Problem

This is my favorite checkist.

Problem solving 101

1. Document the desired state (where you want to be).
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.
(L. Carroll)

Describe it in a SMART way: Specific, Achievable, Measurable, Relevant, Time framed

2. Document the present state (where you are today)
If you don't know where you are, a map won't serve.
(W. Humphrey)
In measurable terms comparable to #1

3. Understand the system through one or more of:
3.a. SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)
3.b. Ishikawa (or fishbone) root cause analysis
3.c. Process diagrams (process charts)
3.d. Activity flowcharts
3.e. Value stream maps
3.f. Ask 5 times "why?"
3.g. Expert analysis
... there are others, but this is good enough to start with.

4. Document the reasons why you are not where you want to be (aka root causes) and group them in: communication, training, process, product and tool.

5. Fix the process to improve communication, training, process, product and tool as needed.

6. Measure the results
(are you closer to your goal?)
... and go back to square one.

This is as easy as 123, but most of us don't do it.
We say it's boring. It does not let creativity flow. We think we are better than that.

And maybe, just maybe, some managers don't appreciate the quiet and systematic solution of problems. They want to see struggle long hours, working weekends, heroes and casualties. The whole nine yards.
After all, John Wayne, James Bond, Dirty Harry and Catwoman never used a checklist.

Fungus

Motivation

The Top Leader is responsible to create a vision that people can subscribe to.
The Top Leader should state where to, and how far we want to go.
The top leader should also make sure that everybody understands the vision, mission and goals.
That's about it.
When leaders start telling people how to do it, they start to fail.

Under the old, bureaucratic, hierarchical model, middle managers were supposed to have relevant knowledge and experience, and they were expected to coordinate the working bees, making sure they did the right thing.

Under newer models (like ISO 9000), all employees are expected to actively participate in the organization, to work according to documented processes, to measure the results, and to improve them continually.

A good process lets the performers know how they are doing relative to the objectives, and lets them improve the process.
A good process empowers employees.

Many middle managers, and some CEOs find this new order less than comfortable.
What will they do if they are not directing, managing, coordinating or supervising?
Maybe they would have to work.

And how would they explain their salaries and perks?

Many working bees also find this new order undesirable.
Loosely quoting from Aldous Huxley: They are awfully glad they're betas, so they don't have to think.

No surprise then, that they don't push towards the new order.

Fungus

Results

I don't have a problem with being proactive.
Being proactive means you are paying attention to the road ahead and the cars around you, so that you can cross the bridge at the right speed and at the right time. It doesn't mean you cross the bridge before you get there. It doesn't mean you move frantically with pointless action.

Being reactive means you are not paying attention, and wait until you go past the bridge, and then you have to turn back to cross it. I don't like it, because it's expensive, but sometimes it happens.

I do have a problem with pointless action.
Action should have a purpose.
Action should get results.
Some times we value activity over results, maybe because so many of our actions only result in smoke, noise and heat.
Some of us live life, as the bard said, like a tale told by an idiot (...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing).

Well designed and skillfully performed activities should be linked through proper processes and intermediate products to get valued results.
Valued to the customer.
Easier said than done.

Fungus