My car is allergic to vanilla ice cream...

Once again, I will credit my Lean/Six Sigma Green Belt Certification course for the inspiration for today's post.  I don't know if the following story is true or not, but I thought the lesson at the end was important.  I hope you think so too!

Apparently, the Pontiac Division of General Motors (note that the Pontiac brand was discontinued in 2010) once received the following customer complaint:

This is the second time I have written to you, and I don't blame you for not replying to me because I sounded crazy, but it is a fact that we have a tradition in our family of ice cream for dessert after dinner each night, but the kind of ice cream varies.  I noticed that whenever I buy a vanilla ice cream when I return from the store, my car won't start.  If I get any other flavor of ice cream, the car starts just fine.  I want you to know I'm serious about this question, no matter how silly it sounds.  I recently purchased a brand new Pontiac, and since then, my trips to the store have created a problem.

The customer admitted that he understood why the Customer Service Department didn't believe his story, but that he himself believed that his new car was allergic to vanilla ice cream or something like that.  The Customer Service Department ignored the first complaint, but decided to investigate further after the second complaint.  They sent an engineer to interview the family and check the car out further.  The engineer thought that the whole story was nonsense, but he decided that he better do as he was told.

The engineer was surprised after meeting the customer, because he seemed like a well educated individual.  She checked out the car and couldn't find anything wrong with it.  However, because the man continued to plead with her, the engineer decided that she would approach the problem systematically, as she had been taught.  She drove with the customer to the ice cream store and ordered vanilla ice cream.  When they came out to the car, the car wouldn't start.

Now the engineer was intrigued!  The man had been right after all.  They returned at the same time on the next three nights, each time ordering a different flavor of ice cream.  The car started fine when they ordered chocolate, strawberry, and even pistachio ice cream.  However, on the fourth night, they again ordered vanilla ice cream and the car wouldn't start.  

The engineer refused to believe that the car was allergic to vanilla ice cream.  She had recorded every detail of the interaction over the course of the preceding five nights (vanilla-chocolate-strawberry-pistachio-vanilla), including the time of day, the amount of gas in the tank, the time it took to drive to and from the ice cream store (which included the time spent in the ice cream store).  After analyzing her results further, she noticed an important clue!  The man took significantly less time in the store when he purchased vanilla ice cream compared to the other flavors.  

When the engineer investigated further, she learned that vanilla was the most popular flavor sold at that ice cream store, and the owner had placed all of the vanilla ice cream at the front of the store.  All of the other flavors were sold at a separate counter at the back of the store.  Also, the owner was trying to hire more ice cream servers, and because his shop was understaffed, it took more time to purchase all of the other flavors (the customers had to wait longer in line).

So, whenever the man bought vanilla ice cream, he spent only a few minutes in the store.  Whenever he bought another flavor of ice cream, he spent about 5-10 minutes in the store.  Knowing cars as well as she did, the engineer knew the answer to the problem.  The car wasn't allergic to vanilla ice cream, the car was suffering from a problem known as "Vapor Lock".  

Now I don't know anything about cars, but apparently "Vapor Lock" used to occur with older cars and was a problem caused by liquid fuel changing to a gaseous state while still in the fuel delivery system. This disrupted the operation of the fuel pump, causing loss of feed pressure to the carburetor or fuel injection system, resulting in transient loss of power or complete stalling (most newer engines have been designed to avoid this problem).  The problem was more common in warmer temperatures and with newer cars.  

When the man purchased vanilla ice cream for his family, his car developed "Vapor Lock".  The car was still warm, and hence still susceptible to vapor lock.  However, when he took longer to purchase the other flavors, there was sufficient time for the vapor lock to dissipate, so the engine would start normally.

Apparently this story was also told on the NPR talk show, "Car Talk".  The lessons here for us are to (1) take all customer complaints seriously, no matter how weird they sound; (2) follow what High Reliability Organizations do by not oversimplifying a complex problem ("Reluctance to Simplify"); and (3) follow an analytic approach to solve complex problems.

"Sacred Hoops"

I recently finished Sacred Hoops by the Hall of Fame basketball coach Phil Jackson.  Jackson's Hall of Fame biography starts with, "Intellectual, spiritualist, maverick, athlete, coach - Phil Jackson is equal parts all five. But while Jackson was a modestly successful player in the NBA, it is as a coach that he leaves his footprint on the history of the game. Installing the complex triangle offense and employing a coaching philosophy heavily influenced by Native American and Eastern philosophy, Jackson has been at the helm of not one, but two of the greatest dynasties in NBA history."  Coach Jackson wrote Sacred Hoops shortly after Michael Jordan returned from his first retirement (which incidentally occurred just over 30 years ago this past month) to play again for the Chicago Bulls in 1995.  It is in part an autobiographical sketch of his early life and 12 -year playing career with the New York Knicks (in which he won two NBA Championships), as well as his early coaching career with the Continental Basketball Association (he coached the Albany Patroons to the 1984 CBA Championship) and Chicago Bulls (first as an Assistant under Doug Collins and later as the Head Coach, during which time the Bulls won the first of three NBA Championships).

Sacred Hoops was an interesting read and brought me back to some childhood and early adulthood memories.  I also appreciated Coach Jackson's philosophical lessons describing his approach to coaching (and really, life).  I've posted a couple of these lessons in the past, which came up in the book (see "The strength of the wolf is the pack..." and "White elephants and Wheelwrights").  Coach Jackson references an article by W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne that appeared in the July-August 1992 issue of Harvard Business Review entitled "Parables of Leadership" (the story I mentioned in my post "White elephants and Wheelwrights" appears in this article).  The parables mentioned in this article are certainly very interesting, but I was particularly impressed by the authors' definition of leadership, which is perhaps one of the best definitions that I've ever seen.  

First, Kim and Mauborgne argue that perhaps leadership can't be defined.  They write, "The essence of leadership cannot be reduced to a series of personal attributes nor confined to a set of particular roles and activities. It is like the challenge of describing a bowl: we can describe a bowl in terms of the clay from which it is made. But a true picture must include the hollow that is carved into the clay—the unseen space that defines the bowl’s shape and capacity."

Second, Kim and Mauborgne argue that the parables mentioned in the article suggest that there are certain "essential qualities of leadership that define a leader: the ability to hear what is left unspoken, humility, commitment, the value of looking at reality from many vantage points, the ability to create an organization that draws out the unique strengths of every member."  

Third and ultimately, Kim and Mauborgne do provide a definition for leadership, writing that leadership is "the ability to inspire confidence and support among the men and women on whose competence and commitment performance depends."  I am reminded of a quote by the late Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, former President of the University of Notre Dame ("Father Ted").  He said, "The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. It's got to be a vision you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion. You can't blow an uncertain trumpet."  Leadership involves inspiring others to believe in that vision with all of their heart, mind, and soul.  

Early morning brain teasers?!?!

My morning routine is fairly regimented, as I have discussed in several previous posts (see "Feierabend", and "What is your morning cup of Joe?").  I've slightly adjusted my usual morning routine over the years, but certainly nothing drastic.  I've learned the hard way what happens when you try to drastically disrupt your normal morning routine (see "Today, I was a doofus...maybe I should use a checklist?").  

Starting the day off right is really important.  I've previously posted about the importance of getting a good start to the day by tackling the most difficult problems first (see "Eat that frog!").  If you've read retired U.S. Navy Admiral William H. McRaven's book Make Your Bed (or watched his 2014 commencement speech at the University of Texas), you will know that he recommends starting off every day with an easy win, i.e. making your bed.  I recently came across a blog post by Keith McNulty on Medium that recommends starting every day off with a math brain teaser ("Start Your Day with Math") - more on this in a minute.

Over the course of the past couple of years, I've added a few puzzles to my usual daily routine.  While I may vary the time (before or after breakfast, during the train ride to or from work, etc), I try to complete the New York Times Wordle, the New York Times Mini-Crossword Puzzle, and the daily Woodoku puzzle every day.  I've also been trying to complete a few lessons in German on the Duolingo foreign language app.  While these puzzles are not too hard, I do feel a sense of accomplishment whenever I successfully solve them.  

Keith McNulty recommends a similar approach, but rather than word puzzles, he recommends attempting to solve a difficult math problem every morning.  McNulty writes, "Every morning before I start work I tackle a math problem. I schedule 30 minutes to solve this problem, and if I don’t succeed I stick with it the next morning and subsequent mornings until I have solved it and I am ready to move on to the next."  He claims that solving (or attempting to solve) a math problem (1) trains your brain to be organized, logical and systematic, (2) exercises a muscle in your brain where you can relate seemingly separate concepts and see important connections between them, (3) helps you learn math (personally I'm not so sure about this one), and perhaps most importantly, (4) solving a problem generates an endorphin hit and provides you with a confidence to start your day.  On this last point, McNulty claims, "The impact of this on your daily performance should not be underestimated. Think about it as a sparring session before the real deal."

Interestingly enough, I seem to recall that my favorite math teacher (my wife!) starts off every class with what she calls a "warm-up", a semi-difficult math problem.  Perhaps I will add (pun intended) a math problem to my daily routine.  Or maybe not.

Thanksgiving and Gratitude

Today, November 23, 2023, many of us here in the United States will be celebrating the Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends.  There are many traditions associated with this holiday, but there's one that I am particularly fond of - the simple act of expressing gratitude for everything that we have and to all of the individuals in our lives.  You can say "Thank you" to your family, friends, and co-workers.  You can be thankful for your happiness, health, or good fortune.  It doesn't matter as much - just being thankful and appreciative and showing your gratitude is important.

What's often lost, however, is the importance of taking the time to give thanks and express your gratitude and appreciation throughout the year, not just on the Thanksgiving holiday.  I've posted about why leaders need to say "Thank you" several times in the past (see "Real leaders say thank you a lot...", "Gratitude" from 2017, "Gratitude" from 2023, and "The two most important words...").  Michael Timms, writing for Fortune magazine ("Great leaders show gratitude beyond Thanksgiving") suggests making gratitude a leadership strategy.  Timms suggests that expressing gratitude not only improves your own physical and mental health and wellbeing, it also encourages those who work with you and for you to be more effective and productive.  Employees that regularly receive praise and gratitude are more likely to stay at their jobs.  Timms writes, "Effective leaders know that if they want their people to continue working and producing results, they must recognize good behavior whenever they see it and express their appreciation.  If you don't thank people for their contributions, you'll breed resentment, and they'll stop contributing."

Erica Ariel Fox, a contributor for Forbes magazine ("Thanksgiving is more than a day.  It's a core leadership practice") agrees completely, writing that  "Having a designated day to do something calls our attention to it.  That's good.  The flipside is that observing such a day gives us the sense that we're done with it.  For leaders, Thanksgiving shouldn't be one of them."  She goes on, "Expressing gratitude requires slowing down, putting down our devices, shifting gears out of troubleshooting and feeling our emotions. We are conditioned to solve problems, deliver results and keep our emotions in check at work. We’re not taught to pause and connect to how we feel. It’s shocking to many leaders to learn that acknowledging the sincere thanks they feel toward their teams and then sharing it is a meaningful form of value creation. Far from a waste of time, your team’s performance over time may depend precisely on this."

Michael Timms provides several recommendations for how leaders can "make gratitude a leadership strategy" (aside from it just being the right thing to do) - he calls it the "10 commandments of grateful leadership":

1.  Leaders should be specific about what they are praising.  Leaders who simply tell someone "Good Job" may actually do more harm than good, as general as opposed to specific recognition will lead the individual being praised to feel that the leader really doesn't know what he or she did to deserve the recognition.

2.  Leaders should recognize and praise both the behavior and the impact.  After providing specific praise and gratitude for the behavior, leaders should highlight the positive impact that the behavior made on other individuals on the team or the organization as a whole.

3.  Leaders should recognize individual accomplishments as well as team accomplishments in order to reduce internal rivalries and improve collaboration between different groups.

4.  Leaders should link tie the recognition back to the organization's mission, vision, and values.

5.  According to a Gallup poll, the most meaningful recognition comes from an employee's direct manager, followed closely by praise from the CEO.  The CEO in any organization should be the Chief Gratitude Officer!

6.  Recognition in the form of monetary rewards is actually less effective (see several of my previous posts on the "crowding out effect" and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation).  Leaders should make expressing gratitude about appreciating effort and contributions to the organization, not a transaction.

7.  Handwritten notes have been shown to be extremely effective, and they are often the most meaningful and memorable gestures of gratitude.

8.  Leaders should be genuine, authentic, and honest.  Don't force gratitude.  

9.  Leaders should thank their teams often.  Timms writes, "Praise has a short half life."  Leaders may find it helpful to actually schedule gratitude.

10. Leaders should always remember that "employees' performance isn't suffering from receiving too much gratitude from their employers, but it certainly is from receiving too little."

With all of this in mind, I would like to take this time out to say "Thank you" for all of you who have read my blog and have either provided me with feedback directly or indirectly in the comments you've sent me.  I continue to find value in putting my thoughts down on this "virtual paper" and I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to the profession of leadership, even if in a small way.  I will leave today's post, as I often do, with a quote.  G.K. Chesterton said, "I would maintain that thanks are the highest form of thought; and that gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder."  Happy Thanksgiving!

"You should only go to the refrigerator once..."

Okay.  Apparently I watched one or two video clips of The Brady Bunch on Facebook, because now my feed is full of old clips and recent updates on what the cast is doing now.  There's an episode during the first season (episode #24 to be exact, which first aired on television on March 13, 1970) where Mike and Carol Brady decide to change roles - Mike will help Marcia with her cooking merit badge, while Carol will help teach Greg and the boys how to bunt a baseball.  They both learn a very important lesson ("the grass isn't always greener on the other side" which incidentally is the title of the episode), but I wanted to focus on the scene where Mike is telling Marcia how to be more efficient in the kitchen.  He starts watching her go back and forth between the refrigerator and the counter and says, "Hold it.  No organization.  You should only go to the refrigerator once and take out everything you need, see?"  I won't tell you what happens next, so you will just have to watch the scene and see for yourself.

What's my point?  One of my goals this year was to finally take the step and obtain my Green Belt certification in Lean/Six Sigma (hopefully to prepare for my eventual Black Belt certification, but let's not get too far ahead).  As I am learning more about spaghetti diagrams, I can't help but think of Mike Brady in the kitchen.  Briefly, a spaghetti diagram is a pictorial representation that uses a continuous line to trace the path of an item or activity through a process.  It allows teams to identify redundant steps in the work flow, so that they can make reduce the number of steps and improve efficiency.  Here's an example:

It's amazing to see the number of steps (literally in this case) in the process before and after the improvement project.  Similarly, a value stream map is a flowchart that outlines the different steps in a process, again as a way of identifying any opportunities to make the process more efficient.  Again, in the example below, there is a significant difference between the "before" and "after" in the process itself.

During my online class, the instructor mentioned a scene from the 2016 movie "The Founder", starring Michael Keaton, Laura Dern, Nick Offerman, and John Carroll Lynch.  The movie tells the story about how Ray Kroc (played by Keaton) turned the two McDonald brothers' (played by Offerman and Lynch) fast food restaurant into the biggest restaurant business in the world.  Kroc was a traveling milkshake machine salesman and wanted to learn why a drive-in restaurant in San Bernardino, California was ordering so many milkshake machines.  While there, he meets the McDonald brothers (Mac and Dick) who give him a tour of their restaurant McDonald's, a popular family-friendly, walk-up restaurant with fast service, high quality food, and disposable packaging.  The rest, as they say, is history.

Apparently (and according to my sources, this is exactly how it happened), the McDonald brothers actually drew a mock-up of their restaurant using chalk on a tennis court.  They would then bring their employees to the tennis court and simulate the restaurant's operations, identifying where they could make the operations more efficient.  In other words, they developed a large-scale spaghetti map!  It's really a great scene that perfectly illustrates the utility of spaghetti diagrams and Lean/Six Sigma (and it's a lot better example than the scene from The Brady Bunch!).

"These aren't the droids you're looking for..."

I remember going to a local movie theater (it was called the Eastwood) in 1977 to see the movie Star Wars for the first time. Believe it or not, nobody (except George Lucas) thought that the movie would be successful, so only a few theaters showed it.  As a matter of fact, the movie was shown at only 42 theaters nationwide during its opening over Memorial Day weekend!  There was really only one theater on the east side of Indianapolis that showed it - their investment paid off in the end because they were the only theater that was licensed to show the next two sequels.  I absolutely loved the movie, and I went back several times to see it again.  One of the coolest lines ever was the scene where Obi Wan Kenobi uses the "Jedi mind trick" on a couple of Imperial Stormtroopers (here's the clip).

Oh, how I wished at many times in my professional life that I could perform a "Jedi mind trick".  I've often said that one of the most difficult aspects of leadership is managing change, or at least convincing the individuals in an organization that change is necessary.  Wouldn't it be great if we could use the "Jedi mind trick" to convince the most resistant individuals to change?  I suppose it's for the best that we cannot, so we will just have to come up with a more suitable alternative when dealing with individuals who are resistant to change.  

Change is hard - for all of us.  Leading change is even harder.  Perhaps that's why there have been so many books, blog posts, articles, and even TED talks about how to effectively lead a group, team, or organization through change.  I've read about (and used) a number of different change models during my career, and while all of these models are similar, there's pro's and con's to each one.  I particularly like John Kotter's 8-step model (see a couple of my older posts: "Never let a good crisis go to waste" and "And the times, they are a changing..."):

Regardless of which model you prefer to use, I've found that successful change leadership requires three things (I call them the "Three P's of Change Leadership") - Passion, Patience, and Perseverance.

The first P stands for Passion.  Of interest, the word passion derives from a Latin word that literally means to suffer.  In other words, passion is the emotional characteristic that allows us to push beyond our comfort level, even pain, to achieve our goal.  I'm not saying that change has to be painful (even though it often can be emotionally painful), but without a certain requisite degree of passion for the change, a leader - and the organization - will give up at the first sign of trouble or difficulty.  

As Marko van Kalleveen writes in Forbes magazine, "Passion for the vision on the other side of a transformation allows stakeholders to hold fast, maintain morale, and see things through to the end. When widespread in an organization, it fosters the unity, conviction, and resolve it takes to move the needle."  He goes on to say, "As a leader, it’s important for you to exhibit the passion you wish to see in all your stakeholders. Even on days you’re not feeling very enthusiastic, fake it. I’ve found that when I put on the guise of passion, I often end up feeling more exuberant than before."  Passion is the emotional fuel that drives the commitment and dedication that is necessary to lead an organization through change.  Passion is fundamental to creating a climate for change (Steps #1-3 in Kotter's Change Model above).

The second P stands for Patience.  Don't expect to be successful as a change leader if you aren't patient.  Stephen Doiron, President of Change Management Professionals, Inc. believes that one of the greatest challenges for leaders is dealing with resistance to change.  Most of us don't like change, because it creates uncertainty and anxiety.  But that's not really the full story.  Doiron says that 70-80% of the people in an organization aren't resistant to change, but rather they are just "reluctant" because they are uncertain and anxious about the future state after the change (the original reference comes from a book by Douglas K. Smith Taking Charge of Change - 10 Principles for Managing People and Performance).  Change is a process, and change takes time.  As leaders of change, we have to bring others along with us - we do that by engaging and enabling the organization (see Steps #4-6 in Kotter's Change Model above).

The third P stands for Perseverance.  Perseverance and persistence are often used interchangeably.  President Calvin Coolidge once said, "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.  Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.  Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.  Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.  Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.  The slogan “press on” has solved—and always will solve—the problems of the human race."

Perseverance is not giving up.  It is that firm and almost obstinate commitment to stay with a course of action regardless of how difficult it is or how much it is opposed.  When I think of perseverance, I think of tenacity, grit, endurance, and resolve.  Perseverance is the key to lasting change - to making it stick (see Steps #7 and #8 in Kotter's Change Model above).

President John F. Kennedy once said, "Change is the law of life and those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."  What I stated earlier bears repeating here: Change is hard.  Leading change is even harder.  But it's a lot harder to learn how to perform the "Jedi mind trick".  Successfully leading an organization through change requires passion, patience, and perseverance.

Are you building or destroying value for your organization?

The McKinsey Quarterly just published (see "Some employees are destroying value. Others are building it. Do you know the difference?") the results of a thought-provoking study that I would like touch upon in today's post.  McKinsey surveyed 15,366 workers in seven countries from November 2022 to January 2023 about their job satisfaction, well-being, and self-reported performance, sorting them into different groups based upon their post-pandemic working model (mostly in-person, hybrid, or mostly remote).  Recognizing that self-reported performance data isn't always 100% accurate, the McKinsey investigators (Aaron De Smet, Marinbo Mugayar-Baldocchi, Angelika Reich, and Bill Schaninger) found that there are six distinct employee groups or archetypes across a spectrum of satisfaction, engagement, well-being, and performance.  These workers range from the highly dissatisfied and actively engaged on one end of the spectrum to the super-engaged and highly satisfied employees on the other end.  

These same investigators also estimated that employee disengagement and attrition cost a median-sized S&P 500 company between $228 million and $355 million a year in lost productivity, so now more than ever, focusing on employee engagement, well-being, satisfaction, and performance seems critical to the success of any organization.  The central challenge for leaders in an organization then is to figure out how best to move as many employees from the highly dissatisfied group as possible towards greater levels of engagement and commitment to the organization.  Importantly, the survey also found that the higher the level of satisfaction and commitment, the higher the well-being and self-reported performance (the converse is also true).    

So what are the six archetypes and what can leaders do to have an impact on them?  The first archetype, representing about 10% of the workforce are called "Quitters" (these are the individuals who may not necessarily be the lowest performers in the organization, but they are certainly the least satisfied and committed and may already be contemplating leaving the organization).  "Disruptors" comprise about 11% of the workforce and represent those actively disengaged employees who are staying in the organization byt either "quiet quitting" or "loud quitting" (i.e., openly expressing their negativity about the organization).  The "Disruptors" are "productivity and energy vampires" literally decreasing the motivation, drive, and engagement of everyone around them.  They also tend to create additional work due to their lack of productivity and impact on everyone else's morale.  The "Mildy Disengaged" comprise about 32% of the workforce and represent those employees who report below-average commitment and performance.  These employees are neither satisfied nor actively disengaged and disruptive.  However, they do the bare minimum required of their jobs.  

Taken together, the bottom three archetypes account for nearly half of an organization's workforce!  The good news is that with the right approach, most of these employees can be re-energized and re-engaged to improve their level of commitment to the organization.  And as mentioned earlier, the higher the level of engagement and commitment, the higher the performance.

The "Double-dippers" comprise about 5% of the workforce and are individuals who likely hold two or more jobs without the employer's knowledge.  This category has become more common with the change to remote work during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.  These employees are evenly split between those who are engaged and contributing to the organization's success and those who are disengaged and are not contributing.  The "Reliable and Committed" comprise about 38% of the workforce and are those satisfied and committed employees who are reliable performers that often go above and beyond for their organization.  The last archetype are the "Thriving Stars" who comprise about 4% of the organization's workforce.  These rare employees are highly committed and engaged and bring disproportionate value to the organization as a result.  The most important consideration for this archetype is that they are at the highest risk of burn-out.

So what should leaders focus on to re-engage their employees?  After looking at 12 factors that affect employees' satisfaction and commitment levels, the investigators found that nearly two-thirds of the total cost of disengagement could be explained by the top six factors, in terms of relative contribution to disengagement costs:

1. Inadequate total compensation

2. Lack of meaningful work

3. Lack of workplace flexibility

4. Lack of career development and advancement

5. Unreliable and unsupportive people at work

6. Unsafe workplace environment

Prioritizing these six factors could recoup a significant proportion of the money lost to disengagement, which will create value to the organization in the end.