Both/and Trumps Either/Or

The business and political worlds are catching up with what the great religions have long known and science has discovered in the last 200 years.  The deepest understanding and practical progress in all fields is driven by a “both/and” approach, rather than by a deterministic “either/or” approach. 

Post-enlightenment westerners have struggled to fully digest the slippery, evolving dynamic nature of the Asian concept of yin and yang.   Many believers, clerics and secular leaders have simplified, denied or ignored the deeper meanings of the Christian trinity, relationship with Judaism and tension between the vertical (God) and horizontal (community) demands of the faith.  The fully developed religions provide training, terminology, sacraments and advice to attract, retain and grow members, without reducing “the mystery of faith” to a simple recipe.

The western scientific tradition meets the heartfelt needs of man for a deterministic description of the universe, delivering the potential for security expressed in Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”.  Aristotle, Euclid and Newton are rightfully celebrated for their authoritative development and formalization of logic, geometry and physics.

Nineteenth and twentieth century science shattered the deterministic paradigm, replacing it with a probabilistic paradigm.  This was presaged by Hegel’s philosophical method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.  Thomas Kuhn’s mid-twentieth century history/philosophy of science documented both the human process of how science progresses and the Necker Cube-like way in which a new paradigm destroys the old and blinds us to any new ways of perceiving.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demonstrated that the location and speed of material items was dependent upon the measurement applied and was inherently uncertain.  At the same time, it became clear that the location (energy level) of an electron was only probabilistic!  Kurt Godel’s impossibility theorem destroyed the hope of defining a Euclidean basis for a fully functional arithmetic and algebraic system of mathematics that could include the concept of infinity.  Darwin’s theory of evolution included the concept of random events in populations determining the future of biological species, without necessary guidance from god.  Biology then described the details of genetics, which includes random mutations, reproductive combinations, multiple genes, developmental sequences and the impact of the environment.  Freud described the role which unconscious thoughts, drives and the “mind” can play in determining consciousness and behavior.  Statisticians defined populations, estimates and metrics, emphasizing that there are inherent conflicts in making estimates.  Finally, Einstein developed the theory of relativity, making time, space, matter and gravity functions of each other.  Ironically, Einstein unsuccessfully devoted 20 years of his life to finding a unified theory that would combine all aspects of physics into a deterministic framework.

In the last 50 years we have seen the development of insightful “both/and” approaches throughout the business and political worlds.  Management has evolved from unilateral theories X, Y and Z to situational leadership which uses both task and people factors to deliver results.  Effective thinking coaches have defined the best use of convergent and divergent thinking skills or six thinking hats to improve results.  Jim Collin’s “Good to Great” book highlights the central role of a fixed vision/goal and flexible means/strategies.  Gallup’s Strengthfinder approach to personality profiles overcomes the “either/or” nature of Meyers-Briggs, concluding that some individuals do have apparently conflicting “talents”.  Bottom-up and top-down planning approaches have been incorporated into the balanced scorecard framework.  Goods production has evolved from custom craft work to mass production to a combined lean manufacturing pull system.  Goldratt’s book “The Goal” provides further insight on how defining the goal is logically distinct from the means of reaching the goal.  “Best practices” project management has evolved from informal management to fully prescribed sequential tasks to a new hybrid approach that retains the broad project stages, but allows cycles to resolve issues when needed.

In economics, the Keynesian revolution overturned “Say’s Law” which deterministically stated that supply always creates its own demand.  In governing, representative democracy seems to balance various needs.  In politics, the “third way” attempts to use market mechanisms to deliver liberal objectives.  In religion, the reformed faiths attempt to adapt received faith to current knowledge and realities.

The “both/and” approach is not inherently best, but everyone should be challenged to consider it at all times based upon its impressive track record.

I’d like to thank Mark Cavell, Annamarie Melodia Garrett and Doug Loudenslager for their contributions to identifying this pattern.

The Quality Paradigm

The Quality paradigm has emerged as a significant competitor to the Financial paradigm.  The Financial paradigm says that organizational results are best delivered through the sum of individual rational decisions focused on incremental costs and benefits.  The Quality paradigm agrees that costs and benefits matter, but focuses on the underlying process as the primary driver of minimizing inputs (costs) to produce a given output (benefits).  The Quality paradigm has evolved from the “scientific management” studies of “time and motion”.  It has a process engineering focus, aiming to optimize the relationship between inputs and outputs.  Improvements are inherently valuable, without tallying financial valuations.

The Quality paradigm made progress because its effectiveness in Japanese manufacturing became apparent by the 1970’s.  It also gained favor because Western organizations, relying on the financial decision-making tools, were clearly not delivering optimal results. 

The Quality advocates made five major criticisms of the existing practices.   The practices greatly underestimated the total cost of poor quality at 1-2%, while the total costs ranged from 5-10%.  The financial approach often created a cost reduction mindset when greater opportunities existed for improved revenues and margins through quality products and customer service.   The marginal approach overlooked less material cost reduction opportunities that were very significant in the long-run.  It optimized individual functions, while ignoring connection costs.  It underutilized the assets of workers who could make improvements.  While some of criticisms were misplaced or exaggerated, the Quality Paradigm presented a compelling story that lead to changes.  The new, process-based approach was delivering value that the old approach had missed.

The Quality paradigm delivered several insights that could be repeatedly applied to reduce costs, reduce defects, increase volumes, increase timeliness and better meet customer needs.  First, a controlled system inherently reduces errors and risks and leads to improvements.  Second, examining a whole process in terms of well-defined desired outputs focuses staff on the greatest improvement opportunities.  Third, the key to understanding process failures is through understanding the drivers of variability.  Fourth, variability naturally accumulates through a process, leading to greater defects and costs.  Fifth, inventory of time and goods hides current performance and improvement opportunities.  Sixth, there is no practical limit to the improvements possible in reducing variation, reducing defects or improving input/output ratios.  Seventh, a quantum leap process break-through is usually possible.  Eighth, in the long-run quality improvements usually have a net benefit, rather than a net cost.

In the last two decades the Quality paradigm has come to complement the Financial paradigm, leading to a balanced scorecard approach to strategic planning with both financial and operations measures in the performance dashboard.  Finance continues to emphasize costs and benefits while Quality focuses on the underlying processes.  This combination approach is delivering more valuable results for most firms today.

Strategic Planning: Balanced and Disciplined

Of the many planning methods proposed and widely used in the last two decades, two stand out for their impact and longevity.   Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema’s “Discipline of Market Leaders” was published in 1994, closely followed by  Robert Kaplan and David Norton’s “Balanced Scorecard” two years later.  How do the two interact ideally?  Can a strategy process and strategy be both balanced and disciplined?

 The discipline of market leaders is to prioritize resource investments into one dimension of strategic choices, while making modest investments in the other dimensions.  Treacy defines the generic dimensions as Operational Excellence (cost reduction), Product Leadership and Customer Intimacy (best total solution).  Based upon market opportunities (customers and competitors), wise organizations choose one dimension for emphasis and align all other variables to support that choice.

 The balanced scorecard emphasizes the importance of measures and a complementary planning process that ensures that four levels of activity are reviewed:  Learning and Growth (asset management, broadly speaking), Internal Processes (operations, product development, customer interface – the how), Customer Satisfaction and Financial Results.  Asset management feeds optimal processes delivering customer satisfaction and financial results. 

 The two approaches seem to conflict: one says focus (discipline) while the other says diversify (balance).  The resolution lies in their application.  The balanced scorecard provides a universal framework of the factors that drive business success in a logical sequence.  Organizations still have to compare their direction (mission, vision, values) with their situation (SWOT) in order to determine critical success factors.  CSF’s help the organization to select those 10-20 measures that best cover the landscape. 

 The discipline of market leaders is making strategic investment choices, while the balanced scorecard is using a planning and control process that highlights opportunities and links strategy to results.  The advice from Treacy and Wiersema is to focus on a single dimension, rather than to spread the investments evenly.  In balanced scorecard terms, this means that the measures will emphasize different dimensions.

 Focusing on operational excellence indicates the use of more measures in the Internal Processes and Asset Management levels.  Customer intimacy requires customer satisfaction measures, key internal process measures that impact customers and a touch of asset measures regarding the adequacy of the products offered.  Product leadership requires measures of customer satisfaction with the features and benefits set offered, the product development process itself and the availability of key technical resources that create products.

 Organizations will benefit from finding ways to apply the insights from both camps.  Strategy and structure matter more than ever.  The best answers continue to be “both/and” rather than “either/or”.

 http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Market-Leaders-Customers-Dominate/dp/0201407191/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262473135&sr=1-1

 http://www.amazon.com/Balanced-Scorecard-Translating-Strategy-Action/dp/0875846513/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262554699&sr=1-1

 http://www.slideshare.net/kennyong/balanced-scorecard-for-strategic-planning-and-measurement

The Effective CFO: Black and White!

A friend of mine has been a highly successful CFO with middle market companies for 25 years.  I pondered what made him succeed in a variety of companies and industries.

 He’s professionally competent and intellectually curious.  He’s always had a large professional network.  He is a good listener and is especially skilled at cutting through ambiguous or complex situations to identify the core problem or most promising solution.  He understands the basis for business success in his industry and he’s a good negotiator.

 On the other hand, he’s sometimes overly direct, not a technical leader in the CPA profession, not someone who automatically attracts the spotlight, doesn’t outsmart the quantitative business analysts and doesn’t often lead cross-functional projects.

 I think he succeeds because he has established a role and the skills to guide all key players to honestly confront the gray reality of situations.  He offers the financial perspective, but is just as quick to insert a sales, strategy or cultural viewpoint.  He ensures that risk versus return is considered through numbers, stories and analogies.  He contrasts short-term with long-term factors.  He plays devil’s advocate as needed to derail quick decisions or to shore up support for a tough alternative that must be chosen.

 In addition to these decision making skills, he has the wisdom, courage and skills to anticipate the perspectives of the key roles and to guide players into greater self-awareness and understanding of other perspectives.

 He helps finance, accounting, HR and IT staff to see that the fully integrated system and a 1,000 page policy and procedure document, without exceptions, is probably too structured.  He encourages engineers and six sigma black belts to reduce variation and to consider financial and strategic implications.

 He works with entrepreneurial owners to support change and risk taking, but to also gauge how much can be digested, how it can be hedged and what an ideal portfolio looks like.

 He works with boards and shareholders to understand that stock values do not always go up in a predictable manner, unless the books have been “managed”.  The long-term growth in shareholder value includes short-term fluctuations.

 He works with IT, engineering and product developers to have resources, time and authority to learn, experiment and develop new products – within a framework of long-term evaluation.

 He provides sales and marketing teams with the freedom and flexibility to meet company goals, but ensures that measures of final results are fair and the system can’t be beat.

 The effective CFO serves as a fulcrum in Jim Collins’ world of “both/and”.  Stakeholders and role players must be able to leverage their talents and preferred styles AND the contrasting factors which must also be considered for long run success.  CFO’s need to be more than gray; they need to be both black AND white.