Long term solutions

Which Role Do You Play?

by

How many of us remember the childhood story of the little red hen?  In a nutshell, it tells of a little red hen living with other farm animals.  She finds a grain of corn and decides to plant it.  When she asks for help from the others, no one wants to be bothered.  On her own she plants the corn, tends it, harvests it, and takes it to the miller for grinding.  From the flour that results she makes a loaf of bread.  When the bread is ready to eat, she finally gets offers to help her.  The others are more than willing to help eat the fruits of her labors but none was willing to labor with her.

Think about the problems within your organization.  Which role do you play?  Are you someone who works hard to solve the problem or are you one of those standing on the sidelines, waiting?  The only time you want to participate is when the problem has been solved and the fruits of others’ labor are now available.

In my assessment, that’s not the work ethic upon which this country was founded.  Of course there were issues in the past and there are issues today which need to be resolved.  But one of those issues to be resolved should never be the question of having one or two people do all the work to solve the problems, only to have the rest of the organization jump in and reap all the rewards.  Solutions which are developed in that scenario might be excellent ones but the residual bad feelings will almost always undermine their effectiveness.  Hard work does pay off but folks need to be willing to break a sweat.  Success will follow.

A Progress Report

by

Looking back on the topics already discussed we’ve covered a lot of ground.  How can we possibly have anything more to talk about?  After reading the blogs and thinking about them, have all your problems disappeared?  Or is Aunt Nellie still on your case, along with the stockholders (if you have any) and your employees?  What about your family?  How much quality time has been spent with the family and why is that even important?

Maintaining a balance and focus is important if quality work is to be accomplished.  How well do you listen to a recitation of the same old problem when you’ve been working nose to the grindstone for weeks and months on end with no break?  Even your weekends have been consumed by work.  Can you really say that your perspective is as sharp as it was months ago when you took a few days off to recharge your batteries?  How sharp are your problem identification skills when you’re tired, stressed, and reaching critical mass?  Go take the vacation.  We’ll chat later.

Magic and Problem Solving?

by

Wouldn’t life be a whole lot simpler if we could snap our fingers, wiggle our nose, or blink our eyes and make all our problems disappear?  Why do the seemingly easy problems always cause the greatest heartburn?  The last question is the easier one to answer.  Whenever human beings are involved problems are almost always going to get complicated.  If there’s a problem with your car, you take it to a qualified mechanic, spend some money and the problem goes away.  Having a problem with your computer at work?  Call in the IT folks and again, the problem disappears.  Having a problem with two employees who can’t or won’t get along?  Why won’t that problem go away?  As a facilitator and problem solver I’d caution you about letting the egos and emotions rule.  When the problem involves humans it becomes crucial that the focus remain on the behavior or the issue – not the individuals.  It’s hard – sometimes seemingly impossible – but the egos have to stay out of the resolution.  That caution also includes you as the leader or manager.  Your ego and emotions need to be checked at the door as well.  If that ground rule isn’t followed the chances of reaching a consensus and resoluion will be greatly diminished.  Keeping your emotions in check can be easier with the help of a professional problem solver.  Save your ego for the verbal beating Aunt Nellie wants to unload on you about last month’s dividend check.

Why do I have to keep fixing this same old mess?

by

If you’re the leader or manager of an organization, you get the nomination to solve the problems because, as a dear friend has said told me, “you’re the head Fred what’s in charge” – and don’t forget Aunt Nellie and her monthly dividend payment.

If you find yourself having to revisit old problems you thought were solved, you need to remember a couple of things.  First, you were promoted or hired for the position because of your abilities and your dedication to insuring the success of the organization, no matter how large or small.  Taking on these responsibilities has to mean something more than getting a key to the executive bathroom.  You’re supposed to have the intelligence and abilities to address whatever problems develop.  Part of your skill set needs to be the ability to recognize when something is outside your ability to handle.  Second, when you find yourself addressing the same old problem time and time again, that’s when you need to acknowledge that intervention by a professional problem solving consultant is needed.  When the same problem continues to rear its ugly head, it may be that you’ve not yet discovered the root cause of the problem.  If that’s the case, no solution you implement will be permanently effective.  But a permanent fix can be developed when you hire a professional problem solving consultant.

Remember our last conversation?  The professional problem solving consultant comes in with only one agenda and that’s to discover the root cause of the problems and develop an effective, permanent solution.  So when problems don’t ever seem to get resolved, consider hiring a problem solving consultant.   It will certainly make your life as the leader/manager a whole lot easier and you can devote more time to listening to Aunt Nellie’s ideas on how to run the business.

Why Should I Hire a Problem Solving Consultant?

by

Have you ever heard the expression, “…can’t see the forest for the trees…?”  When you’re in the middle of a problem, especially as a leader or manager of an organization, it’s hard for you to see all the sides of the issue and approach the possible solutions from an objective viewpoint.  Unfortunately, you have a horse in the race.  A problem solving consultant doesn’t have those restrictions.  The consultant you hire comes in with a fresh perspective and no preconceived notions.  The professional consultant will do the homework to get a sense of what the issues are and will know after talking with you what the effect is on the bottom line of the organization.  After all, that’s really what’s at the heart of solving problems, isn’t it?  When problems arise that affect the profit margin or bottom line they truly become threats to the organization’s future.  As the leader of the small business, are you really prepared to fire Aunt Nellie’s nephew?  But if a professional consultant lays out the facts and shows the impact upon Aunt Nellie’s dividend payment won’t that make it easier for you to implement the solutions?  The same thing holds true for larger businesses and corporations.  Hard decisions may be needed to protect the dividend payments to stockholders and insure the profitability of the corporation.  Are you prepared to face the firing line when asked who’s responsible for the problems and why do they keep happening?  You will be — if you’ve made use of the skills and talents of  a professional problem solving consultant.

Problem Solving and Communication

by

Common sense tells us that problem resolution is heavily dependent upon communication.  The communication structure used to address and resolve the problem is important.  Here are a few points you may want to consider.

Leaders will often use a centralized communication structure in order to establish group norms.  This is particularly true for newly formed groups.  Researchers have described centralized communication as either a chain or a “Y” with the leader exerting strict control over which group members get what information.  In contrast, a decentralized communication structure has been described as a circle which gives every individual in the group access to all other group members.

Both centralized and decentralized communication structures are well suited to resolving a specific type of problem.  Centralized communication structures allow the group to spend less time initially on preliminary organization processes and decisions are usually reached quickly.  On the other hand, groups utilizing a decentralized communication structure will often take more time to get organized. Once a group using a decentralized structure gets organized, it can usually work as efficiently as a group in a centralized structure.

Research has shown that there are important differences between centralized and decentralized communication structures.  Within centralized structures, the individual occupying the center position tends to become the leader regardless of whether or not that person has the necessary qualifications.  That individual is in the position of receiving all the communications and has all the information needed to make decisions.  Leadership in decentralized structures, on the contrary, usually is bestowed upon the member with the best qualifications.  Information is shared with the group members so that all the information needed to make the decision is known.

Centralized structured groups have been found to be less flexible than decentralized structured groups and are best suited to solving simple problems, especially when time is of the essence and the quality of the decision is not of prime importance.  Groups utilizing a decentralized communication structure tend to rely upon the expertise of all its members so the quality of their decisions tends to be higher.

Researchers have also found a difference in the group morale between groups using a centralized communication structure and those utilizing a decentralized structure.  Research has shown that a member’s morale is directly related to how valuable that member feels.  The farther from the center point in a centralized structure a member is, the lower the member’s morale.  In contrast, the members of a group using a decentralized structure tend to have the same morale.  The morale in the latter group is dependent more on the nature of the assigned task and its importance, rather than the individual’s position within the group.

Depending upon the urgency of the problem and the need for quality decisions, leaders will need to weigh the pros and cons of both communication structures.  Both have advantages and disadvantages.  Weigh them both and select the style best suited to the particular problem being addressed.