Of course, “lean manufacturing,” or lean anything (as in, avoiding/eliminating waste)  is still a useful approach for certain situations, assuming it is implemented in a smart way. That is true with everything. The odd thing is that the “lessons learned” are the same every time no matter which trend you are dissecting.

• You need employee involvement/engagement
• You also need for leadership support and ownership
• Always tailor the <insert technique or method name here> to your situation — don’t use a cookie-cutter approach
• Don’t expect the new thing to solve all your problems while requiring no work or discipline to implement it.

This is all common sense though. Why do we not learn it?  I am pretty sure that if I went on the speaker’s circuit with the above message, I would gain exactly zero traction…why not? (I once had an article for publication rejected because the reviewer thought that “everyone knows this already. We don’t necessarily do though…you are right about that.” I don’t know what to say about that. It may be that as simple as “common sense and thinking are hard to do…so we want a magic bullet…even if we know there is no such thing, do you have one”?

Or is it just different people learning these same lessons every time? Do we just not know how to pass on this kind of wisdom? Does everyone get promoted during the initial hysteria and the next crop of people repeat the same process because they saw that it worked for the previous person in their role?

On the other hand, maybe we need a new thing every now and then to get excited about and recharge our organizations. Once it is implemented and the benefits are gained, maybe it is reasonable at that point to start looking around for the next thing. The article on lean (mentioned above) indicated that many organizations did have initial gains but then plateaued.

I think one aspect is that people often want to make a career out of a specific technique. Whether that is Six Sigma, Lean, or something else, this allows you to differentiate yourself in the market (whether inside or outside a company). It provides opportunity for visibility and advancement. So if you are a line manager and you get efficient with your process you get some recognition/reward. If you have a swat team that comes in and “fixes” lots of peoples’ processes, you get even more recognition/rewards. But then the “thing” has become the primary focus, rather than the business.

Oh well, it seems unlikely that any of our services are at risk of becoming a fad in the near future (but if one did, I’d be OK with that). In fact, our entire approach is based on the assumption that we need to understand client/business needs first, then figure out how best to improve things, and then design and implement a solution. It’s a lot like that unpopular common sense approach described above. Wait…maybe that could become the next new thing after all. If I could just come up with a catchy name for it…

Since it is on one page, it is distilled and some of the details are left out. However, it can provide a simple, useful view of the requirements of the job/role for either a manager or employee. Below is an annotated example of a Capability Model. Please note that the details are not really shown — inside each section are specific items relevant to that role.

It is important to realize that the Capability Model shows the total set of requirements…it does not recommend a sequence for development. Sometimes you can infer development though. Once we created a series of Capability Models for four progressive levels of supervision (from first-line supervisor to plant manager) showing where new tasks and supporting skills were added or increased in importance. You could infer the changes you would need to move from one level to the next which could enable you to infer areas to focus for development. But a better tool for planning development would be a Capability Development Path, which shows developmental activities and key milestones arranged in a logical sequence for development.

Shown below is an annotated graphic of a Capability Development Path. Note that this include timeframes, though in some cases they are relative and in others more objective.

The development path may contain a combination of development activities, including informal mentor- or self-directed learning, development job assignments, performance-based qualification tests, external certifications, and more standard training events (such as courses).

The intent of the path is to provide a guideline for both employees and managers about what the employee should be doing when in order to progress at a reasonable pace through the role. In many cases, employees want to move up quickly or managers might underestimate all the things the employee needs to master.

Application on the Job

Our role as consultants is more in doing the analysis and design to create these development management tools. However, there are some implementation tips that can help organizations get more benefit from them.

For one thing, keep in mind that every job is unique and every individual is unique. People may come in with some advanced skills while missing some basic skills. It is important to understand the requirements of the individual’s role and then inventory their existing capabilities accordingly to focus their actual development. Maybe instead of a path, it is helpful to think of it as a recommended checklist or menu in some cases.

Align the development system around these tools. Make sure people who are recruiting for new hires are looking for people who will be able to fit into these models. Entry requirements can be deduced (or specified). Specific qualifications can be developed to serve as “gates” for promotions between key levels of the path. Make sure the roles make sense — don’t accumulate capabilities into a single role that are not likely to be found in a single individual. For example, a person with “creative, big picture planning skills” won’t often come with “detail-oriented, organization skills.”

There has been a lot of interest in multitasking lately. People argue that it is impossible…that it is really nothing more than rapidly switching between doing two individual tasks. Others argue that it may be impossible for “older people” but that today’s “wired” generation can handle it. In fact, they argue that some people perform better when multitasking. Still others claim that we are hurting our health with all the stress and ADD-behaviors.

We decided to check some research and then float some of our own pet theories.

First, The Research…

A recent study by Stanford professor Clifford Nass (for details, check out the original article) showed that multitaskers may actually become more distractable. His team started with the assumption that multitaskers have a gift or skill. He discovered it wasn’t superb control over what they paid attention to — they performed poorly in the experiment because they could NOT ignore irrelevant stimuli. They then checked to see if the multitaskers were better at storing and organizing information…that too failed to pan out. Finally they checked for better skills at switching from one task to another…but no, the multitaskers performed poorly here to. They concluded, multitasking is a bad habit, not a preference or working style…if you multitask, you should stop.

In a recent New York Times post, Matt Richtel reported on similar research that found slightly different conclusions.  He found a study from the University of Utah that determined about 2.5% of people actually can multitask effectively, though they caution that the odds of either you or me actually being part of that group are low and recommended strongly against multitasking, especially when driving.

But, there was an article Time magazine published online that cited a study that found you could improve your ability to multitask by playing video games more than 5 hours a day. If that is what it takes, I will never find out. But, that might explain the perceived generational difference. However, this study, conducted by Daphne Bavelier, a professor at the University of Rochester, was targeted at “supertaskers” and it too cautioned that we, as individuals, should assume we are, in fact, part of the 97.5% of the population who are not capable of multitasking effectively.

Finally, there was a study that seems to show we can actually pay attention to two things at once…just not three. There is a portion of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that gets involved when the person is sufficiently motivated (i.e., when there is enough perceived reward in doing two tasks). This part of the brain has two hemispheres and, for two tasks, it seems to split the work by hemisphere (based on brain imaging). But the third task gets in the way…maybe because there is no easy way to create three segments of your brain.

Now, the Pet Theories…

Richard Feynman was one of the physicists who worked on developing the atomic bomb. He was a brilliant mathematician but also an original thinker. As a physicist, he was often invented simple experiments to figure things out. For fun, he apparently got interested in multitasking more than 40 years ago. (He also invented the concept of nano-technology in a speech in 1959!)

Feynman tried different types of tasks, such as counting socks while reading the newspaper or trying to guess when a minute was over while climbing stairs. One thing he found was that people counted time differently. Some visualized a clock while others counted seconds by talking to themselves. Feynman could read the paper and count the time because he was counting out loud in his head…using his “audio” brain processes for counting, leaving his visual processes free for reading. One of his colleagues was able to talk and count time because he was visualizing the numbers.

Our take on Feynman’s conclusions, as well as the research above, is that the multitasking you are able to do is a function of how the brain works. Richard Restak reports that when you imagine doing a physical task, the brain circuits that are activated are the same as when you actually do it…except for the specific circuits that move the body. Imagining you are throwing a ball activates the same parts of your brain as actually throwing it, except for the parts that move your arm.

Feynman’s multitasking, and the researchers’ as well, varied depending less on the individual and more on the type of task. If you are using different parts of the brain, you can more easily multitask but if you need to use the same areas, it becomes impossible. That’s why you can talk on the phone and fold laundry at the same time pretty easily. But you can’t read and talk on the phone at the same time very well — both tasks are fighting over the “verbal” part of your brain.

The other key factor is conscious attention. In this, our experience seems to agree with the researchers that people can really only focus on one thing at a time. So, if you are folding laundry and talking on the phone, you probably aren’t thinking about the laundry too much. If something were to happen though, for example, you discover a sock is missing, you might lose a little of the conversational thread.

The importance of understanding these issues is that we have to consider the impact of multitasking employees when we design processes, run meetings (especially on-line meetings), build tools, and any number of work-related design and management activities. We may have to build in guards against multitasking or we may have to design things that are robust against multitasking (that is, they work acceptably even if people are multitasking).

Do you have any experiences or insights related to multitasking and performance? Please let us know.

The strangest thing was that, once the monkey learned how to do this, he would no longer use his hand to move the cursor. Even when they disconnected the electrodes, he still sat there  trying to move it with his mind (presumably, based on brain scans). (If you want to see for yourself, start reading on page 195  of this book.)

As a performance consultant, there were some things of specific interest to me. One was that the monkey seemed to have an innate sense of efficiency. When he had a way to do something with less effort, he refused to go back to a way to achieve the same thing with more effort. (It did hurt his productivity though.)

People do that. Once you know you can do something on a computer, people resist writing things out by hand. Think about how so many of us have shifted our bill paying or shopping from a manual process to a computer process. If you do that enough, the thought of actually getting in your car and driving to the store is something we try “actively” to avoid. And, in business, there is a real push right now to shift more and more of the work from an operation that happens in the physical world to an operation requiring a set of decisions entered into a computer.

• Part drawings are entered in a computer and just downloaded to the machine for fabrication
• The process of invoicing and collecting is often not much more than a structured email
• Companies prefer to throw information out over the web or through elearning rather than assembling people for meetings and training

In a way, this seems like an extension of the way documentation sort of replaces actual work. We had a project once to analyze the capabilities and design performance tests for a number of roles in a manufacturing organization.  There was a role called “Quality Assurance Rep” whose responsibility was to approve manufactured lots of product for shipment. You might think that they checked samples, walked around the production area, etc. but you would be wrong. (There is a Quality Control Rep that does that.)

The QA Rep basically verifies that the documentation is good. They do look at the test results and verify that all the tests were done and that the results showed the products to be within spec. They checked the manufacturing information and verified that key temperatures were logged and that they were within spec. They confirmed every production task was initialed by an operator and that the operator was qualified (that is, that his or her training was up-to-date…they checked that on the computer). But they really don’t know if that lot is good or not. They only know if all the boxes were checked and that everyone wrote down what they were expected to. I am not saying this is wrong but it certainly seems almost like a lot of effort just to make sure the record or evidence of performance is acceptable.

The question here is “where is work headed?” There are still plenty of people who physically do work. Doctors talk to and check out patients. Mechanics fix cars. Carpenters build buildings. But lots of the wealth today is generated by people working with information which draws more people away from actual tangible outputs. Will we get to the point where we expect to just sit at our desk, type, and click?

We like to challenge that tendency when we can. For our projects, we frequently go into the workplace and observe the performance. (On one project, we were at the clients pharmaceutical plant by 5am to observe set up and shift kick-off. When we finished work at 3pm it was mighty strange to go back to the hotel ready for dinner…) But often getting physically active, even if it is just going into a meeting room and writing on some flipcharts or sorting Post-Its(r) or index card really improves the energy level and ideas. And there is that nagging bigger question…if all we do is manipulate pixels all day and, in return, someone sends us a representation of money…is that really creating a more fulfilling work environment or only just a way to expend less energy?

We did the math and figure that it is roughly equivalent to 3 hours a day for 10 years. What does that mean? For one thing, companies that move people from one position to another every two years may be developing experts in the organization and the industry but not at performing a specific role or task. It is interesting to note that jobs requiring a high level of individual performance (such as doctors, attorneys, airline pilots) have practitioners that remain in their roles longer than the average corporate manager. And, in these roles, more complex tasks are carefully limited to people with more time on the job.

Another question that immediately came to mind was “what if you work on it six hours a day for five years…can you get to expert more quickly?”

Of course, as a performance improvement expert (I can say that, by the way…I have been doing this work since 1984) my real first thought was “I bet we could beat that.” And we probably could. Much of what we do is observe and capture mastery performance and then distill that expertise into process, tools, and information. We sometimes even find shortcuts.

Still, if we needed heart surgery, we would pick the ten year veteran over the one-year novice with even if they have a really good job aid. Why?

Maybe because the longer timeframe allows more reflection. Why did something work better? What could we have done differently? We build our training programs to include exercises and even simulations so that learners apply what they learn in as realistic a situation as possible in a training setting. Sometimes, we even prescribe on-the-job practice and assessment. All of this compresses some of the experience learners would otherwise pick up slowly over the years. But it isn’t entirely equivalent.

There is neurological research that shows expertise depends on well-developed neural paths. Meaning that if you do something frequently and reflect on it, you will develop more expertise…you will sort of wear paths into your brain. But it takes time.

Organizationally, the ten year cycle can create a problem if you need to retain these experts. They get expensive after ten years of raises and accumulated vacation. Their market value increases. The smart thing to do is identify where you really need them and then make sure you leverage that know-how. Capture as much of their expertise as possible in reference materials and tools. Engage them in developing the next generation of experts. Respect their contributions. Plan for succession.

Often people who have been in a role a long time aren’t really valued for their expertise…they can be taken for granted as an old-timer whose advancement peaked. But maybe they decided to focus. Maybe they enjoy what they are doing. In this period of cost-cutting and outsourcing, it can be too easy to lose track of why people work…it may not be only about the money.

There was another difference mentioned in Resnak’s book, that exceptional performers will practice things they are already good at. He describes a few cases from different areas (sports, music) and notes that these top-performers resist anything in their performance becoming “automatic.” One example is Michael Jordan practicing ball-handling! Resnak argues that this focus on very small parts of the performance, continual practice and improvement, and never taking anything as good enough, is what makes the difference between good and great.

As a performance consultant, I had to think about that. Much of what we do is to simplify the performance. Strangely, that usually requires looking closely at the performance to find the specific skills or criteria needed as opposed to just trying to think about everything. The focus for a new learner would naturally be different from the experienced professional. But often, if we are working with experienced performers, we hear the master performers and managers advocate “getting back to the fundamentals” while the bulk of the audience wants to move on past that point.

Questions:

1. Is it realistic, is it worthwhile, to force performers to drill on the fundamentals? If so, how do you get them to do it?
2. The “greats” are few and far between. What can we do to spread or reinforce that drive to achieve excellence to a larger number of employees? Or, is the drive to become great only internal to the individual performer? (Or, is it so much a part of the individual’s personality that it is either too late or inappropriate to select it as a target for improvement by management or training events?)

My initial thoughts about both questions are that if you want to focus on the fundamentals, they need to be part of the culture and reinforced by both the formal and informal leadership. If Michael Jordan is practicing ball-handling, chances are, the other players will feel OK about it too.

Another aspect is rewards. In professional sports, there are huge rewards for being the best. Performance is tracked, measured, and analyzed constantly. Most employees really aren’t trying to be great…they just want to to their jobs. And employees can be brilliant or average and still end up with only a limited percent increase in pay (if any). So, if management wants people to put in the effort, they have to do some thinking about how they can identify and reward their top performers besides pay raises and bonuses. The good news is that, in many cases, financial rewards for performance are not really very effective…they are good for short-term improvement but less so for long-term.

So the other piece of good news is that energy, attitude, and ideas are pretty much free. They are out there. Those that try harder can become the best…if they really want to do the work.