Schlagwort-Archive: Act

The act belongs to the individual

If difficulties arise, at first glance, it is due to other people. Why? It is easier to look for mistakes somewhere else than to be part of the trouble. A look at the usual generalizations illustrates this tendency.

  • Development is not able to design products that can be manufactured with little effort.
  • Production is not able to assemble the developed items without errors.
  • Sales can only sell proven commodities.
  • Purchasing undermines the trustful cooperation with suppliers.
  • Management does not decide.
  • Employees do not participate.
  • Suppliers are not delivering adequate supplies.
  • Customers nitpickingly take offense at insignificant flaws.

Such stereotypes penetrate our everyday business. At the same time, approaches for our actions can be found in these inappropriate generalizations – because the act belongs to the individual.

Difficulties that arise are reflexively pushed away from oneself. However, this apparent relief offers no solution and delays essential levers – our contributions. Especially if the others are not willing to take over tasks. It is wiser to take a closer look at the own share in the difficulties and actively participate. The following questions will help to do this.

  • What am I doing?
    Our acts are the personal portion of a case. The doing consists of the tasks we undertake, the activities we perform, and the behavior according to the observable (re)actions. There is nothing we can better influence than the doing that we execute by ourselves – Except: the reactions triggered by the limbic system, which can only be subsequently revised.
    If everyone takes care of its part in a task and contributes to the correction of the flaws, then the best possible solution results from the interplay of all.
  • What does that do to others?
    One’s actions produce results that affect the environment. For this reason, we should discuss the impacts in advance with those affected or at least anticipate which consequences are imaginable (i.e., follow-up activities, effects, opportunities, and risks). Comparing desired and probable outcomes provides approaches to improve acts.
    Determining in advance the final state and the effects on others in more detail is a prerequisite for adapting at an early stage and avoiding unintended consequences as far as possible.
  • What would I like to change?
    Even if we initially want to change the outer conditions, it is better to start with ourselves. We need to make sure that the actions also match our attitudes. This requires a self-conscious, open examination of our attitudes – i.e., skills (abilities, knowledge, and experience), convictions (values, beliefs, and mental models), and role (the assigned tasks, authority, and responsibility). We possibly need other skills to perform the acts. It can also be that we need to rethink our previous beliefs and conclusions due to the new situation. Often, we may even lack permission to proceed differently. To take effective action, we must adjust the premises accordingly.
    No one has more power to change us than ourselves.
  • What is it doing to me?
    These reflections are not about sacrifice ourselves and selflessly only doing what others expect of us. But just as we consider the environment, we must also think about our internal balance and the impact on our well-being. If the changes create tensions between skills, beliefs, roles, and most importantly, actions, then the changes should be revised so that we can live with them without stress – e.g., if job security is cut in favor of a cost advantage.
    Our actions should always fit us and our attitudes.

Bottom line: Difficulties arise, above all, in the interplay of different interests. This leads to the fact that the responsibility for a solution is always arguable and out of convenience initially sought at others. Yet, we are the best leverage point for change. We need to be aware of our contribution to the issue: What am I doing? What is it doing to others? What would I like to change? What is it doing to me? Once we find actions that answer the four questions to our satisfaction, then that is our share we can contribute to the solution. If everyone asks oneself these questions, we get the best possible result because the act belongs to the individual.

Tool beats rule

In the wake of long-term growth and tackled crises, bureaucracy proliferates in all corporate corners. This is especially true to large companies, which are fueling the wild growth by creating job positions for specialists, who are constantly adding new regulations to the bureaucracy without abolishing old ones. This is done primarily by creating new rules that transfer responsibility to the users – instead of providing tools in which application is already programmed.

The corresponding tools range from self-explanatory forms, to deployed procedures, to apps that offer users the necessary answers. Although forms exist for a long time, they are often not really self-explanatory. The tool beats the rule in terms of effectiveness due to the following effects.

  • You choose instead of following
    Tools solve tasks that are prepared in such a way that the intended outcomes are the result at the end. This forces the official apparatus to think in advance how the results should look like, what you need for the result and in which steps you will achieve it. Depending on the task, this can be the shortest route or a ramified network of routes, which also allow complex requirements and personal preferences in the processing. The user chooses instead of following guidelines that would not help him in the application, because they only determine what must be done – rather actively than passively.
  • You learn, instead of apologizing
    Unfortunately rules only draw boundaries that do not allow crossing without clearly stating what has to be done or how to achieve the goals. The limitations that are part of the objectives impede additionally – not to mention the discouraging effects of repeated apologies. The way out is provided by tools which require a willingness to learn and a comprehensive introduction – rather open than closed.
  • You act, instead of thinking
    Routine behavior is not possible in the beginning of a new approach. It requires repeated performance and the development of personal experiences to internalize a routine. By providing tools that are prepared in such a way that they offer room for maneuver to the users and at the same time produce the desired result, everyone acts within the framework provided. Over time, experiences are exchanged, people enrich each other and thus create the best possible results. Rules, in contrast, offer little guidance on how to proceed. They lead to ever new approaches in order to create the error-free results – rather practice than theorizing.
  • You perform, instead of improvising.
    The avoidance of unnecessary activities is one of the reasons for setting up rules. The wheel is reinvented again and again in the task processing and generates further expenses in the cooperation, which undermine the potential of the teams. However, pointing out what is not allowed, leads employees to put their energy into personal optimization. As a result, obvious weaknesses are not eliminated for fear of drawbacks. By means of appropriate tools, resolutions are well prepared and can be easily readjusted with the help of appropriate feedback loops. These performance increases of the company are prepared in form of appropriate tools in an engineering-like manner – rather straightforward than meandering.
  • You adapt the tool, instead of yourself
    Rules usually contain roughly prescribed procedures. The perfidy lies in the detail, when the application leads to different intermediate results and thus to different result quality. In order to function at all, those involved adapt to the specifications, which means that a large part of their additional possible contributions gets lost. It is smarter to provide a tool that the users can adapt to their needs, i.e. tools that provide alternative ways to the result for the various personalities, e.g. top-down or bottom-up procedures; frontloading, just-in-time, or backloading. Over time, the experiences of the employees flow into the tool and it becomes more and more appropriate – rather mastering than being mastered.
  • You find, instead of developing
    A tool can often do more than originally intended. Think of a screwdriver – tightening or loosening screws; levering or prying open something; piercing or widening holes; bracing something; etc. Administrative tools, such as mechanisms for application and approval, can be reused in different environments. You then have a standardized approach that becomes after a short time common practice for everyone. Not to mention the effort of having to develop the same task over and over again with different approaches – rather reusing than reinventing.

Bottom line: Looking at your own bureaucracy is the first step in overcoming the legacy of regulations. For creating additional sets of rules and regulations that burden rather than relieve the flow, new rules should be introduced as practical tools. With the corresponding freedom in the tools, the users’ willingness to design is promoted, the basis for error tolerance is created, routine is possible, waste is avoided, the knowledge of the best procedure is implemented in the tool, reuse is possible and, above all, undesirable behavior is minimized. The expected harmonization and the compliance of the employees can thus be designed – the provided tool beats the given rule.