Stop waiting - ask and you shall recieve

I've always wanted a mentor. You could say I have a father figure issue and I'd be the first to agree but it's not relevant. I've recently figured out that in the Theory of Constraints you may learn from the past but other than that you basically let it be gone. It doesn't make much difference how you got to where you are, the thing that's really relevant is how to get to where you're going. So, as I was saying, I've always wanted a mentor.

After I began writing in the TOC groups and in this blog I, subconsciously of course, started a waiting game. I was waiting for someone to pick up a cue of my need, step forward and offer to help me. Impudent, I know (oh, the wonders of retrospect), but I was terrified of asking. Why? basically a whole load of excuses, no real valid reason. I just felt I had no right, it wasn't polite and that kind of hogwash. I told you all I have are excuses. The only thing I can say is I was afraid of consequences without putting a moments thought into why.

Another thing I realize in retrospect is that I have been offered the help I wanted many times in the past. Thing is, just as my requests were not straightforward so were the offers. I was weary of asking straight out in case I would offend someone or be turned down. In much the same way the people who were reaching out to me did not state it straight out, probably in order to make sure not to offend me if they misunderstood. Well, I hope I'm done with playing that kind of immature game. Better late than never. This doesn't change the facts, though - I was stuck, not in a very good place and I was not liking it. Still, I waited. Still, I was afraid to change anything.

When I look now at Goldratt's 4 quadrants of change, I guess I was under the spell of "The Siren". Do you remember that, in some sea going folklore, sirens are mermaids that tempt the sailors and then drawn them?
Well, as I see it, this holds true in daily life as well. The "siren" is that comfortable settling for less, the place where fear of change glorifies the current situation way beyond its truthful value and at the same time vilifies the risks of change to the extreme. When the "siren" sings, the minuscule risk of getting a negative answer that will simply leave things as they are (=nothing to lose, no?) will seam unbearable, best leave things as they are and not risk it.....

There is a parable going around email kingdom. It is about a guru that forces his student to kill the only cow of a poor family. When the student returns, full of guilt, to right the wrong he has done at his guru's bidding, he finds the family became reach. The family explains that when they had the cow and it gave a little milk, they made do with what they had. One day the cow died and they could no longer make do, they had to figure out another way and when they did they realized they could do so much more and have so much more. So sometimes we are forced out of the spell of the siren, someone comes along and "kills" our "cow". That does not happen often.

My claim is that we should not let the spell of the siren control us. We should not wait helplessly for others to come and free us. If ever we are paralyzed by the idea of change or of taking a risk, if ever we encounter a rejection to a change we offer that seems to come from a place of paralysis, we need to use our logic, the analysis tools and a little courage and break free.

So I want to thank Jim, Lisa and the others for offering so kindly to help me out. Thanks Jim for all the help and for leading me to success. It was a lot of hard work but it was not hard as I made it out to be!!!

Have you ever struggled to overcome the siren? Please share your experience. Do you know someone still under the spell? Please send them this post.

How We Communicate is Important

When  was in Kiev (yes, I know you know I went to the conference, but I WAS in Kiev when this happened) I kept thinking of you, the readers of my blog and how I will post this and post that. One thing I thought about was this advertisement clip. The post was clear to me, the subject, the connection to Theory of Constraints, everything. But by the time I got around to digging it up I could not remember what got me going in the first place. It still feels right, though.

I find this clip has a very powerful message about communication and conflict situations. I suggest you watch it first with the audio OFF! Now before you run it again with the audio on, let me tell you these two actresses are doing a great job here. Of course there is a catch, but I won't tell you what it is, turn on the sound and hear for yourself.

{BTW, I noticed a lot of readers view this blog through a translating site, so if English is not for your ears, I've added a transcript below for the translating tool, as the text is relevant}

Here's what I see here, when we find ourselves conflicting with others we many times get into a "fight" mode. Think back about arguments and fights you've had over the years. As soon as the disagreement starts we become entrenched in our own corner, defending our needs or wants or point of view with all our might. This is greatly intensified if, coming into the 'discussion', we predict the other side will not react as planned. We are armed and ready and so we are ready to misinterpret any of her reactions as a declaration of war. Now, as soon as we go into "fight" mode we turn off "communication" mode and thus we stop listening to others and start listening only to our inner voice. We hear only those things that can serve as "ammunition" in the next "round". Do you remember this Magritte painting?

Well, can you agree that an argument is not communication, then?

As stated here, the Theory of Constraints requires change and it requires cooperation from others. To get others to cooperate with the change offered communication must be used to get buy in and commitment. You can't argue your way into convincing them that you understand and that you have a valuable offer.

Satisficing

Theory of Constraint talks a lot about avoiding local optima, about maximizing the system and not its parts. This leads to road runner ethics, to making sure we are not trying to be more accurate than the noise in the system and so forth. The Theory of Constraints solutions tell us what to do at a good enough granularity. The rules are simple. Don't protect every step, protect the system by protecting the constraint, maintain flow. The tools are there. DBR and sDBR, CCPM, Logistics. So what's the problem?

The problem is there is still a void, although it seems to be just a verbal one. If we are not optimizing, if we are not "doing the best we can", than what are we doing? We can't just brush this off as being "just a verbal thing, just definitions", definitions are the starting point of clear thinking, as Dr Goldtratt taught us repeatedly.

There is another reason that makes this important. While the human logic can accept fuzziness, our subconsciousness can't, and that's where it counts the most, since most of our decision making is actually done there, at the most instinctive level. There are no voids in the subconscious mind and there are no gray areas. Like Master Yoda said in one of the Star War movies: "Do, or do not, there is not try". That's your subconscious mind for you.

So, for our subconscious mind not "doing the best we can" is, actually "not doing the best we can" or, if we'll put English grammar aside for a second, "doing NOT the best we can". Which sounds bad, doesn't it?
So, we really need a good name for not optimizing. That name, to me, should be "satisficing", a term I first heard during my MBA from Prof. Boaz Ronen, a TOC disciple in the academic world.
Satisficing means being good enough, not perfect. It has lots of merits. It reduces "analysis paralysis" and stress levels, allows for better flow through faster outputs  (I demonstrated this while discussing the hiring process here) and it sounds good.

What do you think?

Edited to add:
Following the replies I got here and on LinkedIn, I guess satisficing needs a bit more elaboration. Here's an easy example - say I have to prepare a birthday bash for a 6 years old and my goal is to make that 6 years old as happy as possible. I know I'll make a chocolate cake, cover it with chocolate cream and decorate it. Once the cake is ready I can make this cake:   decorated with M&Ms and a sugar paste "Happy Birthday". Time invested is about 1 hr and child is very happy.

On the other hand, I can make this cake: covered with sugar paste and decorated with sugar paste designs. Time invested 4-5 hrs (at least) and child is very happy, perhaps a bit more than with the first cake but not significantly so.

Both cakes are eaten up at about the same rate.


(yep, I made both of these cakes, and other "optimizer" cakes you can see here.There is room for hobbies in this wold, IMHO)

What we see is that I can go for a satisfactory cake or an optimal cake. The result, in goal units of child happiness, will not vary substantially, the only difference is the effort I put in. The first cake demonstrates satisficing - doing the necessary, the sufficient and nothing over that. The second cake demonstrates optimizing - doing the necessary, the sufficient and everything else, trying to be perfect.

One last thought (Thanks Henry for bringing it up) - whatever you do, it has to move you in the right direction. It is not enough to "do it right", you have to "do the right thing right"

I'd love to hear what you think about this.

Overcoming Resistance to Change - Isn't It Obvious?

A lovely video by Goldratt's people. I truely found this to be an eye opener.

When you need to conduct a change - first analyse it from your point of view in all 4 quadrants, then try to understand the other party's point of view and figure out, in advance, how to minimize the risks and loses. While Dr. Goldratt has a book by the same name, the topic of this video is hardly covered in it.