Archiv der Kategorie: English

One-sided reasoning

Just as things go wrong on a large scale, for example, the Berlin Airport or the Elbe Philharmonic Hall, every project runs into the danger of overshooting the set conditions. The control of projects is always a gamble on the shoulders of the project leaders due to the many influencers, the rarely defined power structures, and the vague specifications. They may have the mandate to hold the steering wheel in their hands, but the steering angle is severely limited by the stakeholders’ diverse and even conflicting concerns. In the end, project managers are the executing, extended arm of the contracting parties, who micromanage vital decisions. The most significant burden is primarily the fuzzy requirements that keep changing over time. However, to simplify the management of the initiative, leaders do not try to identify and consider the essential factors. They conclude based on simple-minded contingency*.

*”Contingent is something that is neither necessary nor impossible; what can be as it is (was, will be), but is also possible in other ways. The term thus denotes what is given (what is to be experienced, expected, thought, fantasized) with regard to possible otherness; it designates objects in the horizon of possible modifications.”
(see Social Systems, Niklas Luhmann)

The description of the situation becomes one-sided when only one cause and one consequence are considered. While it is impossible to identify ALL influences and effects, the blinkered shielding of adjacent possibilities inevitably leads to delays and other disadvantages. In overcoming the limited viewpoints, the following aspects will help.

  • Overcoming Maslow’s hammer
    With the growing labor division, the law of the instrument has emerged – i.e., if someone has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When looking at a project, the financier sees only the monetary, the buyer the procurement, and the HR people the personnel aspects. The decision-makers have the whole picture in mind. However, they are also driven by their priorities – e.g., to generate savings, build reputation, and get through the week without stress. For overcoming one’s bias, the mindset supports Anything is possible. To find the given possibilities, it helps to let go of what is taken for granted, question existing structures, and think without limits.
  • Describing the focal point
    The starting point for the treatment is the printable situation description. It is always good to focus on one issue, otherwise, the solution will be diluted or even impossible. If, for example, the focus is on a project delay, then the generalized discussion of the deficits in the project work is of no use.
    In addition to the factual points (i.e., where happens, what, when, how, and who is involved), we recognize by the stakeholders’ intentions, who have different influences on what is happening what needs to be monitored. With their description, the project leaders show their mental states through the formulations and emphases – e.g., what is important to them; what they dislike; what they need.
  • Understanding, not analyzing causes
    The likelihood that a concrete situation will result from a single cause is low. Usually, several circumstances are involved. However, the law of the instrument dictates that causes are sought only within one’s domain. Although these limitations are clear to unbiased observers, decision-makers are driven by the need to take care of situations. This is best done by assuming a monocausal case. Solving one cause does not eliminate the problem.
    Even if not all causes will be identifiable, it is crucial to take the risk to look beyond one’s nose since neighboring causes contribute to the issues. On the one hand, the look through the functional glasses is recommended: e.g., development, procurement, production, and selling and, e.g., personnel, accounting, and IT. On the other hand, considering the influences of technology, culture, organization, and economy provide additional leverage points for clarification. In any case, you must not analyze the particular areas, i.e., putting them in-depth under the microscope. It is enough to understand the causes.
  • Anticipate consequences instead of elaborating in detail
    Due to the affected areas and the various stakeholders, several consequences are always to be expected. However, since the actual effects do not appear until the future, we can only guess the effects. Here again, Maslow’s hammer impacts, which leads to the fact that we only see developments in our sphere of influence – e.g., the financier only finds monetary (dis)advantages.
    Since the future is only manifesting later, you should not cross your bridges before coming to them. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to anticipate the neighboring consequences. To be able to react to significant futures, we develop scenarios with possible upcoming circumstances. These alternative designs of the future make statements, for example, about companies, people, business development, available technologies, the development of the economy, society, and the environment. Again, the aim is not to provide detailed descriptions but to anticipate adjacent consequences so that they are not ignored.

Bottom line: The key message of this article is to respond to a difficult case with multi-causal solutions that take advantage of existing possibilities. We never deal with simple cause-and-effect relationships. Our perception is an additional burden due to the Maslow hammer that prevents from seeing more than we usually master. A tricky situation always has multiple causes and generates many consequences that we do not have in mind. To conclude unilaterally does not offer approaches but creates trigger for follow-up problems.

The act belongs to the individual

If difficulties arise, at first glance, it is due to other people. Why? It is easier to look for mistakes somewhere else than to be part of the trouble. A look at the usual generalizations illustrates this tendency.

  • Development is not able to design products that can be manufactured with little effort.
  • Production is not able to assemble the developed items without errors.
  • Sales can only sell proven commodities.
  • Purchasing undermines the trustful cooperation with suppliers.
  • Management does not decide.
  • Employees do not participate.
  • Suppliers are not delivering adequate supplies.
  • Customers nitpickingly take offense at insignificant flaws.

Such stereotypes penetrate our everyday business. At the same time, approaches for our actions can be found in these inappropriate generalizations – because the act belongs to the individual.

Difficulties that arise are reflexively pushed away from oneself. However, this apparent relief offers no solution and delays essential levers – our contributions. Especially if the others are not willing to take over tasks. It is wiser to take a closer look at the own share in the difficulties and actively participate. The following questions will help to do this.

  • What am I doing?
    Our acts are the personal portion of a case. The doing consists of the tasks we undertake, the activities we perform, and the behavior according to the observable (re)actions. There is nothing we can better influence than the doing that we execute by ourselves – Except: the reactions triggered by the limbic system, which can only be subsequently revised.
    If everyone takes care of its part in a task and contributes to the correction of the flaws, then the best possible solution results from the interplay of all.
  • What does that do to others?
    One’s actions produce results that affect the environment. For this reason, we should discuss the impacts in advance with those affected or at least anticipate which consequences are imaginable (i.e., follow-up activities, effects, opportunities, and risks). Comparing desired and probable outcomes provides approaches to improve acts.
    Determining in advance the final state and the effects on others in more detail is a prerequisite for adapting at an early stage and avoiding unintended consequences as far as possible.
  • What would I like to change?
    Even if we initially want to change the outer conditions, it is better to start with ourselves. We need to make sure that the actions also match our attitudes. This requires a self-conscious, open examination of our attitudes – i.e., skills (abilities, knowledge, and experience), convictions (values, beliefs, and mental models), and role (the assigned tasks, authority, and responsibility). We possibly need other skills to perform the acts. It can also be that we need to rethink our previous beliefs and conclusions due to the new situation. Often, we may even lack permission to proceed differently. To take effective action, we must adjust the premises accordingly.
    No one has more power to change us than ourselves.
  • What is it doing to me?
    These reflections are not about sacrifice ourselves and selflessly only doing what others expect of us. But just as we consider the environment, we must also think about our internal balance and the impact on our well-being. If the changes create tensions between skills, beliefs, roles, and most importantly, actions, then the changes should be revised so that we can live with them without stress – e.g., if job security is cut in favor of a cost advantage.
    Our actions should always fit us and our attitudes.

Bottom line: Difficulties arise, above all, in the interplay of different interests. This leads to the fact that the responsibility for a solution is always arguable and out of convenience initially sought at others. Yet, we are the best leverage point for change. We need to be aware of our contribution to the issue: What am I doing? What is it doing to others? What would I like to change? What is it doing to me? Once we find actions that answer the four questions to our satisfaction, then that is our share we can contribute to the solution. If everyone asks oneself these questions, we get the best possible result because the act belongs to the individual.