It sounds ridiculously obvious, but before an organization can solve a problem, it has to be capable of identifying it. You can be an expert in the type of problem-solving tools we looked at in Part 2 of the course, but if members of the organization are actively (or passively) hiding problems and no one is willing to speak up and express their thoughts in problem-solving meetings, your organization will not be highly-functioning.

We learned in Part 2 about the importance of assembling a diverse team of individuals, and the problem-solving power that can be unlocked by such a group. One of the sources of this power is the differing views and sets of experiences that those individuals bring and the value they create by expressing those views and challenging other team members. However, for this powerful tool to be enabled, a leader must create and foster an environment where those individuals feel empowered to express their own opinions, respectfully challenge other views, and be open-minded enough to recognize when their own approach may be flawed. This is essentially what I mean when I refer to “inclusivity” in the context of organizational culture.

In Part 2 of the course, we briefly mentioned this corollary to the “Putin Rule”:

Rule of Respectful Challenge:

For teams to provide maximum value, members must be capable of identifying contrary views and empowered to respectfully challenge one another.

I’m guessing none of you want to be compared to Vladimir Putin as a leader, or otherwise). Similarly, the value of an organizational culture where team members feel empowered to identify and express countervailing views seems obvious. However, this principle is sometimes extremely difficult to implement and maintain—especially for young leaders.

Part of that difficulty springs from the inconvenient reality that we are all humans. As humans, most of us carry a certain sensitivity and resistance to criticism. Some of us— especially if we are used to an environment where we are seldom questioned or criticized— can become extremely sensitive and feel personally insulted when our ideas are questioned. Others are secure enough to open themselves to “help” from teammates and colleagues. Those are the people who are best at leading highly functioning problem-solving organizations.

We’ll focus on two contexts where a culture of “speaking up” is particularly helpful in a highly functioning problem-solving organization:

1) Spotting problems; and

2) Problem-solving meetings and discussions;

A. Inclusivity in Problem-Spotting

Inclusivity is important in a highly functioning organization to ensure that all members of the organization feel empowered to affirmatively search for problems and bring them forward. This goes back to one of the fundamental tenets of this class and the Universe of Opportunities: Problems are positive opportunities for improvement. Organizations that aren’t continuously improving are not going to be highly functioning for long. The key to continuous improvement is solving problems. You can’t solve problems if team members aren’t actively spotting them and bringing attention to them. The best organizations expect their members to be intentional about seeking out problems and reward them for bringing them forward.

Once again, we’ve identified a sought-after characteristic in a problem-solving organizations that runs contrary to human nature. (This is one of the reasons that highly functioning organizations are somewhat unusual. It takes a lot of work— and skilled leadership–to encourage people to build habits that feel counter to the way many of us are wired.) Delivering bad news usually makes people very uncomfortable. We’ve all heard the expression about killing the messenger. The discomfort increases significantly when the person identifying the problem may have been partially responsible for causing it.

So, let’s turn our attention to some leadership tools that can be used to break that natural tendency to hide problems and rather encourage a practice that runs counter to how many of us are wired.

1. Keep the Focus on Process, not People. As a leader, it’s very natural to have an emotionally negative response when someone identifies a problem. Sometimes, this is because we sense that anything not going well in our organization is a reflection on us as leaders and therefore, we perceive at least some problems as personal criticisms. We may also be somewhat motivated by fear and feel no matter how hard we’ve worked to drive continuous improvement through problem-solving within the team we lead, our own supervisor may not feel the same way and therefore the problem being raised may wind up negatively impacting our own career prospects. Often, too, we turn reflexively to a disciplinary impulse. If the person bringing forth the problem had a hand in creating it, then they should be punished in order to motivate them from repeating the problem and to set an example for others.

All these potential responses are somewhat natural, and while there are exceptions to every rule, in general the impulses driving you to respond in these ways should be recognized and resisted. One way to do this is to ensure that when dealing with a problem you keep the focus on the process, not the people. In other words, the concept of individual blame rarely adds any value to these discussions. Lashing out at someone, even if they are responsible for creating the problem, is generally a waste of time and emotional energy because blaming and shaming individuals— even when they played a part in creating the problem– rarely helps correct it.

Rather, good leaders focus on improving the organization by solving the problem. To do this, they look at the process and activities surrounding the problem and ask (1) what went wrong?; (2) why? (five times!); and (3) what do we need to do to keep this from happening again?

Occasionally, the root cause of the problem relates back to a person’s performance. In this case, a 5-why root cause analysis often leads to the conclusion that the person’s training was inadequate. On some occasions, it may be that the person has a bad skill fit for the job they are in, and a change needs to occur, but in my experience that’s unusual. Much more often the root cause of a breakdown in individual performance is either (1) bad process; or (2) poor training. In the rare case where an individual is simply incapable of performing a sound process after adequate training, making a personnel move may be necessary[1]. Such a move often benefits both the organization and the individual. No one wants to be in a job for which they are a bad fit.

2. Create intentional time/place for bringing forward identified problems. It’s important to try to “normalize” the idea of finding problems and calmly talking about them. In other words, good leaders set an expectation that identifying and talking about problems is a normal (and necessary!) part of everyone’s work. One way to do this is to set aside regular times or events dedicated to bringing forward problems that people are finding in their work. This might be a recurring segment in a regular group staff meeting, or a component of a regular 1-1 meeting that a leader has with an employee.

Rather than, or in addition to, an intentional meeting, some organizations provide a means for members to submit problems and/or improvement ideas in writing. This practice offers an option to some members who may be shy about speaking for whatever reason. The actual tool may be a simple as a traditional “suggestion box” in which an employee drops paper with the written submission into a box, or it could be more sophisticated like “continuous improvement board” where, once submitted, an idea card flows through various project phases of problem solutioning[2].

Two additional insights related to the practice of creating intentional time and space for problem identification:

If you adopt a practice of creating an intentional time and space for raising problems, make clear that team members don’t have to wait for that intentional time/space to bring forward problems— especially if they are urgent. Rather, organization members should feel empowered to bring forward problems at any reasonable time. A good leader communicates and demonstrates that members should be continuously identifying and communicating problems and they don’t need to wait for a specialized meeting or segment of a meeting to speak up. However, intentionally setting a recurring meeting or component of a recurring meeting can ensure that time is created for intentional discussion and very clearly sets the tone that problem-spotting is an important part of any job;

Followup should occur. Nothing deflates an organization like talking about the same problems over and over without taking meaningful steps toward solutions. Similarly, a team member who brings forward a problem and sees no response is less likely to bring forward other ideas. It’s important to note that the followup doesn’t necessarily have to be immediate action. As we learned in Part 1 of this course, as leaders in a highly functioning organization, we will inevitably have more problems/ideas than time and energy to solve them. However, every team member who “puts themselves out there” by communicating a problem or improvement opportunity deserves the acknowledgment that their idea has been received and an explanation of how it will be acted upon, even if that explanation is “our resources are currently allocated to higher opportunity matters, but we appreciate this input and continue to evaluate potential actions as resources come available.”

3. (Positive) Incentive. Over time, it should be possible for any leader to develop a culture where all team members understand that bringing forward problems and talking about them is seen as a positive thing. Early on, though, to “get the ball rolling”, some sort of deliberate incentive may be necessary.

Incentives, of course, can be either positive or negative. We’ve already alluded to the natural human tendency to “shoot the messenger” and the importance of quashing the instinct toward blame by focusing on the process and not the people. It’s very important not to negatively react when people bring forward problems. If a team member’s action or behavior contributed toward causing the problem, and coaching is a necessary countermeasure, the coaching should be done in a 1:1 setting to minimize the risk of embarrassing the team member in front of their peers. Such embarrassment can be doubly harmful as it will likely dissuade the individual as well as send a message to observers that there is a downside to bringing problems forward.

Positive incentives can be much more constructive and influential. These all take the form of some type of recognition. Preference for different forms of recognition can vary greatly from person to person. Individuals are often motivated and incentivized by different things. Two broad categories of recognition in the workplace tend to be monetary and non-monetary.

Non-monetary recognition is sometimes viewed as more authentic and therefore meaningful by some. Others may view it as an empty exercise without much value.

Monetary recognition often brings with it a more tangible benefit, but if done carelessly can fail to convey a depth of appreciation that many members crave. (Monetary incentives can also become unintentionally embedded in an organization’s compensation structure, which can become complicated if/when they are withdrawn.)  Both forms, if done without care and consideration, can be seen as gimmicky and are often (justifiably) lampooned in pop culture memes, or episodes of The Office.

Although I listed it as a possiblity, and I have been affiliated with organizations who were relatively effective in monetarily incentivizing employees to bring forward problems, I have to say it’s very difficult to do this well and can drive the wrong behavior. For example, once you start offering “rewards” to incentivize certain behavior it can be difficult/impossible to remove those rewards without creating dis-engagement from employees. A much more effective and longer-term method for encouraging people to bring forward problems is to try to help them understand the larger importance of both the organization and their role in it.

A team member who believes her or his organization is engaged in important and admirable work and that their individual role is key to accomplishing that work is much more likely to be motivated to help find problems and improve the organization than someone who really doesn’t care about the organization’s work but can obtain a gift card or other trinket in exchange for submitting a problem or idea.

B. Inclusivity in Problem-Solving (speaking up when you disagree).

The second context where creating a “speak-up culture” is critical comes after the problem is identified and efforts are underway to solve it.^[3] It’s easy, especially for more introverted or less experienced team members to have their voices drowned out, or not called upon, in the problem-solving process and thus nullify the advantage of a diverse problem-solving team.

Highly functioning organizations count on their employees to use their knowledge and intellectual curiosity to express ideas on how to improve an organization— even when those ideas, or questions, can make others feel uncomfortable. Without this willingness to speak up, question, and even challenge, teams run the risk of wallowing in “groupthink” and losing out on the benefits of assembling a diverse team.

Unfortunately, this is hard, and, once again, seems unnatural to many of us (especially those raised by Iowans! J). Most of us are naturally inclined to avoid confrontation and embrace harmony. It’s natural for humans to be affiliative and to embrace positive relationships. Reaching agreement with one another is biologically satisfying. Research suggests the brain must work harder when we disagree with someone.^[4]  

Please don’t misunderstand me— I’m not suggesting that highly functioning teams are filled with unpleasant people craving confrontation. However, in a diverse team in which individuals are informed by different sets of background experiences, there are bound to be points of view that don’t immediately align. Exploring those differences and deciding on the best path forward to support the interests of the entire organization is important, and organizations comprised by people who do this well are extremely successful.

So, how do we as leaders manage this difficult balance of retaining an organization-first ethos and productive harmony, while also ensuring that all voices are expressed and heard in a respectful way? The following is a summary of some practical tips and insights I’ve seen used effectively.

1. Intentionally ask for input. Diverse teams will probably be populated by both introverts and extroverts. Getting input from extroverts is generally not a problem. However, drawing out comments from people who tend to be more introverted can be a challenge.

Often, quieter folks on the team have key insights on issues but simply haven’t been given the opportunity to speak. One simple way to ensure that you’ve heard from every voice “in the room”^[5] is to expressly ask for input from people who have not yet spoken.

To avoid the impression you are singling them out unfairly, it’s often helpful to begin by saying something along the lines of, “Alex, you are generally very insightful, and I need your perspective on this issue as well. What do you think?”

The corollary here is that sometimes extroverts unfairly dominate discussions. If you find you have a team member who is dominating discussion in an unhealthy way, pull them aside one-to-one and share with them (1) that you value their contribution; and (2) for the health of the team and to ensure all voices are heard it would be helpful if maybe they didn’t talk quite so much. It’s generally helpful to do this in a 1:1 setting outside the team meeting to avoid embarrassing them.

2. Stifle the instinct for speed. It’s easy to fall into a trap of racing through meetings to stay on agenda. We also naturally want to get problems addressed as quickly as possible. However, just like cars on icy roads, racing through a problem-solving process can be dangerous. Rushing ahead based on the input of a single team member or a determination that hasn’t been fully thought out with input from all members of a diverse team runs the risk of overlooking potential risks and making bad decisions.^[6] When in this mode, you generally suboptimize results and aren’t really saving time by rushing through without full input of the team.

3. Acknowledge the value of the giver. Realistically, not all ideas expressed will be helpful, and if they come from the wrong motivation, then 1:1 coaching may be appropriate. Similar to what we discussed in problem-spotting, though, it’s important that the entire organization feel empowered and motivated to share their thoughts. To establish this culture, it’s important for a leader to acknowledge the value of the person providing the feedback.

4. Don’t make it personal. Whenever you are encouraging ideas to be expressed in a diverse team, there will inevitably be conflict. It’s important that leaders in these types of interactions set the tone and expectation that the most important thing on the team’s plate is to solve the problem at hand, and that any remarks that can be interpreted as personally insulting or disrespectful are obviously outside the boundaries of what will be tolerated.

If something is stated that you disagree with or you think is an incorrect position, start by acknowledging the value of the giver and make sure they understand that their view is valuable and appreciated. Then, move on to explaining why you believe the position is wrong and/or won’t lead to the best solution.

Reflection Questions for Part 3, Section I

 

1. Have you ever been around leaders who react negatively when their ideas are questioned, or problems brought up? What impact did that have on you as a team member? What impact on the organization?

2. Have you ever been around a leader who actively asked for your input and encouraged you to challenge her/his thinking? How did that make you feel? What impact did that approach have on the organization?

3. Can you think of examples when challenging the views of a leader is not appropriate?

---

[1] Even in the case of a bad job fit, I would argue it’s a process to blame, and not the person. How did this person incapable of doing the job get hired in the first place?

[2] https://www.companionlink.com/blog/2024/06/continuous-improvement-boards-key-features-and-functions/

[3]. For a (hopefully) still vivid image of this, recall your project team meetings in Part 2 of the course.

[4]. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/jan/disagreeing-requires-more-effort-brain

[5]. Using quotes here in recognition that many problem-solving meetings are held virtually.

[6]. See, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the design of the Vasa.