{"id":913,"date":"2011-07-23T12:18:39","date_gmt":"2011-07-23T12:18:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=913"},"modified":"2011-07-23T12:18:39","modified_gmt":"2011-07-23T12:18:39","slug":"intention-decision-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=913","title":{"rendered":"Intention-Decision-Action"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Many of us use the terms\u00a0\u201ceffective\u201d and \u201cefficient\u201d and\u00a0we assume that if we achieve both at the same time then we can call it “success”. They are certainly both necessary but are they sufficient? If they were then every process that was both effective (zero mistakes) and efficient (zero waste) would be hailed a success.\u00a0This is\u00a0our hypothesis and\u00a0to disprove it\u00a0we only need one example where it fails. Let us see if we can find one in our collective experience.<\/p>\n

Threats focus our attention more than opportunities.\u00a0When our\u00a0safety is at risk it is\u00a0a sensible strategy to give the threat\u00a0our full attention\u00a0– and our caveman wetware has a built-in personal threat management system: it is called the Fright, Flight, Fight response.\u00a0The FFF is coordinated by the oldest, most unconscious\u00a0bits of our wetware and\u00a0we know it as the\u00a0fast heart, dry mouth, cold sweat reaction – or\u00a0adrenalin rush. When we perceive a threat we are hard-wired to generate\u00a0the\u00a0emotion called\u00a0fear, and this tells us we need to make a decision between two actions: to stand our ground or to run away. The decision needs to be made quickly because the outcome of it may determine our survival – so we need a quick,\u00a0effective and efficient\u00a0way to do it. If we choose to “fight” then another emotion takes over – anger – and\u00a0it\u00a0hijacks our rationality:\u00a0arguments, fights, battles and wars are all tangible manifestations of\u00a0our collective\u00a0reaction\u00a0–\u00a0and when the conditions are just right\u00a0even a single word or action may be perceived as a\u00a0threat and\u00a0trigger\u00a0an argument, then a fight, then a\u00a0battle, then a war – a classic\u00a0example of a\u00a0positive feedback loop\u00a0that can literally explode into an unstoppable orgy of death and destruction.<\/p>\n

Can we measure the\u00a0“success” of our hard-wired\u00a0FFF\u00a0system:\u00a0let us consider the outcome of a war – a winner and a loser; and let us also count the cost of a war – lots of\u00a0valuable resources consumed\u00a0and lots of dead people on both sides. Wars\u00a0inflict high costs\u00a0on both sides and the “loser” is\u00a0the one who loses most – the winner loses too – just less. But is it all negative? If it were then no one would ever do it – so there must be some tangible benefit. When the sides are unequally matched the\u00a0victor\u00a0can survive\u00a0the losses and can grow from\u00a0“absorbing” what remains of the\u00a0loser. This is the\u00a0dog-eat-dog world of survival of the strongest and represents\u00a0another positive feedback loop – he who has most\u00a0takes\u00a0more.<\/p>\n

Threats focus our attention and if we are not at immediate\u00a0risk then they can also stimulate our creativity – and what is learned in the process of managing a threat can be of lasting value after the threat has passed.\u00a0 Many of the benefits we enjoy today were \u201cstimulated\u201d by the threats in WWII – for example: digital computers\u00a0were invented to assist making ballistics calculations and\u00a0for breaking enemy secret codes. Much of the theory, techniques and tools of Improvement Science were developed during WWII to increase the productivity of weapons-of-war creation – and they have been applied more\u00a0constructively in peacetime.\u00a0 Wars are created by\u00a0people and the “great” warriors create\u00a0the\u00a0most effective and\u00a0efficient lose-lose processes. Using\u00a0threats to drive creativity\u00a0is a low-productivity design –\u00a0ee can do much better than that – surely?<\/p>\n

So, our experience suggests\u00a0that effectiveness and efficiency are not enough – there seems to be a piece missing – and this piece is “intention”. Our Purpose.\u00a0 This insight explains why\u00a0asking the \u201cWhat is our purpose?\u201d question is so revealing:\u00a0 if you do not get a reply it is likely that your\u00a0audience is seeing challenge as a battle – and the First Rule of War is never to reveal your intention to your enemy – so their\u00a0battle metaphor\u00a0prevents them from answering honestly. If you do get an answer it is very often a \u201cto do\u201d answer rather than a \u201cto get\u201d one – unconsciously masking purpose with process and side-stepping the issue.\u00a0 Their language gives it away though\u00a0– processes are flagged by verbs, purposes are flagged by nouns – so\u00a0if you listen to what they say then you can tell.\u00a0 The other likely answer is a question: not a question for clarification,\u00a0a question for deflection and the objective is\u00a0more threat-assessment data and more\u00a0thinking and preparation time.<\/p>\n

If the answer to the Purpose Question is immediate, an outcome, and positive then the respondent is not using\u00a0a war meta-program;\u00a0they do not\u00a0view the challenge as a threat\u00a0and they do\u00a0see a creative opportunity for improvement – they see it as a Race. Their intention is improvement for all on all dimensions: quality, delivery and money – and they recognise that healthy competition can be good for both. Do not be fooled – they are neither weak not stupid – if\u00a0they perceive a safety threat they will deploy\u00a0all their creative resources to eliminate\u00a0it.<\/p>\n

One of the commonest\u00a0errors of commission is to eliminate healthy competition; which is what happens\u00a0when\u00a0we have not learned how to challenge with respect:\u00a0we have let things\u00a0slip\u00a0to the point that we are forced\u00a0to fight or flee. We have not\u00a0held ourselves to account and we have not learned to ask the\u00a0ourselves \u201cWhat is my purpose?\u201d\u00a0People need to have a purpose to channel their effectivess and efficiency – and processes also need a\u00a0purpose because\u00a0socio-economic systems are the combination of people and processes.<\/p>\n

The purpose for any\u00a0socioeconomic system\u00a0is\u00a0the generic phrase \u201cright-thing, right-place, right-price, on-time, first-time, every-time\u201d and\u00a0is called the system goal.\u00a0 The purpose of a\u00a0specific process or person within that system\u00a0will be aligned to the goal\u00a0and there are two parts to this: the \u201cright-\u201d parts which are a matter of subjectivity and\u00a0the \u201c-time\u201d parts which are a matter of objectivity.\u00a0The process must be\u00a0designed to deliver the objectives – and\u00a0before we know what to do we must understand how to decide what to do; and before we know how to decide we must have the wisdom and courage to ask the question and to state our purpose. Intention – Decision – Action.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Many of us use the terms\u00a0\u201ceffective\u201d and \u201cefficient\u201d and\u00a0we assume that if we achieve both at the same time then we can call it “success”. They are certainly both necessary but are they sufficient? If they were then every process that was both effective (zero mistakes) and efficient (zero waste) would be hailed a success.\u00a0This … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Intention-Decision-Action”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32,35],"tags":[160],"class_list":["post-913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-productivity","category-reflections","tag-long-term-survival"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/913\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}