If you’re not worried, you need to worry, and if you’re worried, you don’t need to worry. That’s because worrying about what can go wrong will protect you and not worrying about what will go wrong will leave you exposed.
Design and oversee a machine to perceive whether things are good enough or not good enough, or do it yourself. This is usually done by having the right people, people who will probe, who can’t stand inferior work or products, and who can synthesize well, and by having good metrics.
Assign people the job of perceiving problems, give them time to investigate, and make sure they have independent reporting lines so that they can convey problems without any fear of recrimination. Without these things in place, you can’t rely on people raising all the problems you need to hear about.
Watch out for the “Frog in the Boiling Water Syndrome.” Apparently, if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water it will jump out immediately, but if you put it in room-temperature water and gradually bring it to a boil, it will stay in the pot until it dies. Whether or not that’s true of frogs, I see something similar happen to managers all the time. People have a strong tendency to slowly get used to unacceptable things that would shock them if they saw them with fresh eyes.
Beware of group-think: The fact that no one seems concerned doesn’t mean nothing is wrong. If you see something that seems unacceptable to you, don’t assume that the fact that others also know about it and aren’t screaming means it’s not a problem. This is an easy trap to fall into, and a deadly one. Whenever you see badness, point it out to the Responsible Party and hold them accountable for doing something about it. Never stop saying, “This meal stinks!”
To perceive problems, compare how the outcomes are lining up with your goals. This means comparing the outcomes that the machine is producing to your visualization of the outcomes you expected so that you can note any deviations. If you expect improvement to be within a specific range and it ends up looking like this you will know that you need to get at the root cause to deal with it. If you don’t, the trajectory will probably continue.
“Taste the soup.” Think of yourself as a chef and taste the soup before it goes out to the customers. Is it too salty or too bland? Managers need to do that too, or have someone in their machine do it for them, for every outcome they’re responsible for. People who are delegated this task are called “taste testers.”
Have as many eyes looking for problems as possible. Encourage people to bring problems to you. If everyone in your area feels responsible for the area’s well-being and no one is afraid to speak up, you will learn about problems when they are still easy to fix and haven’t caused serious damage. Stay in sync with the people who are closest to the most important functions.
“Pop the cork.” It’s your responsibility to make sure communications from your people flow freely, so encourage it by giving them plenty of opportunities to speak up. Don’t just expect them to provide you with regular and honest feedback, explicitly ask them for it.
Realize that the people closest to certain jobs probably know them best. At the very least, they have perspectives you need to understand, so make sure you see things through their eyes.
Be very specific about problems; don’t start with generalizations. For example, don’t say, “Client advisors aren’t communicating well with the analysts.” Be specific: Name which client advisors aren’t doing this well and in which ways. Start with the specifics and then observe patterns.
Avoid the anonymous “we” and “they,” because they mask personal responsibility. Things don’t just happen by themselves, they happen because specific people did or didn’t do specific things. Don’t undermine personal accountability with vagueness. Instead of the passive generalization or the royal “we,” attribute specific actions to specific people: “Harry didn’t handle this well.” Also avoid “We should...” or “We are...” and so on. Since individuals are the most important building blocks of any organization and since individuals are responsible for the ways things are done, mistakes must be connected to those individuals by name. Someone created the procedure that went wrong or made the faulty decision. Glossing over that can only slow progress toward improvement.