Tag: thinking

  • Why the Male-Dominated Workplace Doesn’t Teach Employees to Problem Solve

    There are days at work when I am just overwhelmed by the long line of people outside my door, all with problems we need to solve. In my frustration I think, “Do I have to solve everybody’s  problems for them?!  Can’t you guys solve problems yourselves?”

    Twenty years ago, when I had fewer responsibilities, I liked solving problems, any one’s problems.  I found it challenging.  But as a manager supervising nearly a dozen people, I fantasize about employees who come to me and tell me how they successfully took care of a major problem on their own. Since this has been a recurring problem for years and across several workplaces, I used to think that the problem was me – I was a perfectionist control freak, But the sad truth was, that wasn’t the issue. The problem is that most of my employees genuinely do not know how to solve problems. And digging even deeper, I found I had to give them permission to think.

    What the heck is going on?

    In the past couple of years, I’ve been discovering the answer.  It seems in many companies only certain people are allowed to think.  Only certain people can make decisions.  Only certain people can “think strategically” which I discovered is considered the highest level of thinking.  The directive is simple – they think, you act.  Thinking and doing are separate and distinct and never done by the same people.

    I am also learning that construction has been a little slow in adopting this concept. It seems this philosophy is well entrenched in some industries and it has a name – Taylorism.

    I’ve written about Taylor before and how his philosophies shaped the workplace.  Basically, Taylor at the beginning of the industrial revolution decided there would be experts who decided the best method for doing work.  The experts designed the methods for the working man to carry out.  The working man was supposed to park his brain at the door and follow the directive of the expert.  Early in my career I thought we were evolving past this – we wanted a thinking workforce.  But it seems we made a U turn and Taylorism has met Intellectualism and created Elitism.

    So what do we get?  A new corporate hierarchy!!

    At the lowest rung are all those blue collar guys.  You know those guys who work with their hands because they weren’t “smart enough” to get into college.

    Then there are the office people who may have tried college but didn’t make it.

    Next rung is your basic state college or unknown private university graduate.

    Then comes the management levels who have to deal with all those lower people.

    Next there is a big gap.  Think of a moat.  Filled with alligators.

    The gap separates and distinguishes the corporate level.  I think this is what they are talking about when they say “the C level.”  I’ve heard this term thrown around with a resounding air of snobbery and I don’t know what it really means.  I just know that we are to be impressed by its exclusivity. But anyway, on this side of the moat, we start a new ladder.

    At the bottom are the people who interact with the management of the working and undereducated workforce.  As the management of the undereducated working class you are only allowed to talk to these people in the corporate level.  It doesn’t matter that you have more degrees, certifications or experience.  It doesn’t matter that this low level C person has no concept of the work being done, that’s not his job.  His job is to act as a buffer between the regular management and executive management – so executive management doesn’t have to get down in the weeds, get their hands dirty.

    The senior executive level is filled with people who have long titles.  Everyone is a vice-president and some are Senior VP’s, others Executive VP’s, and still others Senior Executive VP’s.  What distinguishes them?  I have absolutely no idea!!

    Does this sound a little over-the-top and cynical?  A year ago, I would have told you it is.  But not today.

    As I mentioned in my last article, I was on webinars with world-renown consultants trying to teach senior managers how to develop their people.  According to the consultants, it is a manager’s responsibility to train people and teach them how to think and problem solve.  But there was resistance by men on the call.

    And as I mentioned in my last article, one of the things you do in problem solving is ask “why.”  So the consultant asked why – why did so many men on the webinar resist the concept of training the workforce to problem solve?

    Because the average worker wouldn’t come up with as good of an answer.

    Dare I ask “Why?”

    Because they didn’t go to college.

    Why?

    Because they aren’t as smart.

    Shall I continue with another –Why?

    Because they aren’t as genetically gifted as me.

    So why don’t we just say it – a lot of the men on the webinar believed they were better than the average working man.  Going to college made them better.  Going to a prestigious university instead of a state university made them better.  The expansive separation between them and actual work made them better.

    Remember the male-dominated workplace is where men can establish their status in the world.  And education has emerged as a great discriminator of status. So, if the average working man without a college diploma could solve work problems on his own, then how does the C level employee or manager distinguish himself?  What criteria does he use to establish his status?

    So, why don’t we teach our employees to think and problem solve?

    Because it would ruin the new hierarchy we have been working diligently to establish since Taylor came up with his concepts early in the industrial revolution.

    But we aren’t in the industrial revolution anymore – it is time to evolve again. As women in the male-dominated workplace we need to lead the workplace past this newfound elitism. We need to lead in teaching our employees to think and be problem solvers. Our focus for work is not to establish our personal status but to improve the performance of our teams. That is how you win at work.

    Empowered Women Discourage Elitism By Teaching Everyone to Think

  • The Wisdom Of Playing Dumb

    When I start a new project or a new job I like playing dumb.  I pretend I know absolutely nothing about how to do my job.

    Is that shocking?  It is so contrary to what we think we should do – we should always show our knowledge and that we know exactly what to do in any work situation.  How else can we take charge?  How do we direct our people and make sure everything is done right?

    What is wrong with conventional thinking is that we mistakenly believe that as we gain experience we fill up the knowledge bucket.  We believe the 850 pieces of knowledge in our bucket are all the pieces there are.  We don’t realize that there are really 1,000 pieces and we are missing 150 pieces.

    When we work with a group of people, everyone is  anxious to show off their 615, 783 or 847 pieces of knowledge.  But what about those missing pieces?

    How do we discover them?

    By playing dumb.

    Our goal is to change the dynamic of the meeting.  Instead of everyone impressing each other with their personal knowledge we change the focus to discovering the 150 missing pieces.

    Playing dumb starts with listening, not to what is being said, but to what is not.

    I like to bring out my inner 3-year old who constantly asks “Why?”  By asking “Why; How; Who does that; When?” we go deeper and think about why we are taking the actions we are.

    Answers such as “because that is the way we’ve always done it” or “because that’s the way I like to do it” come under scrutiny.  Those answers tell you people aren’t thinking and they are expecting this new project to just be a repeat of past projects.  They will be unprepared for new issues unique to this project which will result in inefficiency and extra costs.

    As I have risen in management ranks, increasing my dumbness has become a critical management skill.  If I dictate every action then I don’t train my team to think for themselves and solve problems on their own.  But if I play dumb I can guide them through the thinking and learning process.

    If my team collectively only knows 600 pieces of information, through my continuous questioning like a 3 year old I can ask the questions that lead them to discovering the other 250 pieces  that I know.  As for the remaining 150 pieces none of us know, it is amazing how our collective thinking and questioning brings those to light.

    One more thing:  Do you know what else we call playing dumb?

    Being a humble leader.

     Empowered women aren’t afraid to play dumb and teach their team.   

  • How to Use the Rachel Letter To End Swamp Wars

    In the season 3 finale and the season 4 premier of Friends, Ross and Rachel decide to get back together.  But Rachel has one condition – she writes Ross a long letter in which she describes everything that went wrong with the relationship and Ross has to accept full responsibility.  Ross, anxious to get back together with Rachel lies and says he read the letter – twice – and agrees to everything in the letter.  As he learns what he agreed to he is unable to keep up the charade.  Ross finally comes clean and admits that he fell asleep reading the letter – it was 18 pages long – front and back!

    Women understand Rachel’s letter.  It is a pure pink female masterpiece – long, citing every incident no matter how trivial in exacting detail.

    Believe it or not our ability to write these types of letters comes in handy when working with men.  I have written several business “Rachel letters.”  It is one of the few times I get to venture towards the Pink end of the spectrum and frolic in my female characteristics with abandon.       (more…)

  • Understanding Why Being A Manager Became So Important

    There is a great divide between managers and the average worker which is once again gaining attention.  Have you ever wondered how this came about, why there is so much animosity between the two?

    The following is an explanation that I read nearly 25 years ago.  What I find so interesting is that at the time this was written, there was a belief that companies were moving past these attitudes – that we were “developing a new theory of management suitable for a new era.”  But as we look at the issues in Wisconsin, the 99ers versus Wall Street and accusations of class warfare, you might wonder what happened to the new theory of management.

    Have we moved beyond this theory or is the split even more entrenched than ever? (more…)

  • How Men Are Taught To Solve Problems

    From the example on the “Your Best Leverage” page, poor Bob has to build a wall but has no material.  There is a crisis!  And in the male workplace that is a cry for action!  But will the male approach really solve the crisis or just lead to new problems?

    Let’s look at how the guys solve the problem: (more…)