Leaders Should Be Efficient Problem Finders.

Good leaders know not only how to solve problems, but also how to find problems.

They can detect smoke through testing, not only after a fire, but also try to extinguish the fire.

"Preventive measures" are no longer a kind of personal talent that can be met but cannot be sought. It is a skill that can be cultivated and a kind of organizational ability that can be built.

Many organizations are committed to improving the ability of different levels of employees to solve problems.

However, does anyone take the time to think about the question of how to discover before the problem has evolved into a large-scale failure?

It is impossible for a person to solve problems when problems are unclear or not exposed.

Unfortunately, for various reasons, problems will continue to persist for a long time in the organization.

Before we tackle the problem properly, we must first identify the problem before it can bring strong competitiveness to your organization.

How can we pform leaders into efficient problem discoverers?

Most individuals and organizations do not take a positive view of the problem.

They regard problems as abnormal and must be avoided at all costs.

In any case, problems indicate that they may not be able to achieve organizational goals.

Most managers do not like to discuss problems, and of course they do not want to see their departments exposed to various problems.

They worry that when others see a problem, they will think it is a manager's incompetence, indicating that he is unable to solve the problem himself.

In a word, many people hold the view that the best managers will not share the problems with others, and they always solve the problem quietly and effectively.

When a small failure occurs in your own department, the first response of most managers is recognized.

However, some organizations have opposite views on the issue.

They think that small failure is very normal.

Even a highly successful organization, even with the best management and advanced management skills, will have problems.

These organizations are usually happy to accept problems.

The Toyota Corporation shows a completely different attitude towards everyday problems in the organization, and regards problems as opportunities for learning and improvement.

No matter how small mistakes, organizations regard them as one.

Over the years, TOYOTA has adopted this method to maintain its reputation in the automotive industry.

Experts attribute these to the so-called TOYOTA production system (ToyotaProductionSystem), which emphasizes continuous improvement.

As many people know, TOYOTA gives every front-line worker the power to detect problems, thereby reminding products of potential defects or process problems.

If these problems can not be solved in time, TOYOTA will stop the entire assembly line.

This system essentially gives everyone in TOYOTA factory the power that makes it possible for everyone to become a problem finding person.

The quality of TOYOTA's products soared because TOYOTA found problems in manufacturing much earlier than other automakers.

TOYOTA found that if we did not narrow the gap between the problem and the problem, the possibility of serious failure would increase dramatically.

TOYOTA knows that early intervention in those potential problems may lead to some false alarms, but it turns out that this is more cost-effective than solving the problem and spreading it.

TOYOTA's attitude towards problems also applies to top management.

However, some recent tests show that the quality of TOYOTA has declined.

In a recent interview with the Harvard Business Review (HarvardBusinessReview), TOYOTA's chief executive, Guandu Bian Zhao Zhao, has noted that the explosive growth of the company may lead to a tight production system.

He spoke meaningfully about the attitude of Toyota Corporation towards problems:

I realize that our system may extend too long.

We must make the problem obvious because hidden problems will eventually become a serious threat.

Once the problem is obvious, even if we do not remind the staff of these problems earlier, they will struggle to find solutions.

Many executives will not talk so frankly about the shortcomings of their own management organizations.

On the contrary, Watanabe Aki said in an interview that he felt he had the responsibility to "make the problem surfaced."

Sometimes problems are not enemies, but real enemies are hidden problems.

Fear culture causes problems to be hidden.

In organizations, there are many reasons that cause problems to remain hidden.

First of all, in many enterprises, people are afraid of being outspoken, especially when they are afraid to admit personal mistakes or to be responsible for a certain failure because they may be marginalized or even punished.

Second, the complexity of the organizational structure is like a dense forest. The dense tree cover makes it difficult for sunlight to shine on the ground.

Multiple organizational levels and cross reporting relationships make it difficult for information to reach major leaders.

Third, the existence and power of gatekeeper will insulate leaders and bad news, even if they are good intentions, they will also filter information.

Fourth, overemphasizing formal analysis and ignoring intuitive reasoning will keep the problem hidden for a longer time.

Finally, many organizations do not train employees how to find problems.

If they are trained to identify potential problems, what signs should be paid attention to in their work, and problems will emerge faster.

Many organizations have such an atmosphere: when people see a problem or make a mistake, they are unwilling to speak frankly.

Of course, these enterprises did not set up the "red pencil Award" (this award was awarded to those who made a mistake, but found a better way of doing business through in-depth investigation).

My colleague Amy Edmondson believes that this is because these enterprises lack a psychological sense of security, that is, everyone is afraid of the risk of human relations.

These risks include worry about being considered a troublemaker, or being considered ignorant and stupid.

In a low mental security environment, people think that they will be reprimanded, marginalized or even punished if they speak frankly or put forward challenging ideas.

People worry about admitting mistakes or pointing out problems that can have negative effects.

In his observation, Edmondson found that when a problem was discovered in an "insecure" environment, front-line employees would act.

However, they do not discuss the problem in a broader context to find the systemic root of the problem, but tend to quietly deal with problems with bandage like bandages.

In the long run, this bandage method is harmful.

When managers at all levels establish bureaucratic level reporting system, increase the power distance of employees at all levels, or admit their own mistakes, they are damaging the psychological safety of the organization.

In the teddy bear production company, the red pencil award is used to improve psychological safety. With this approach, most problems and errors will not be hidden for too long.

Throw away your intuition and make trade-offs.

Some organizations have a strong culture of analysis.

They use quantitative analysis and structured framework to solve problems and make decisions.

Data dominate the decision-making process. Without abundant statistical data, a person will not persuade others to adopt his suggestions.

Although the fact based problem solving has many advantages, there are also considerable risks.

In this cultural environment, senior managers will soon give up intuitive judgment for lack of extensive data and formal analysis.

Many times, if intuition is right, it will tell potential managers and their subordinates potential problems.

Early warning signals often come not from large amounts of data, but from personal intuition.

When a large number of data can prove that there are indeed problems, the organization has to face more serious problems.

In a strong analytical culture, employees will self regulate their intuition anxiety.

They feared that they could not provide sufficient and accurate evidence for the problems they had discovered.

A manager told me, "my learning experience at business school makes me learn to rely on data.

When we encounter a problem, the conclusion of data analysis is sometimes the opposite of my intuition. At this point, I always give up my instinctive intuition and rely on data. "

Sometimes, in the face of numerous "noise" interference environments, leaders find it difficult to distinguish the real problem signals.

It is high cost to collect all the necessary information in order to identify whether a signal is a real threat.

On the other hand, there are sometimes no serious threats, but the employee thinks he has found a problem and has made a false alarm.

Too many false alarms can slow down the sense organs of the organization, which will reduce the vigilance of the problem over time.

Therefore, when leaders are looking for hidden dangers in the organization, it is inevitable to weigh the pros and cons.

They must measure the time spent on investigating potential problems and the costs and benefits of resources.

Of course, we can not always make accurate judgments in a short period of time. This is why some problems may still be real and very serious, and we choose not to go further.

How do the best problem finders face these challenges?

First of all, as a leader, there is no need to spend too much resources on exploring and checking problems.

Some leaders create quick and low cost inquiries.

Toyota Corporation's "pull lamp system" is a typical mechanism for efficient inspection of potential problems.

Every time a front line employee pulls down the alarm line, when the production line stops, it does not mean that the whole organization will slowly stop.

Second, the best problem finders see mistakes as a learning opportunity.

Criticizing him severely because his staff gives false warning signals will seriously hurt his enthusiasm for warning next time.

It is much more costly to find out the cost of a false warning than to curb employees' speech.

Perhaps most importantly, leaders must bear in mind that the ability to detect problems increases over time.

You will gradually enhance your ability to identify real problem signals from noise interference.

Whether a message means a serious problem, you will become more and more familiar with your judgement.

In short, as people repeat practice, the cost of problems will be significantly reduced.

Many people are afraid of putting forward problems to the organization, and they are unable to solve them. They will make themselves look weak and incompetent in front of their leaders.

They worry about why others blame themselves for not solving these problems independently, or why they are wasting their leader's time in some unnecessary things.

Therefore, leaders need to go beyond solving problems simply and find and eliminate them in the bud.