On the goal of being lean…

It is to some degree a strange coincidence of events that I am writing this post:

1. I was reading EvolvingExcellence blog post regarding the author, Bill Waddell, who has committed to stop complaining and actually do something about the loss of manufacturing in the USA.  As his first salvo, Bill writes a well thought out article about the fallacies being spread by the BLS and both sides of the aisle in congress.
2. I recently read “What Happy People Know” by Dan Baker.

It’s times like these that solidify my position as Democrat more than a Republican.  Coincident events like above that make me understand why I don’t agree with the capitalist position. 

Bill’s post focuses on the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States as being a warning sign to the US failing.  He argues against the use of cheap labor elsewhere as being valid globalization, noting ridiculously low productivity and the oppression of foreign people as not good ways to build wealth.  He believes that wealth building manufacturing jobs in the US are being lost in exchange for a false value.  And he argues that sending more people to college to become more skilled isn’t going to fix it.

On most of these accounts I agree with Bill, except one.  “Wealth building.”  I’m not saying that manufacturing jobs aren’t wealth building.  I’m not qualified.  I’m arguing that the goal of building wealth is incorrect, regardless of how it is built.

See, I told you I was going to disagree with capitalism.  But why, you ask?  Because of the book “What Happy People Know.”  Dr. Baker’s book is very well written, and I’d recommend reading it (I get no kickback for saying so), but it is simple to summarize.  Money DOES NOT equal happiness.  It isn’t a Dr. Baker idea.  It’s a saying that’s been around forever.  It’s true.  It’s been studied.  Rich people are not, on the whole, happier than the less fortunate.  Having more stuff doesn’t take your worries away, it adds to it.

There are even joking retorts such as “money may not buy happiness, but give me the opportunity to prove them wrong.” or something like that.

It takes some introspection, but consider your life for an hour or two.  I’d say a minute, but let’s be honest.  Go for a walk, think about what truly makes you happy or what would make you happy.  Most people will tell you that they’d be happy if they made twice what they make now.  And yet, when people achieve that, they’re still not happy, and again believe that twice what they are now making is the magic number.

I have a good job, I make a decent living.  I can afford our house, our cars, food and health insurance.  And yet, if I made twice what I made today, how different would my life be?  I’d have a bigger house and take up more space.  I’d eat more expensive food.  I’d still be able to afford everything, and yet it really isn’t a different thing.  It’d just be more of the same.  The thing is, even if I had billions of dollars, though I could buy pretty much anything I wanted, I still only physically occupy so much space.  I still only need so much to eat.  What would I be getting for all that money?  I sleep well at night, my health is good, I love my family.  More money isn’t going to change the basic factors that make me happy.

Wealth building as a goal is misguided in my mind.  Being LEAN has a very important value aside from making people rich (and creating disparity).  Being LEAN means being able to provide everything I need to survive PLUS something that can improve the value of society as a whole.  If I can become twice as efficient and make 2 chairs in the time it took me to make one, then I can have a seat and so can someone else.  If I can figure out how to eat less food, or use less resources to get something done, then it is freed up for someone else to improve their lives with.

Being leaner doesn’t mean doing it to improve my standing.  No matter how much money I earn, I will never grow to be taller than trees, bigger than mountains or able to spontaneously fly.  My change in stature from being richer is quite insignificant in the big picture.  Being happy, however, has immense value to me.  And, freeing up the resources that I once consumed means being able to provide them to the less fortunate.  While giving my money (or resources) away, won’t make a rich person happier, it does have value to those living in poverty.  Some amount of wealth building helps those less fortunate meet basic needs.  And being lean means helping bring up the standard of life for all to a level that more people can be happy.

Happier people, not wealthier people, is the goal I want to accomplish.  Vibrant health, a comfortable place to live, enough (not an excess) to eat, and the freedom to enjoy a beautiful day is what LEAN could accomplish.

While I appreciate where Bill is coming from, if the USA weren’t the world leader, the world still wouldn’t end.  If I can continue to be happy, I’m pretty sure that’s what matters, not how much the US dominates the world’s wealth.  After all, you can’t take it with you…

Work is a monopoly

I didn’t study economics in college, but years later I found myself curious about the concepts.  It was probably for the same reason that I’m geeky enough to ponder all these process and human behavior issues in a blog.

Anyway, I picked up a really basic economics primer just to get the main concepts down.  I seriously doubt that’d I’d ever read anything more substantial on the topic, but it was enough to make me dangerous.  I was particularly interested by the concepts of monopolistic oligopolies and perfectly competitive situations.  But, of course, that led me to thinking about monopolies and that’s when I realized that I worked for one.

No, the company I work for does not have a monopoly on the industry it is in.  Far from it.  However, the office I’m in does.  Each department in the company is the sole provider of some service to the corporate economy.  There are examples where competitive situations have arose internally, but largely there is one provider for anything.

For example, while one department has a reporting team whose job it is to create various reports for the clients, they’re overwhelmed and take a really long time to produce a report.  So, another team was built (probably secretly at first) to do all the reports that the designated team couldn’t do.  It has created quite a few problems, since people who assumed their role in the company was safe and sound have discovered that they have competition for the work they do.  One would assume that either the original department will get smart and figure out how to compete or die off. 

It was then that I realized we had not approached some change management situations properly.  In a competitive economy,  if you don’t like the service you are getting from, say, the phone company, you switch companies.  The fact that you have choices forces companies to drive up efficiency and drive down costs.  They have to offer you more for less than their competitor.  But the office, for the most part, is not a competitive economy, it’s a collection of monopolies.  Each department is the only department that can service your particular need.

In a competitive environment, I can berate my supplier about poor services or products because the threat exists that I’ll take my business elsewhere.  Try that in the office and you will likely get worse service, not better.  If the department is the only game in town it takes away all incentive for them to improve because they are secure in their role.  Regardless of how much or how little you like or use the group, they all get paid.

My ideal model for process improvement is to be in charge of the organization I want to change.  Barring that, my second choice would be for the head of the organization that needs to change to be the one who initiates change.  And finally, the most common situation I get is like having an intervention with your alcoholic uncle.  Somebody else wants the dysfunctional department to change and you’ve been tasked to make it happen.  It’s just going to be an unpleasant conversation for all involved.

If you’ve read my “Me! Me! Me!” entry, then Bob will sound like a familiar fellow when dealing with almost every one of these situations.  They department head will say “sure, set up a meeting, let’s talk” and then after you’ve done all the research and so forth you get “Fred, we like the process we have, it works for us and we don’t want to change.”  Why does it make me think of Scooby-Doo?  “And if it wasn’t for you meddling kids I would have gotten away with it too!”  Except the villain does get away with it, and the meddling kids get a swift kick in the backside.

I hate interventions, but it is clear that we cannot approach them like we have in the past.  There’s little value in providing overwhelming voice of the customer to them, they don’t care.  At one point I was thinking I’d provide practical advice to appeal to their egos and this would be the same story that I wrote before.  Then I thought to myself, “this is a blog and I can dream up any crazy solution I want because I don’t have to pitch it to my boss!”

Here’s my idea.  Rather than trying to convince the organization that they need to change, you tell them they should change.  Of course, they will do nothing, but you’ve warned them.  Next, have someone (not you directly) begin visibly working on a plan to create organizational competition for them.  Think outsourcing or just hiring a new team to do the same job.  The organization may or may not have to hire anyone, but I think you have to be prepared to play a serious game of chicken if they call the bluff.  Even if you can’t necessarily create competition, you can create the threat of competition.  All of the sudden you have a powerful motivator for change.  Then, once the threat of change is well established, show back up and see if there’s anything “you can do to help out the department.”  I’d bet they’d be a lot more willing to talk.  If not, you keep ratcheting up the competition pressure.  In the worst possible case, the ineffective team will be replaced by a more effective team (since your cohort hired them) and the problem will be solved.

The constant threat of competition should be enough to keep people moving.  This definitely ties in with my “People are selfish” philosophy.  You’ve discovered that getting a paycheck has enormous utility to most people and that’s why they show up for work in the first place.  If doing the same thing will no longer result in continuing to get a paycheck, they will change.