Two management skills 'improve decision making'
An expert has nailed his flag to the mast of two "simple" management skills, and says that they are the key to good management.
Dr Robert D Smith, a Kent State University professor emeritus in management and leadership, told the Akron Beacon Journal that staff often became cynical of "flavour of the day" management tools, and eventually ignore them.
Smith said that in 25 years of facilitating and following up on leadership development programmes, he had found that two simple tools have staying power and do work to improve management decision making and problem solving.
He cited the Why-Why Analysis (also called Five-Whys Analysis) which is a form of cause and effect analysis that looks in depth for the source of a problem and suggests solutions.
The essence is that by asking why five times, the root cause of a problem situation is usually uncovered and traced to some form of human error.
Dr Smith also advocated the Nominal Group Process (NPG) which, he claims, is an easy tool to use and ensures involvement and commitment of employees.
He said: "Effective use of NPG obtains multiple inputs from a group, say of five to nine people, on a particular problem or issue."
Last month, Kevin Riley, director at Carlton Resource Solutions, suggested that employees will respond to morale boosting incentives, and that managers have to think outside the box to encourage employees to stay with the company.
Have you used NPG before? What are your opinions of it?
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Yes, human error will always been found at the root of problem. Without the human element the need for management would be trivial.
I couldn't agree more that flavour of the day stuff soon gets ignored in firms that are constantly bringing in new ideas all the time - and it often ends ugoing round in circles making no meaningful difference.
Workers see through this and switch off. They aren't involved, management have paid some firm a fortune to give them a new 4 square box tool that will solve it all and the poor worker is the one who is dumped on!
The key to success is to keep it all simple - staff much prefer to understand and jargon is a major barrier to success, creating divides between the users and the rest who struggle to understand what it really means.
I feel that stating that human error is often the route cause could be dangerous in that some will read this and be looking for who to blame. The cause can often be a poorly designed/outdated process. Whilst it is probably true that a human was responsible for the design, the danger is the user or current owner (often in reality a non-owner because they don't know they really own it!) is the one who gets blamed.
I used it regularly but we didn't give it the fancy acronym of NPG!
I guess my own input to this discussion centres around the difference between that old chestnut - features and benefits! I notice both clients in organisations, and those of us in training and development too, are sometimes seduced by the features - when what is wanted, are the benefits.
Tools and processes at the end of the day - are simply features. They're HOW you go about achieving the outcome - so this NPG (which I've never heard of) and the 5 why's are simply tools, designed, by the sounds of it to enable managers to make better decisions and improve problem solving.(the desired outcome!)
And a tool, no matter how innovative or good it is, is just a tool. If there's no real commitment to really applying this consistently, then no tool, method or process will work! The problem is, however, that it's the tool which is blamed, hence encouraging individuals to seek something "new" which promises salvation - and to staff becoming cynical, and thinking it's just the new "flavour of the month" tick box exercise.
A simple example of this is in the use of a staff survey. I'm a BIG advocate of surveys to solicit feedback and analyse properly - so targetting resources and effort in the right place. However,I'd make a bob or two if a got a pound for every employee who's completed a staff survey and felt it was just a "tick box" exercise, because nothing happened as a result of them filling it in - in some cases it's a just one-off exercise. Now OK - this has some benefit - it gives a snapshot of how it is for that team/organisation right now - but unless there's meaningful follow up, targeting of resources to help address the gaps, and then re-assessment to MEASURE the result - not only will no-one know for certain if there's been any improvement, but there is unlikely to be any, because there's no systematic and consistent action taking place.
For me - there's two critical questions to ask:
1) What is the OUTCOME you want? What behaviours and attitudes, or specific results do you want to be different as a result of any intervention - whether it's a simple tool, a process such as coaching - whatever.
2)What tools or techniques might be most appropriate to help you achieve this outcome?
Once those tools are chosen, for me, it's about focusing on the outcome, and implementing and following through in a CONSISTENT way. There are, I'm sure many tools which are less effective than others - but in my experience, one of the biggest problems is less about the tool, and more about the implementation and focus.
And my final quick comment - I'm not sure how helpful a tool would be which mmight lead to perceptions of blame!
Hi Shona,
Agree with your comments. One thing I think you could have added on the survey bit is the importance of publishing the results. That at least takes the distrust out of the surveys even if people can't see action taken (although in ideal world they would see that too!).
some of us are too busy working on solutions to be asking why/ five times asking how? once is more useful.
Totally agree with Ray and Susan!
Hi Susan,
I take your point but I think the challenge being made here is that there is a need to understand the real issue before moving into solution mode. The concept of the 5 why's (and it may not need that many, much depends on the compexity of the issue) is that the first answer may not give you the full picture so you ask why again to delve to the next layer.
Going to solution mode too quick leaves the possibility that you may solve a problem with a sticking plaster solution rather than treat the underlying cause.