You probably know of Leland Sklar, even if his name doesn't ring a bell. Well, you probably know of him if you are around my age or listen to classic rock music. Leland Sklar is a famous bass player who is perhaps most famous for playing in James Taylor's band, but he has also toured or recorded in the studio with artists such as Linda Ronstadt, Phil Collins, Jackson Browne, Toto, The Doors, and Carole King. Oh, and he even played bass on a number of television song tracks from the 1970's and 1980's, including The Rockford Files, Magnum, P.I., Hill Street Blues, The A-Team, to name a few. He is a musical legend!
I mention Sklar, as there is a post that is making it's way around the Internet, in which he claims to have used what he calls the "Producer's Switch" on his bass guitar. I am always skeptical of what I read on social media, but the story turns out to be true (I fact-checked with a number of sources, including "Guitar World" magazine and a website called "Ultimate Guitar" - there's even a live interview on YouTube in which Sklar tells the story). Basically, the "Producer's Switch" is a dummy toggle switch on his bass guitar that does absolutely nothing! Sklar says, "If I’m on a session and the producer asks me to get a different sound, I make sure he sees me flip this switch and then I just change my hand position a bit. There are no wires of anything that go to this switch. It's a placebo, but it’s saved me a lot of grief in the studio." The producer invariably believes that the switch changed the sound to his or her liking and almost always approves. Sklar has used the "Producer's Switch" for over a decade, and it has become a famous signature feature on his custom German-made Warwick Star Bass.
It's actually a funny story. But as I thought about it more, I had to ask myself how many times leaders inadvertently created something similar to the "Producer's Switch" in their organizations. In other words, as leaders, we should be asking ourselves, "How many times have our teams developed something to basically give us the information that they think we want to hear or see?" Or worse, how many times have our teams created the metaphorical "Producer's Switch" in an attempt to make us feel like we were in control of the situation?
There's no question that teams develop workarounds, shortcuts, or sometimes, even a "Producer's Switch". All of these indicate the presence of friction in the workplace, whether due to an inefficient process, bureaucratic hassle, or even micromanagement by the leader. While these quick fix interventions may at least resolve the initial problem at hand, in the end they actually harm the organization. As John Burns writes in his blog post (see "When Workarounds Become Workflow: How Small Exceptions Become Systemic Failures"), "Over time, these workarounds start to shape workflows, and before you know it, the entire system is running on exceptions, not standards." This is not how High Reliability Organizations are supposed to work!
One of the biggest drawbacks to workarounds (and shortcuts) is that the root problem is not addressed. The workaround effectively sacrifices long-term efficiency for the immediate term - it's a temporary fix to a much bigger problem. Just as important, the workaround is rarely documented or codified in a standard operating procedure (SOP) or policy. When team members leave, a new team member is trained on the "official" SOP but not the "unofficial" workaround. Problems then ensue. Notably, this particular issue played a major role in the famous "Friendly Fire" accident during Operation Provide Comfort in 1994, discussed at length in Scott Snook's book of the same name.
In a similar way, the "Producer's Switch" doesn't change the leader's behavior. It's another example of a short-term "fix" substituting for a longer term issue or problem. Rather than addressing the issue, the team has effectively created a workaround.
Workarounds, shortcuts, and the "Producer's Switch" collectively create hidden risk, wasted resources, and erosion of trust. Leaders should find out how the work is really done, not how it is set forth in SOPs and organizational policies. They should seek feedback from their teams on how things are really operating, and set clear expectations that if a process is not working effectively, it should be changed. Finally, leaders need to create environments of psychological safety, where team members can raise their concerns, provide feedback, and at times even openly disagree with the leader.
The last thing I will say about Sklar's "Producer's Switch" is that the both Sklar and the producers in question are neglecting the HRO principle of "Deference to Expertise". The producers in question fail to acknowledge that Sklar is a professional with expertise in his craft. On the flip side, Sklar is failing to acknowledge that the producer is also a professional with expertise in his or her craft. One would hope that in a psychologically safe environment, both the producer and the musician could have had a productive conversation about their shared goals, as well as their individual ones. It's a funny story nevertheless, but one with a great lesson for all of us in leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment