If you observe carefully, you will notice that the people with the best problem-solving skills tend to have poor social skills, while those with the best social skills tend to be poor problem-solvers. The former are curious and go deep into their analysis of a problem to understand its root causes and identify solutions that result in tangible and verifiable improvement. Analysis by the latter is superficial and results in band-aid solutions. Band-aid solutions give the appearance that problems have been solved, and so band-aids are merely political solutions to problems, not an actual solution based on the true source of problems. Band-aid solutions maintain the status quo; they do not result in fundamental improvements to products or processes.
You will also notice that those who are able to create the best band-aid solutions to problems invariably rise to high levels within an organization. To senior leaders, band-aids are as good, if not better, than actually solving the problem, because the status the quo and good appearances are highly valued symbols of expert leadership. The really good problem-solvers — the reformers — remain stuck at lower levels of the organizations where they must fight against the band-aid solution specialists to win favor for their thorough analyses and concordant solutions. And they usually lose.
Because of their deficits in social skills, the best problem-solvers tend to be organizational misfits (detached disturbers of the corporate peace) and are treated as outcasts. Their career path is usually limited; such is the reward for being a good critical thinker — someone who is able to discern the facts and reveal the truth. The band-aid problem-solvers easily fit in, are recognized as “team players” or “key players,” and are treated as favorites within the organization. The favorites, largely indifferent to facts or the truth, quickly rise and are amply rewarded for their limited skill set. It is no surprise that the key requirement for joining an executive team or board of directors is good “good chemistry” — having the requisite social skills. Problem-solving skills are assumed to be “a given” and therefore unimportant to the overall task of corporate supervision.
I have spoken to many business leaders over the years in my job as a university professor. When asked what they are looking for in our graduates, they almost always comment on the need for them to have better soft skills. Rarely do they say students need better critical thinking and problem-solving skills. That makes some sense because, to greater or lesser extents, students have been taught to think critically and problem-solve since elementary school — about 14 years’ worth of education.
The inverse relationship between soft social skills and the critical thinking necessary to be an excellent problem-solver leads to big expensive problems. Business leaders who desire social skills are, knowingly or not, asking for employees to weaken, if not cripple, their critical thinking and problem-solving skills and give their consent to develop into band-aid problem-solvers. This perfectly fits the needs of business: fast, easy solutions to problems that consume few resources and which require little actual change in thinking and doing. All you have to do is think of the disastrous Boeing 737 Max development program, Wells Fargo’s culture of fraud, Equifax’s data breach, General Electric’s stunning downfall, the Morandi bridge failure, BP oil well explosion, and defective Takata airbags. These are just a few examples illustrating the ubiquity of band-aid problem-solving in business and their catastrophic consequences.
Business is nothing if not a daily flood of problems. Problem that are solved with band-aids invariably recur and perpetually cost the company its resources — all the while the CEO proclaims the need for sparing and judicious use of company resources. Deep problem-solving exposes the truth so that improvement can be made. But if band-aid solutions are the preferred type of solution to business problems, to keep up appearances and maintain the status quo, then the truth is only rarely revealed and problems continue to linger. And when senior leaders finally do decide they want employees to be better problems-solvers, the top of the organization is weighed down band-aid problem-solvers who refuse to learn or practice deep problem-solving. So there are no executive role models for employees to learn from.
This explains why Lean transformation efforts regularly result in the appearance of improvement but fail to achieve material and information flow and Just-in-Time. Occasionally, someone is good at both social skills and problems-solving. But, they are usually not great at either. To achieve flow, you need people who are better at problem-solving than social skills. That means the truth-telling misfits can no longer be treated as outcasts. Yet, treating the problems-solvers as misfits and outcasts has long been institutionalized and is a habit that leaders rarely break.
The further spread of Lean management depends to a large degree on elevating the problem-solving iconoclasts in the organization and intensely training the band-aid solution specialists to become actual problem-solvers. We know from experience that both are difficult to do. So perhaps a solution is for business leaders is to not emphasize the need for soft skills. Instead, the capabilities of new hires and current employees should be tilted towards critical thinking and problem-solving skills because that is what business, given its daily flood of problems, needs most. The perpetual question is this: Can senior leaders welcome the disturbing truth that comes from independent thinkers?
Excellent point. Nevertheless people can’t do something they don’t know. You can’t learn how to solve problems rightly and sustainably by Osmosis or by proximity. It takes more than Ishikawa/5W to do that. Track record confirms that. Thank you for sharing
Interesting perspective and makes sense, but in the end if we take this perspective we are essentially discounting our customers’ perspectives. If a client or customer, or a significant number of them are telling us what their experiences are in their own workplace, I think it behooves us to listen, especially since they are the experts of their own workplaces – not us as outsiders.
Interesting, Thank you
professor sir,maybe you have spoken out some truth of business world in nowadays.I believe most of lean practitioners are critical thinker…they always put logic rightness as the most important things when dealing with reality problems,but it is not good,usually they are treated as game rules destroyer,like your word outcasts. …I think humility is the most needed character for high level officers,if they do,the atmosphere will change definitely,everyone around them in organization Will easily accept others’ criticism, all of people will put themselves in the kaizen rivers,and then the lean miracle will happen…
Wow, that’s spot on. I’m flummoxed by the content of many articles and books, and the suggestions that their authors make while receiving rave reviews and accolades. Yet, logic and experience tells me that it is mostly hot air because it does not reduce or eliminate the root cause. Moreover, when was the last time you heard anyone talk about identifying root causes? If you don’t know what the problem is and all you care about is making money then what is the right solution? Or, if you know the problem but care more about profits than quality, what is the right approach?
I remember vividly how an exec dismissed Deming’s SoPK not because it was too complex but because he didn’t believe it was true . . . Clearly, leaders’ mental programming needs updating. Why do we hear so much about fiduciary responsibility towards shareholders and so little about responsibility towards employees, buyers, users in other words, the other constituents of the so called “Stake Holders”?
Very interesting and I agree with most of what you say… the one issue I would call out is that some “misfits” seem to think that this qualifies them as excellent critical thinkers when actually they are just a&€#%les who are obsessed with the part of the process with which they are familiar! I guess what I’m trying to say is that we should be careful not to attribute being a “misfit” or difficult with also being a good critical thinker… correlation, not causation!
Critical thinkers are not usually a-holes. Pointing out the truth, even politely and with the utmost respect, will often still be sufficient to label them a “misfit” or at least not a “team player” nor “leadership material”.
One can, alternatively, try to teach leaders to see the truth or discover it through kaizen. But the learners have to want to learn and then have to persevere once they start seeing. I’ve encountered some leader/learners like this but in general the odds are long. I’m not overly optimistic.