To Resolve or Not To Resolve -- That is the Question

It's the second week of 2010, and if the accounts I've read are accurate, most New Year's resolutions have already been broken.

That sounds like a process failure to me.

A "resolution," is a firm commitment to a course of action. If you already know that you're not going to keep the commitment -- then don't call it a resolution, call it a "wish." But assuming that you are truly intent on keeping your resolution, you need to have a specific idea of the course of action. Think of it as a process of change. If a process is unclear, or vague, it cannot be followed consistently.

So, if you are resolving to do something differently (e.g., lose weight, eat better, network more, etc.), I suggest that you define the process you are going to follow. What should the definition specify? Target behaviors, undesirable behaviors, environmental supports and distractors, and specifically when you are going to do the target behavior. I also like to build in rewards for good behavior!

Let's say that you want to eat more healthfully. To eat more healthfully, you are going to have to make time to go to the grocery store. Block that time in your calendar every week. It is time consuming to plan, purchase, and prepare healthful foods. Set yourself up so that it is convenient to reach into the refrigerator and munch on some sliced vegetables. (That would be an environmental support.) If you're hungry, are you going to take the time to cut up the broccoli, or are you going to reach into the pantry for a handful of...?

You are also going to have to avoid environmental cues that encourage you to eat poorly. That may mean: packing your lunch for work, avoiding movie theaters because you can't go to the theater without eating popcorn, avoiding television at night, and cleaning out the pantry of foods you cannot resist. It also helps if you plan ahead so that you can make good choices. If you are going out to eat, pick a place that does not serve your favorite fried chicken!

Build in rewards. It is better if the reward is not the undesirable behavior, as in the case of, "I've eaten so well all week, I'm going out for a double scoop of ice cream." Reward yourself at specific, measurable points.

Be fanatical for the first three weeks. I believe it takes generally about twenty days to engrain a new habit or behavior.

I used food as an example, because that is something we can all relate to. Perhaps your resolution is to stop using profanity. I have one friend who suggests that you "pay the pig" for each transgression (e.g., cr#p might cost a quarter, but the f-bomb is two dollars). Perhaps you will need to avoid people or movies that use a lot of profanity, to help you break the habit.

I have resolved to blog weekly and have blocked time on Wednesday mornings to do so. To make a supportive environment, I have my blog as my home page when I open my browser. And if I blog thirteen weeks in a row, I get a new car as a reward (just kidding, honey!).

If you are going to have resolutions, then be resolute with scheduled commitment, clear action, supportive environment, and rewarded milestones. Let me know how it works for you.

A Tough Decision

One of the hardest things for organizations -- and often, individuals -- to do is to stop doing something. Examples that come to mind are canceling a project, breaking a tradition, and changing a process.

There are many explanations for this phenomenon. On an individual level, a person might be loathe to stop doing something for fear of disappointing other people. Organizationally, it might be impolitic to acknowledge that something is failing and should be stopped. It can also be problematic when no one feels ownership of the issue. And then there is always the challenge of inertia -- an object in motion stays in motion.

Successful people and organizations challenge the status quo mindset and step up to the tough decisions required to stop doing something. To continue doing it wastes resources and complicates operations.

My church's leadership is trying to become a "Simple Church" (Rainer and Geiger, 2006, The Simple Church, B & H Publishing), to reduce the complications and increase the focus of the staff and congregation on discipleship. Many organizations are working on becoming "lean," i.e., reducing wasted effort by following the "Toyota Way" (Liker, 2003, The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill). Both types of initiatives require the courage to stop doing things that have been done before.

What brought this all to mind is the change to Eastern Standard Time. I do not like it, and think it is an outdated tradition. The idea is credited to Ben Franklin and certainly made sense in an agrarian, un-electrified country. As I understand it, different regions would adjust in different ways, not necessarily in one-hour increments. The time changes became standardized because of the trans-continental railroad's need for a sensible timetable. Some states, e.g., Indiana and Arizona, no longer follow this tradition.

Think about how much time is wasted... changing clocks!

A Surprising Illustration of Process Management

Today I attended a luncheon meeting of the Career Women's Network. Our guest speaker, the Honorable Trip Self, superior court judge, was the guest speaker. It turns out that he is also an official for college football. He managed to enthrall 75 women by talking about football, if you can believe it.

First he described the selection process for becoming an official, and the way one moves through the hierarchy of different divisions and regions. Who knew it was such a difficult thing to achieve?

Then he talked about how often he hears variations on "how could you not see that?" Besides trying to see around 22 200-300 lb. men in gear, things happen incredibly fast. I didn't take notes, so don't hold me to these numbers (because we know how my memory is getting!):

• 8 seconds to place the ball from the completion of the last play
• 25 seconds to make sure there aren't too many people on the field and that players are not positioned incorrectly and communicate that to the referee
• 15 seconds for a play to unfold.

Within the 25 seconds, each of the seven officials on the field has a specific thing or things to check for, some of which are amazingly detailed. For example, the line official has to evaluate a potential receiver who is not on the line, but is in the neutral zone (which I think is the area between the ball and the quarterback), to make sure he doesn't catch the ball within 10 yards from the line of scrimmage.

What I really enjoyed hearing about though was the amazing process of quality control they have in place, for officials, even at the college level. There is an observer at every game who gives the team feedback immediately after the game. Then there is a league supervisor for the officials, who reviews the games and EVERY call for every game in the league. The officials are graded on EVERY play, whether a call is good, bad or questionable. They may also hear from the head coaches. And if that wasn't enough feedback, the team of officials gets together Friday night before the next game and reviews the tape on last week's game themselves. They are on one-year contracts, so too many bad calls by an official may mean his contract will not be reviewed.

In addition, they spend one weekend in training each year, take two tests on the rules each year, and review the rules before every game. (It's a good thing he's a judge; that's a lot of... ruling?)

Part of me is amazed at how much care and attention is placed on these games -- they're just games, right? But college football is really a business, and the quality of the officials is an integral part of the integrity of the ... game. There can be a lot of money at stake, whether it's for television broadcasts, bowl games, or alumni donations.

I will never watch a football game the same way again.

Life is a Process

As I write about process effectiveness, I think about how much of life is really a process: inputs turn into outputs through a system affected by its environment.

For example, procrastinating. This is a process at which I excel, and teach students to avoid. (It takes one to know one.) People tend to procrastinate because they are perfectionists, or because they are overwhelmed, or both. To overcome this, you projectize whatever you are procrastinating about, and then you break it into smaller pieces that are less overwhelming. Visualize the end result. Allow yourself an imperfect beginning. Do the most distasteful task first and get it out of the way. (Have you read Eat that Frog, by Brian Tracy? -- it's the same principle. While I'm at it, let me also recommend The Now Habit by Neil Fiore.) You can see, I am quite knowledgeable -- and if I may say so, adept -- at procrastinating.

My procrastinating process goes something like this: Whatever I am avoiding is usually something on paper: grading, bookkeeping, or in this case, some writing. The process begins with either carrying the papers around for a while, or looking at the pile in an unavoidable place. My anxiety increases, the longer this part of the process continues. Then I think, "Hmm, maybe I should clear my mind of all the little things distracting me from concentrating on this pile." So, I clean out my email boxes, organize something, plan something else, and sometimes even cook dinner. Yet the pile persists. So, the next step is usually a nap -- so I can feel refreshed and focused. Then -- and only then -- do I tackle something ELSE I have been procrastinating about. For example, when I had a stack of term papers to grade last semester, it was a terrific time to rewrite the by-laws for an organization of which I am a member. (I had been putting that off for several weeks, because it was a bit overwhelming, and kind of boring.)

This week, I've been avoiding working on a textbook chapter about process effectiveness. (The reference file has been on my desk for eleven days.) This time, it's an issue of perfectionism: I really, really want to make this chapter life-changing for my students. Truly, I have a passion for processes.

So, my email boxes are current, I have re-organized my closet, planned the first three weeks of classes, and even prepared to make my C, C & C (chicken, couscous, and carrots mixed together) for dinner . The nap was great. And now I'm writing the blog that I wanted to update two days ago, but have been avoiding. See how this works? You have to channel the procrastination, and make it work for you. Eventually, you get it all done.

Maybe I'll start the following chapter, procrastinate about IT, and then go back to process effectiveness. Hmmm...

What were THEY thinking?

This week, I read that the Georgia Supreme Court deemed a motor vehicle law "unconstitutional," largely on the basis that the wording was vague and confusing. The law? Making a left turn into the near lane, when turning onto a multiple lane road. WHAT is confusing about that?

You want to talk about confusing? Why can't drivers turn their (power) steering wheels well enough to aim for the correct lane? Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? After all, this allows the oncoming traffic to go "right on red," safely. Or is that law too confusing, too?

Come to think of it, red lights DO seem to be confusing for Georgia drivers. The way I was taught to drive, a yellow traffic light meant "caution, the light is about to turn red." That meant I should continue through the intersection, if I was close enough, WITHOUT ACCELERATING. Around here, it seems to mean, "hurry up, so the next two vehicles behind you can make it through the red light before the people in the cross traffic notice." (Of course, those people are probably talking on their cell phones, so it will take them some time to notice.)

While we are on the subject of turning, I have to wonder why most people do not use their turn indicators around here. Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? Too busy talking on their cell phones?

Beyond my frustration with sloppy driving, there is a public health hazard. Ignoring laws that regulate the flow of traffic causes accidents. This is common sense -- and is validated by my personal experience. Both my husband and I -- in separate cars at separate times in separate places -- have been victims of accidents caused by someone running a red light. Note that, both times, our cars were stopped, and we were still hit! Thankfully, we (and our toddler child) were not hurt. We did, however, have the gross inconvenience of insurance claims and extensive car repairs.

How does this rant relate to a topic of management interest? Think about traffic flow as a process. If the process is not followed properly, what happens? At best, you have slower throughput in the process. In the case of the lazy left turns, instead of two people turning, one left and one right, only one can turn because the right turner cannot be sure of an open lane. The same is true when people don't use their signals -- this causes confusion and delays with other drivers. And with the cell phone talkers, their inattention to driving slows everyone down. Of course, when an accident occurs, throughput is further slowed, or stopped all together.

Throughput is a critical success factor in managing processes. If you have consistent processes, you can maximize your throughput, improve your quality, and reduce your costs.

What is confusing about THAT?