As originally published in BusinessWeek, this is the first installment in a series about improving corporate decision-making.
There’s great variance across corporations and across decisions. Not all decisions are ill-designed. Some companies are skilled when it comes to user understanding, visualization, prototyping, and continuous improvement. And indeed, Six Sigma doctrine purports to embody much or all of the above (read Part 1 of this topic, originally published in BusinessWeek). Nevertheless, I think it’s undeniable that the mean quality of corporate decision-making models is dreadfully low.
Why would this be the case when corporations have a strong economic incentive to have high-quality decision design? I believe that the root cause is a fundamentally flawed paradigm with respect to the conceptualization of the corporation. Paradigms become the standard way to think about a given context – eventually becoming the “unthinking” way of thinking about a context because no other way is imaginable.
For U.S. airlines, “hub-and-spoke” was the only way to think about designing flight schedules because it was the only model in operation – that is, until Southwest Airlines arrived on the scene and ate all of their lunches using a “point-to-point” route structure with no hubs and no spokes. Now, the paradigm has switched – too late for the carriers rapidly going bankrupt.
BROKEN BODY. The fundamental paradigm of the corporation is based implicitly on a metaphor of the human body. The corporation is made up of two basic parts: the brain, which is corporate leadership, and the arms and legs, which is the corporate rank and file. As with the body, the brain is in charge and the arms and legs follow orders. As with the body, the brain formulates decisions and the arms and legs carry them out. And as with the body, the brain is in charge of control procedures and the arms and legs get controlled.
This paradigm worked much better in early 20th-century physical corporations. Corporate leadership at Ford Motor designed the assembly line, and its rank-and-file workers were “choiceless doers” performing a standard spot-weld or tightening a particular bolt. In this paradigm, deep user understanding, creative visualization, collaborative prototyping, and ongoing enhancements weren’t clear decision-design imperatives.
However, as corporations became more complex decision factories, this formulation-implementation schism featuring two distinct classes of employees – “choosers” and “choiceless-doers” – became more problematic.
Does the metaphor of the human body work in today’s corporate world or do employees need a new paradigm to remain dedicated and motivated?