Tag: paradigm

Both/and Trumps Either/Or

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

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

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

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.

The Financial Paradigm

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

The financial decision-making paradigm was developed in the 19th century by the “marginal” school of economics and refined into modern financial tools by the 1950’s.  In essence, it says that by comparing incremental benefits with incremental costs, that rational decisions can and should be made.  While academic economists refined the exact conditions under which this is logically true, practical business professionals have simply just adopted these tools.  Business students learned to choose the greatest net benefits.  Some also learned to calculate the risk-adjusted, interest-rate discounted incremental after-tax cash flows.

In practice, finance professionals and business decision-makers have seen limitations in the theory, but adapted it to make “rational” decisions.  If qualitative factors exist, they are ignored, translated into numbers or considered separately.  If key numbers are unknown, they are estimated, modeled or limited.  If factors are interrelated, a simulation model is run or lesser factors omitted.  Cash flows 30 years out are ignored due to their low present value.  Rules of thumb are used as simple linear relations.  The whole is defined as the sum of the parts.  The principle of diminishing marginal returns is used to eliminate inconvenient, minor or detailed items.

For short-term or long-term decisions, the standard financial decision making tools are adapted to meet most situations.  With experience and business judgment, decisions are made with a high degree of confidence using this single approach.

In addition to the common “adjustments” accepted by financial analysts in practice, there are deeper criticisms regarding the financial paradigm.  It is inconsistent with the historical, accrual cost approach required in public accounting.  Managers are unable to estimate factors, so they are constructed by analysts.  For major investments or decisions, the inherently qualitative factors may be most important.  Fully-loaded costs are used throughout most financial systems, so decisions are guided by “the numbers”. Purely financial incentive systems lead to padding, managed numbers and missed opportunities.   Focusing on financial results alone leads to neglect of the asset, operations and customer levels of the balanced scorecard.  Accounting systems are not structured to monitor key decisions, but to eventually report historical costs.  The financial decision making paradigm does not directly help managers to solve problems or serve customers, but it can create an adversarial relation between line managers and the financial staff.

The 1980’s “quality revolution” lead to a time when there was significant support for a variation on Shakespeare’s maxim: “first, let’s kill all of the accountants”.   Since then, finance and accounting professionals have fine-tuned their models, linked to the balanced scorecard framework, enhanced allocations through activity based costing, simplified ROI models, learned quality paradigms and deliver a mixed dashboard of financial and operations measures.

 The financial decision-making paradigm remains at the core of modern business decision-making because it does a good job of organizing the key factors, determining the level of detail needed to make good decisions and communicating those decisions to others in a consistent fashion.  No paradigm is perfect, but the marginal cost-benefit approach is doing very well moving through its second century.

ROI on Personality Styles

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

In a world of non-stop change, financial managers agree that “alignment” is the most difficult challenge faced by most organizations.  Through time, more equal access to all other resources has grown: materials, suppliers, facilities, financing, technology, products, entrepreneurs and human resources.

 Organizations have used a variety of methods to create alignment.  Military command and control, strategic planning, portfolio management and process management in various forms have been tried with mixed success.  In some static environments with less technology change, less competition and simpler processes, these approaches have worked well.  In the highly specialized, global, decentralized, changing, virtual world of today, many organizations have concluded that alignment can best be achieved through defining, shaping and reinforcing their corporate culture.

 A critical element in any corporate culture initiative is helping all staff members to have the self-awareness and other-awareness to manage their relations with others.

 My favorite introduction to self-awareness and paradigms is through the fable of “The Blind Men and the Elephant”.

 http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws/stories/stories.cfm?psid=110

 Individual blind men conclude on the basis of their personal investigations that an elephant “IS” a wall, a snake, a spear, a cow, a magic carpet or an old rope.  The moral is that an elephant is more than the sum of his parts.  Attempts to generalize from limited information or paradigms are doomed to failure.  The blind men can see neither the forest, nor the trees.  Many individuals have these same blind spots.  They are unable to see the big picture and they passionately hold onto their world view because they are not aware of the possibility of another approach.

 To help staff members with the personal growth needed to overcome this limitation, many organizations implement a personality styles program.  Myers-Briggs, DISC, Predictive Index, Gallup Strengthsfinders and a dozen others can be used to help all staff understand a few key results and begin to practice seeing the world from multiple perspectives, even forming the habit of expecting to employ multiple perspectives.

 These programs deliver 5 main lessons.  Individuals tend to behave in their own patterns or styles, which can be described.  No pattern is inherently better or worse, except as a means for completing certain responsibilities.  Personal styles make individuals especially effective in functions (accounting, sales, design, or engineering) that match their natural talents.  Individuals are not limited by their styles, but these habitual behaviors are more natural and using other complementary styles requires significant effort.  Since organizations have many functions and individuals with different styles, it is necessary for all staff members to be aware of their styles, recognize the styles of others and learn how to flex their styles to get along with others.

 Since these programs have been implemented many times in most firms across 30 years, one might expect that self-awareness would be the norm, followed by cross-functional cooperation and sophisticated used of different perspectives.  Unfortunately, many of these programs have not delivered the desired results.

 For personality styles programs to build self-awareness, complement corporate cultures, align teams and deliver results, firms need to invest more resources.

 1)      All managers, beginning at the top, need deep training, evaluation and feedback.

2)      All staff require experiential learning, examples, reinforcement and consistent guidance.

3)      Firms need to use the tool everywhere to create the skills, habits and expectations: training, hiring, promotions, cross-teams, planning, performance evaluations, etc.

4)      Firms need to break down the functional barriers and require a mix of styles in each function, job rotation for managers and cross-team experience for everyone.

5)      The personality styles tool, profiles and understanding needs to become part of the culture.  This is the language we use.  These are the stories we use.  These are the executives we use as examples of this style.

 Invest the resources to create a real asset for your organization.  Half of an investment produces little return.