Conflict is everywhere. It’s not inherently a bad thing. When managed properly and worked through, it’s actually beneficial and productive. When left unchecked and left to fester, it is toxic and can destroy a relationship, team, or even an organization.

There are many methods and strategies that are helpful in working through conflict, but one of the least utilized and most useful is to give your conflict a name. Giving your conflict a name gives it an identity and shifts the center of gravity of what comes next.

How do we know we’re in that kind of conflict? One sign is that you’re talking past each other, and it feels like you’re talking about completely different things. Another sign is that whatever the other person is proposing makes you uncomfortable, as if it doesn’t connect to how you see the situation. 

There are many common examples and contributors to this situation. You may be evaluating the situation on very different timelines. When one person is trying to solve a short-term problem and the other thinks they’re solving a long-term problem, they will have very different criteria for selecting a solution.

Why is this so important? Because the ambiguity of an undefined, unnamed conflict makes resolving conflict more difficult than it has to be.  Resolving conflict is already hard. We have to do it productively, openly, with curiosity and rigor, all while preserving or strengthening the relationship. When we don’t name the conflict, it’s easy to assume that others see it the way we do. Thus in the timeline example above, the conflict is caused by flawed thinking, or even flawed character. The assumption is often the flaw, and by naming the conflict we discover this flaw and can get past the conflict and focus on solving the problem.

When you name the conflict, you are essentially very loosely defining a problem statement. It does not need to involve the same kind of rigor as defining a problem statement at this point. But naming the conflict endows it with an identity of its own. Instead of two people or groups thinking the other is the problem, now the conflict is the problem and we are on the same team trying to work through it. The change in the dynamic can be subtle or dramatic but is very real.

We could simply call it a “time frame conflict” and then we’d know exactly what we have to resolve. Whether it is a criteria conflict, or a data conflict, or a preference conflict, these simple definitions are a doorway to the still-difficult work of resolving the conflict. Try giving your conflict a name and observe the shift in how it feels.

In this episode of People Solve Problems, Jamie Flinchbaugh sits down with Cheryl Jekiel, CEO and Founder of the Lean Leadership Center, to discuss the intricate relationship between leadership development and problem solving within organizations. Cheryl brings her extensive experience in HR and leadership training to the forefront, focusing on how companies can better develop their leaders by integrating problem-solving into the people aspect of their operations.

Cheryl begins by sharing insights into her leadership development system, CORE, which is designed to enhance coaching skills and assist organizations in implementing strategies effectively. She emphasizes that leadership is not just about solving technical problems but involves creating environments where people can actively participate in problem solving. The CORE program offers leaders the tools to facilitate this participation, shifting the responsibility of problem-solving from the leader to the team. Cheryl highlights that many leaders, particularly in traditional workplaces, struggle to adapt to this shift, as they often view problem-solving as their primary function. CORE aims to help leaders develop a new mindset, where their role is to support and coach their team to solve problems, rather than doing it themselves.

One of the key issues Cheryl identifies is the difficulty many leaders face in transitioning from a directive leadership style to one that is more participatory. She explains that while some leaders are naturally inclined to empower their teams, the majority need training and support to make this shift. Cheryl recounts her experiences in various organizations where leaders were unable to successfully implement lean practices because they lacked the skills to involve their teams in problem-solving. This observation led her to develop a comprehensive training program that not only teaches leaders how to coach but also provides them with ongoing support to ensure lasting change.

Cheryl also touches on the importance of continuous improvement in leadership development. She compares leadership training to athletic drills, noting that just as athletes constantly practice the basics, leaders must also continuously work on their foundational skills. She describes how her program has evolved from a two-day training session into a year-long development system that continues to grow as leaders progress. The program is designed to be simple yet effective, focusing on core leadership behaviors such as setting clear expectations, providing feedback, and recognizing team members’ contributions.

One of the standout moments in the conversation is when Cheryl reflects on the success of her leadership development program in the state of Illinois. Initially skeptical, she was surprised by the positive results, with leaders reporting that they had more time to focus on strategic tasks as their teams became more autonomous in solving problems. However, Cheryl also acknowledges that the initial success was short-lived, as many leaders reverted to their old habits after six months. This realization prompted her to refine her program further, ensuring that the new behaviors became ingrained and long-lasting.

Cheryl is now pursuing a doctorate to deepen her understanding of the outcomes of her leadership development work. She wants to better comprehend why certain elements of her program work so effectively and how they can be improved. Her goal is to leave behind a legacy of leadership development that is not only practical but also grounded in scientific research. For more information about Cheryl Jekiel and her work at the Lean Leadership Center, visit www.leanleadershipcenter.com or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Almost every problem solving tool, method, and template begins with problem definition. But is that the beginning? It is not. One of the oldest models for problem solving, from John Dewey, begins with problem identification. That’s fundamentally important to get right, especially when our email inbox alone has more problems to select from than we have actual time.

Narrow Your Focus to Find Your Ideal Customer

Every company, product manager, sales leader, and CEO should be thinking about their target market. Who would make their best customers? I believe that the parameters used to define target markets are too broad and vague and that efforts to significantly narrow their focus would be tremendously beneficial.

But we often push back against using a more targeted approach when attempting to identify our target markets. Why do we  resist? There are two reasons. First, we’re afraid that if we narrow our focus, we will eliminate the prospect of selling to others. It’s not so. If you have a coffee shop that focuses on commuters, are you eliminating the non-commuting coffee lover who simply wants to stop in for a good cup? Of course not. Catering specifically to a target market doesn’t mean you’re excluding others from buying your product or service.

The other reason that we struggle to narrow our focus is that we just don’t know how to focus, or who to focus on. We are afraid to commit. The process of refining your focus until you can find your perfect customers is a difficult process, but a valuable process that yields insight and strategic leverage.

The risks of refining your focus and defining your ideal market are overstated. When you define the lane in which you want to swim, you aren’t closing the pool to those who want to swim one lane over. If you’re trying to sell ice cream to parents after baseball or soccer practice, you aren’t closing the door on those coming home from music lessons. Why is it so beneficial to narrow your focus? Because you initially build your business with your very best customers. These customers value what you do, will work with you and give you feedback, will tell others about you, and may even pay you more.

Furthermore, and more operationally, you can keenly focus your activities, assets, branding, etc. toward those target customers. Returning to the coffee shop, if you focus on all customers, then you might as well say “we have coffee.” But if you are focused on commuter consumers, then building everything you do around consistency and speed, along with loyalty, makes a lot of sense.

In the end, it is hard to convince people to narrow their markets. However, once they do it, they find new insights, actions, and focus. I suggest you give it a shot.

As AI continues to gain momentum within companies, it’s important to distinguish between two main categories of AI usage: stationed, strategic projects, and the personal, often hidden, use of AI by individuals in their workflows.

One challenge in the latter category is that people are hiding the fact that they are using AI in their work. This fact has been well documented. Two primary drivers contribute to workers hiding their AI use. First, using AI carries a stigma that it isn’t their own work. This concern is valid, especially when AI is used without critical thinking, judgment, or fact-checking. But we’ve used aids, both human and technology, since the beginning of human history, so AI shouldn’t be any different. The other reason is that people are concerned that if productivity gains through the use of AI are made more visible, job cuts will be right around the corner.

Lean, or continuous improvement, went through a significant wave of this same concern. If we practice lean to make things more productive, won’t the company just lay off the excess? Some companies intended this very thing, and that made the whole problem worse. However, many companies had solid intentions but their stated intentions did not serve to appease the skeptics.

As a result, many companies decided to make a declared promise not to have any layoffs because of continuous improvement efforts. This was in vogue for quite a while and got lots of attention. Some reference Toyota as an example. Toyota’s no-layoff policy was more of a union concession after a layoff rather than the result of gains from the Toyota Production System.  T lean efforts did make it far easier to comply with that promise by making the company stronger and more agile.

One of the reasons that the “no-layoff” practice faded is that the more accurate version of the promise was, “no layoffs because of continuous improvement until economic conditions require action.” Because of this, the promise lost its integrity. But companies, having made this the intent while introducing lean strategies, certainly made efforts to continue their practice.

Despite its decline, this practice was a useful mechanism to help contextualize the intent of lean efforts, which was to improve for more capability, more capacity, more engagement, and not just fewer employees. Perhaps this practice could be useful in the adoption of another new productivity enhancer: AI.

Sure, the commitment may not carry a tremendous amount of weight, but it can at least signal a company’s intention. 

Why is this a worthy problem to solve?

First, with more conversation about the use of AI, it can remove the stigma of AI as “cheating.” AI is a tool to enhance both the quality and the quantity of output. Most technologies make the same promise but just lack the broad application of AI. By removing the stigma, adoption can accelerate.

Second, real progress is accelerated when best practices are shared. I learn a lot by sharing how I’m using the tools as well as by learning from others. Every tip, trick, and technique can add a few percentage points of progress.

Third, standard work is critical to consistent performance and problem solving, but it is only helpful if it is up-to-date and followed. If people modify the standard work “off the books” with use of AI, then your standard work promises to be out of date all the time, and fundamentally useless.

Making no-layoff commitments may not convince everyone that they are fundamentally safe. Leaders must be conscious of people’s fears and concerns. Remove the resistance to openly using AI to help accelerate your progress transparently and collaboratively.

In this episode of the People Solve Problems podcast, Jamie Flinchbaugh sits down with Crystal Y. Davis, CEO of The Lean Coach, Inc., a boutique consulting and coaching firm that partners with mid-to-large cap companies to enhance operational excellence and drive cultural transformation. Crystal, also known as “Your Corporate Confidante,” brings her vast experience as a practitioner, leader, and coach to the conversation, offering deep insights into the challenges of leadership and the complexities of guiding organizations through change. ‘

The discussion kicks off with Crystal reflecting on the most difficult aspect of her work: helping leaders understand that their role must evolve to support cultural transformation. She shares a poignant example from her recent work, where a facility that had seemingly achieved success quickly backslid due to a lack of sustained management routines and accountability. This, Crystal notes, underscores the importance of leaders embracing their responsibility not just for immediate results, but for long-term cultural shifts that require consistent effort and adaptation.

Crystal explains her dual approach to problem-solving: using both established methodologies and curiosity-driven exploration. She emphasizes the need for a tailored approach when working with leaders, recognizing that coaching requires permission and trust. This, she points out, is often the most challenging part of her job—getting leaders to open up and engage fully in the coaching process, which is crucial for their personal and professional growth.

The conversation also touches on the importance of deliberate, thoughtful problem solving, particularly when faced with complex challenges. Crystal shares her practice of using the A3 problem-solving process, a method she finds invaluable for gaining clarity and ensuring that no aspect of a problem is overlooked. Despite her experience, she continues to rely on this structured approach, which allows her to see the “whole” picture and identify gaps that might otherwise be missed.

Throughout the episode, Crystal and Jamie explore the nuances of coaching and consulting, including the need to adapt one’s approach based on the culture and readiness of the organization. Crystal describes how she gauges the “tolerance for the nudge” within an organization, balancing the push for change with the need to nurture and support leaders as they stretch beyond their comfort zones.

In concluding, Crystal highlights the critical role of self-awareness and emotional intelligence in her work, noting that these qualities are essential for successfully guiding leaders through the transformation process. She and Jamie also discuss the importance of understanding one’s “zone of genius” and setting boundaries to maintain effectiveness and energy in coaching roles. For more insights from Crystal Y. Davis, you can visit her website at The Lean Coach, Inc. or connect with her on LinkedIn at Crystal Y. Davis.

On LeanMag: Be Careful Before Standardizing Your Problem Solving

You might be surprised to hear a lean advocate warning against a standardization. To be clear, I’m warning against both over-standardization and overly-rigid application of standardization. Standardization within problem solving is tremendously beneficial. First, it helps us train people on methods. Second, it reduces the friction of collaboration across individuals and teams. Third, it helps us avoid blindspots and skipping past key steps. So standardization is beneficial.

‌Read More:

Jamie_Flinchbaugh_Problem_Solving

In the latest episode of the People Solve Problems podcast, host Jamie Flinchbaugh welcomes Jacob Stoller, an accomplished journalist, speaker, facilitator, and Shingo-Prize-winning author of The Lean CEO. Jacob, who is also the author of the upcoming book Productivity Reimagined, brings his extensive experience in demystifying complex business and technology topics to the forefront of the discussion. As the founder of Conversation Builders, Jacob has a deep understanding of organizational dynamics, and in this episode, he dives into the often-overlooked issue of how companies conceal and avoid dealing with problems.

Jacob begins by exploring the concept of productivity—a term that, despite its frequent use, is often misunderstood. He notes that many people equate productivity with simple metrics like GDP per worker, but such measures fail to capture the full picture. In Productivity Reimagined, Jacob redefines productivity by emphasizing the importance of quality in tandem with quantity. He argues that a superficial increase in output is meaningless if it comes at the expense of quality, using the metaphor of manufacturing defective products to illustrate this point.

A significant portion of the conversation centers on the cultural challenges that prevent organizations from addressing their problems effectively. Jacob highlights how traditional hierarchical structures, where authority flows from the top down, discourage the open discussion of problems. He explains that problems often cross departmental boundaries, but organizations tend to manage each component separately, leading to conflicts and inefficiencies. This fragmented approach makes it difficult for companies to recognize and address issues that affect the entire organization.

Jacob stresses the importance of creating a culture of trust within organizations, where employees feel safe to bring up problems without fear of retribution. He points out that for companies to truly solve their problems, leaders must be willing to prioritize long-term value over short-term gains. This involves pulling the “andon cord,” a lean manufacturing term that refers to stopping production to address an issue, even when it might temporarily disrupt the workflow. Such actions, Jacob argues, are crucial for fostering an environment where problems are seen as opportunities for improvement rather than threats.

The discussion also touches on the issue of conflicting Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which Jacob identifies as a common barrier to problem-solving. He gives the example of a mining company where the operations department’s KPI for equipment availability conflicts with the maintenance department’s KPI for preventing breakdowns. These opposing goals create a situation where short-term decisions lead to long-term failures. Jacob advocates for a value stream approach, where all stakeholders work together towards a common objective, thus eliminating the conflicts that arise from siloed thinking.

Throughout the conversation, Jacob and Jamie reflect on the broader implications of these challenges, drawing on examples from various industries. Jacob shares insights from his research, including the surprising ways that lean principles and productivity strategies are being applied outside of traditional business contexts, such as in environmental sustainability initiatives. He recounts a case where a winery reduced its environmental footprint and increased its output by addressing waste in its processes, an example that underscores the value of looking beyond conventional metrics.

As the episode concludes, Jacob leaves listeners with a powerful reminder: productivity cannot be reduced to a single number or metric. Instead, it requires a holistic understanding of the factors that contribute to or detract from a company’s performance. He invites listeners to rethink their approach to productivity, considering the systems and processes that underpin it rather than focusing solely on outcomes.

For more insights from Jacob Stoller, visit his website at jacobstoller.com and connect with him on LinkedIn at Jacob Stoller. His latest book, Productivity Reimagined, will be available for pre-order soon at this link.  

On IndustryWeek: Supply Chain Leaders Need a New Playbook, Focusing on Risk

For generations of supply chain leaders, the key words and phrases that dominated were optimization, rationalization, cost reduction, inventory reduction and so on. The basic performance of the supply chain was stable enough that it was often taken for granted.

Read the entire article here

Empathy is a popular concept these days, for many valid reasons. However, it is often conveyed as a sense of acceptance and sometimes even passiveness. What I mean is that empathy often means that you CAN’T understand someone’s perspective because it is different from yours and so therefore accept the difference. This approach, which perhaps reduces frustration and other negative outcomes, can also curtail progress that comes from understanding.

There is a different approach: Rigorous Empathy.

Rigorous Empathy is about engaging with empathy to truly understand someone’s path, experience, context. There are many vital applications for this. Organizationally you may want to truly engage with Rigorous Empathy to understand customers for product development, or to understand employees when trying to lead a transformation. At an individual level, you might apply it towards a breakdown in a work relationship or a collaborative problem solving effort with another team.

This quote from mathematician Steven Strogatz (why do mathematicians have some of the best quotable ideas?) sums it up well:

“The theory of relativity is founded on empathy. Not empathy in the ordinary emotional sense; empathy in a rigorous scientific sense. The crucial idea is to imagine how things would appear to someone who’s moving in a different way than you are.”

The theory of relativity is obviously referring to Albert Einstein’s theory, and many of his thought experiments were rigorous applications of this perspective. As you can see here, depending on the information you already have or don’t, this can be done as a simply-but-challenging thought experiment.

Other applications include interviews and surveys, experiments, and any tools that leverage current state analysis from process mapping to causal loop mapping. Perhaps the pure opposite of rigorous empathy is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias, whether intentional or not, lacks both empathy and rigor and looks to confirm the beliefs you already have. Most confirmation bias is unintended and happens to use whether we’re watching the news or in a meeting. In many ways, Rigorous Empathy is the antidote to confirmation bias. If we practice Rigorous Empathy enough, we build muscle around it for every day applications, which is often where confirmation bias catches us off-guard.

Find processes and problems where Rigorous Empathy is beneficial and practice. Then observe and reflect on how your day-to-day perceptions, actions, and decisions change.