All entries for Tuesday 20 January 2009
January 20, 2009
Working on the PIUSS project we decided to divide the questions among us. It is not the best way learning-wise however is the quickest way and for us now, the quicker the better.
Anyway, did a lot of reading on variation and it`s very easy to relate Deming`s understanding of variation with 6 Sigma. However is not so easy to relate it on an isolated way to Psychology. That is funny since Psy is related to pretty much everything.
So I had a long discussion about it with Cristal and Gilbert on the computer lab. We reached two conclusions, first (and obvious) is that a holistic vision is always needed (and actually Deming says that himself, all parts must be applied together). Psychology must be understood alongside variation, theory of knowledge and appreciation of a system. Secondly is that exactly for being part of all psychology can be related to everything, after all organisations are made of people....But I`d think the best connection between psychology on the SoPK and 6 sigma would be the need of conduct change in which psychology can help but 6 Sigma can also help since it is a structured and tested way. Even the fact that the name "six sigma"is famous can be o f great help to conduct change.
I read this entry by Jing Jing and something that I`ve longed thought of came to my mind. To explain it I`ll go through a small personal history.
I have always liked to be in front of things so many years ago I was an intern in a company (actually a British one in Brazil) an they decided to hire a large number of interns at the same time to build the team of a new department they were creating. They divided us in teams of about 3-4 people each to handle different activities and at first they did not specify anyone to be "responsible" for each team, we were generally managed by the same person. But naturally each team ended up having an informal leader that was naturally recognised as so by everyone else (later it became formal, but I was already working in another area).
I was the leader of my team. We had an activity that was not fun, was kind of boring and repetitive but was probably the most risky one because one mistake could represent real losses for both the company and the client. I`m glad to say that compared to tha amount of transactions we handled we rarely committed mistakes, even though we once committed a big one that really was our fault, but since I was the leader I assumed it as my mistake, but in the other hand I`m ashamed to say that looking backwards we were so naive and had so little control and no understanding at all about processes, systems, etc. Anyway, we managed to be a very close and united team and even though the work was boring an repetitive we were proud together.
But there was something that gave me pleasure. I loved problems. When we had a problem or a complaint/question from our internal clients, even though that was a potential mistake we committed (most of the time it wasn`t) I liked because I had to investigate, to figure it out. Basically I loved outing "fires" of. It is understandable but it is also stupid. I liked being the hero and fixing things up. I liked the heroic leader thing. In my defence I have to say that I soon realised that rationally that was stupid, that even though my boss liked it and it put in me in a good position I`ve already understood that the simple fact that we had problems meant we had bad processes and planning. A heroic leader on that sense, someone who puts fires off is a bad thing. But as the literature recognises he is frequently praised and rewarded. I realised that many years ago (even though I benefited from it) and I`m glad all authors agree on that.
Of course JingJing posts can also refer to the heroic leader in the sense of the guy who had nothing to do with the lack of planning before and steps in to fix it. Churchill on WW2, Obama now, etc etc etc.
But the real good leader is the one who is able to avoid problems, is the unsung hero who prevents problems. But people do not see it....