectively represent  a conflict in authority. This conflict generally exists  between the task the person has to carry out and the rule of the system which prevents them from doing so.
To resolve this conflict we must remove the gap between authority and responsibility.
How can we  eliminate the need for  managers to continuously intervene to solve the problem  preventing the employee from carrying out their task? How can we systematically develop a new authority that allows this? How can we get people to accept new authority and act accordingly?
By writing the Misalignment Cloud, we can answer these questions and identify the cause of the misalignment between authority and responsibility. This is often referred to as the “fire fighting “ cloud as it refers to those frequent situations where managers have to step in to “put out the fire”. This is due to the misalignment of responsibility and authority.
Let’s look at this closely. The stages of this process involve answering some questions to define the situation clearly:

1. What is the need of the system which will be endangered by the “fire”/problem?
2. Which rule of the system prevents the employee from “putting out the fire”/solving the problem?
3.What action does the employee have to take to carry out their task? This action amounts to breaking a rule of the system. Can the need of the system which is endangered by the fire/problem be protected and satisfied in this way?
4. Which need of the system is the rule protecting?
5. What is the lowest level common goal  which both needs try to satisfy?
 

By answering these questions, we can clearly define  the misalignment that has occurred. Misalignment between authority and responsibility is not created by the  negligence of staff or the reluctance of managers to delegate  authority. It derives directly from an ingrained conflict within the organization. The common goal of the system and the staff is legitimate, the two needs of the system are authentic, and therefore, logically, so is the conflict which arises.

Each time a misalignment between authority and responsibility occurs with our staff, let’s ask ourselves the five questions which allow us to write the Misalignment Cloud. This way we will know if every misalignment results from a conflict between two legitimate needs of the system.  We can then deal with the situation together with our people. We can, in fact, explain the reason why the rule which prevents them from carrying out their task exists. This will help them to see it differently.  In this way everyone has the right framework for finding a solution which protects the needs of the system.

Answer two: the answer to the question " Why can't people do their work on their own?"  is that we are unable to give clear instructions. We don’t know how to adequately communicate  the knowledge required to carry out the task given.
Deming was particularly adamant about this point.
He outlined how an operational definition should be. This way it  provides  the system with  the knowledge it needs to function consistently with the goal.

“An operational definition puts communicable meaning into a concept. An operational definition is one that people can do business with. An operational definition of safe, round, reliable, or any other characteristics must be communicable, with the same meaning to vendors, purchasers and the production workers. Same meaning, yesterday and today.”

Why are operational definitions so important for empowering people? Because strong interactions require a more precise and effective way of communicating. What makes communication effective?

Precise words? Not at all!

A simple example will show how limited  the power of  words is when trying to convey an instruction.
Let’s consider a simple, natural, action: drinking from a glass.

To play the following game two people are needed (plus a group wanting to have good time). The first one is a Martian. Yes, a Martian. He/she understands our language and he/she will do whatever we want him/her to. The other is a willing teacher. He/she will instruct the Martian on how to drink from the glass. The instructor can draw from the richest vocabulary, the Martian will understand. However, while talking, the instructor will have to turn his/her back to the Martian. Everybody except the teacher can see what is happening.

Normally the result is water all over the place and people laughing. The more the instructor specifies what to do and how to do it, the funnier  the Martian's reactions. As a matter of fact, the Martian does only what he is told to do.

Why is it so?

When we communicate, we choose words and expressions that have a precise meaning for us. US, unfortunately, is not THEM. When we tell the Martian to take the glass, we implicitly assume that he/she will do it with the open end up - what the heck, he/she should know that!

This is a good indication of how we should modify our current way of communicating instructions.

We believe that a much more empowering way of communicating should be based on conveying the logic, the “why”, rather than the detailed instructions, the “how”.

Why do we claim that ?

Empowering someone means giving him/her  the “power” to operate. Giving someone a detailed list of things to do is the exact opposite because:
a) it takes away the ownership of the action, i.e. it prevents the person from “inventing” the way of doing it.
b) Almost invariably, a detailed list triggers the production of negative reservations which run the risk of remaining unresolved.
c) Very likely, the person will “interpret” the list, investing effort in an unwanted direction, causing frustration and lack of results.

If we want to give somebody clear, truly empowering instructions we must :
1) specify the need we are trying to satisfy (why we want them to take action)
2) define the action that, if taken, would fulfil the need
3) explain the logic ; why we claim that the action will satisfy the need.

The Thinking Processes tool that enables us to accomplish this is the Transition Tree (TrT). This is the "how to" tree. It shows the detailed logic of how to move from the present into the desired future. At the bottom of the tree there are statements that describe the present state of reality. The top of the tree  is the goal - the expected change of reality following the conclusion of all the proposed actions. The Transition Tree contains the following elements:

• The need for the action
• The action itself
• The explanation of why the action will fulfill the need
• The result of the action
• Why the next step is needed

The Theory of Constraints (TOC) and the Theory of Profound Knowledge (TPK) are system theories. Their goal is to provide a framework for analyzing and improving the general system we are in. Systems are funny creatures;  under the stimulus of forces, they evolve in ways that are not easy to understand. Such an evolution is named “non-linear”, to mean that very similar systems, under very similar circumstances can evolve, change state, in completely different ways.

Probably, the most powerful use of the Transition Tree (TrT) is in designing the desired course of action, inasmuch as it takes into account the intrinsic non-linearity of the system. While forcing us to always explain the logic inspiring the different actions that we want to take in order to modify the states of the system, TrT enhances our ability to consider all the possible implications of these actions. In this way it enables us to “predict” with reasonable precision how the system is going to evolve and anticipate potential negative implications. In some respects the Transition Tree plays a  similar role to the control chart: it facilitates  focusing while helping us to understand and anticipate future events.
 

The Misalignment Cloud and Transition Tree cut down considerably on the time-wasting which afflicts many organizations. They provide people with an  intrinsic motivation to do their own job.

The sequence in which control charts, the Misalignment Cloud and the Transition Tree should be used depends on the characteristics of the system. However, all three act effectively to reduce variation.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  copyright 1999 mst-usa LLC