All in continuous improvement

The new book from Steven J. Spear and Gene Kim takes a look at what makes for winning organizations and develops what they call a new theory of performance management - why do some organizations really seem to fly year-over-year while others do not? Why is it that some organizations can really take advantage of the tricks and techniques of Lean or DevOps or Theory of Constraints or agile software development or <pick your approach>, while others never seem to find their footing? Wiring the Winning Organization attempts to answer these questions. The book takes the readers through three key areas that leaders wire up winning organizations: Slowification, Simplification, and Amplification.

An article on CIO.com about Why IT project still fail gets me riled up. All the reasons listed are simply solutions in reverse - solutions that get suggested over and over again in various venues. The fact that projects “still” fail might suggest that these problems aren’t the real problem, that they are symptoms of a deeper cause. It’s only once we resolve the deeper cause that the problems will lessen or go away entirely.

We all make mistakes - big and small. But what do we do with them? How do we react? How do the people around us react? Mark Graban’s latest book, The Mistakes that Make Us: Cultivating a Culture of Learning and Innovation is an interesting combination of anecdotes from his My Favorite Mistake podcast along with guidance on developing the environment where making mistakes is an opportunity to learn and grow.

Neil Rackham’s SPIN Selling was written back in 1988. Does it still make sense? The obvious thing for me in re-reading and discussing the book with some colleagues is that the concepts apply more broadly than only sales environments. In any large change project, the change agents are always selling - working to make the change happen and make that change become an embedded way of operating.

This reading’s key takeaway: Practice!

I heard a different way to articulate conflicts today on a podcast that might help shed some light or give some different language. Rather than thinking about the actions people want to take as causing the conflict, think of them as positions. And the positions come out of interests. People get entrenched in their positions, as it often seems the only way to meet their needs. But when we articulate the situation more clearly, we can start checking underneath - how does that position satisfy that interest? (How does that action meet your need?) Articulating the conflict often helps us see there maybe there are some things in common as well as understanding the assumptions we have about why our position is “right.” This new terminology adds to the options I have when thinking about these kinds of situations.

Jamie Flinchbaugh has a new book out about problem-solving, People Solve Problems: The Power of Every Person, Every Day, Every Problem. The basic setup is reasonable - we all solve problems all the time, how should we think about it? I like how this isn’t a set of specific directions for problem solving, but rather what any approach to problem solving should have from the individual contributors through to the leaders.

Noise: A flaw in human judgement by Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass Sunstein tells a damning story about how much variability there is in the assessments we make as experts in our field. They bring in examples ranging all around professional judgements - medicine, legal cases, laboratory assessments, hiring, forecasting, grading term papers, etc. etc. This noise has serious implications in all these arenas - false positive and false negatives cost time, money and lives. And while people often think that these variations might “balance out” the costs certainly do not.

The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth by Amy C. Edmondson book has been out for a couple of years, and the idea of psychological safety has emerged as a critical element of enabling change and growth in organizations. I enjoyed Edmondson discussion of how psychological safety plays a key role in learning, innovation and growth - and lack of it plays a role in limiting these elements. She also provides a high level structure to create and grow psychological safety in an organization.

I was pleased to receive a review copy of Jonathan Smart’s (Better Value) Sooner Safer Happier, as it was on my list after the DevOps virtual conference this October. The biggest element that jumped out to me the idea of ways of working - the behaviors (and patterns behind those behaviors) that we see in organizations. And one of the big takeaways that this reinforces is the culture we have is exactly the culture we create by the way we decide to work and operate. Our ways of working are our decision. The patterns reinforce some behaviors and diminish other behaviors.

I had the great pleasure of attending the 2020 DevOps Enterprise Summit - Las Vegas Virtual last week. I share many common interests with the DevOps community through my interest in flow and continuous improvement. There were topics throughout the three days (and extended beyond the conference time, as the videos were available to watch later) that could be applied anywhere, which is why I was participating. Looking through my notes, here are some items that sparked interest and joy for me.

A colleague has been reading and commenting about Leadership Is Language: The Hidden Power of What You Say--and What You Don't by L. David Marquet, and it seemed like a good pick to read and discuss.

The essential idea is right there in the subtitle - what you say matters. The book fleshes out that idea with some nice anecdotes and elements of the thinking behind the concepts. There are some good concepts in here for regular interactions with other people - whether you are a formal “leader” or otherwise working with people to get things done. (In other words, almost everyone.) That said, I am not totally convinced in some of the way Marquet brings the various elements together.

Knowledge work is challenging enough without throwing in difficult work environments. Consider the nature of the work you have with your colleagues. Is it known with clear handovers (have the handoffs been defined)? Or is there ambiguity and uncertainty that needs to be cleared up? Work in the right way for the scenario you have. And allow for both modes of work - collaborative and serial - in your day.