Monday, July 30, 2007

Balancing Efficiency with Creativity

The Jakarta Post, Features, July 29, 2007
Published as "How to balance efficiency with creativity"
Dewi Susanti & Kayee Man


Any company or institution needs to have a workable system in order for the organization to function properly. For most of us, our first instinct is to ensure effectiveness and efficiency in such a way that productivity and therefore profit-making can be maximized.

As part of planning, and in relation to the future projection of what we aim to achieve, we often need to create a plan along with a system that organizes people and supporting instruments to nourish the plan. We maintain that people and instruments of support should abide by this system in order to achieve the goal.

But we should be aware that the system, rather than serving to support the plan and the goal, often turns into rules that become set in stone. This means that adhering to the rules to achieve a goal becomes more important than the goal itself. As such, it doesn't provide enough room to accommodate changes, to respond to opportunities that we find along the way and, more importantly, to encourage creativity to occur during the process.

Through this article, we aim to discuss how a rigid system could also mean not taking advantage of the ability of human resources to be creative and to make decisions. We will give several examples of work systems that undermine or encourage human capacity, and invite suggestions for how we might strike a balance between creativity and efficiency.


Efficiency vs. flexibility

In the past three years, Dewi has been thinking about going back to school. She started applying for scholarships and, last year, passed the application process and was nominated as a candidate to receive a scholarship for a PhD program. She applied for several, and was accepted into a master's program at a top university of her first choice. Assuming that scholarship programs were created for giving suitable and motivated candidates an opportunity to study, Dewi appealed that her scholarship application fund the master's program.

She met with the executive director of the institution administering the scholarships and was informed that the scholarship she had been nominated for could not be used to support the master's program and that the institution had little authority over the decision-making process for the scholarship program.

She was advised to reapply for the scholarship program, which could specifically be used for the master's program. The application process would take another year. While she realized that the system must have been made in order to avoid individual bias over a candidate, the institution's role had been diminished to the rigid administrative processing of the applications.

The system not only undermined the thinking abilities of the people who work for the institution, but also wasted resources unnecessarily.

The advice to reapply entailed that the institution would have lost its human resources time and a considerable amount of funding that had been used to help Dewi get into a university. Multiply this by the hundreds of candidates that have been in similar conditions with Dewi over the course of decades and you will get a picture of the huge loss that could have been used to fund more scholarships instead.

A system designed for effectiveness in this case had resulted in a stifling of individual contribution, wasteful use of resources and, in Dewi's view, missing the aim of the organization for which it was established.

This example represents one of the many traps that are often encountered at large companies and institutions. How do we create an accountable and efficient system while allowing individual contribution and flexible decision-making?

*****

3M is another example of how growth can stifle individual contribution. The company is well-known for its inventiveness. Many of its products, like Post-it notes, masking tape, Scotch cellophane tape were products that 3M literally stumbled upon, rather than invented out of purposeful and planned strategy. 3M's inventiveness is often attributed to its rule that allows employees to allocate up to 15 percent of their time to projects that are a product of their own interests.

Yet, a recent article in Business Week Online (June 11, 2007) indicated that even 3M stumbled on hard times when it came to remaining innovative in this highly competitive world. In the past decade, the company has not produced anything that could justify its legacy. The article reported that it was due to a different shift in the management of the company, and the introduction of Six Sigma as an attempt to make 3M more efficient.

This more efficient system apparently also stifled creativity at 3M. Indeed, effective and efficient systems do not seem to go along well with encouraging individual creativity and decision-making.

How, we wonder, may we bring the two together?
The answer seems to be counterintuitive: loosen up the system.


Creativity can boost effectiveness

We shall illustrate this with the example of the architecture of Stata Building, the center for Computer Sciences and Artificial Intelligence at MIT, designed by Frank Gehry who is most well-known for his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.

Architectural critic Robert Campbell recently wrote about the building with lots of unprogrammed (unplanned for) space: " ... an efficiency expert would call it a total waste," and pointed to the incoherent organization of the corridors that causes people to get lost in the building.

But most of the occupants seem to love the incoherent organization of the corridors that put them into chance meetings with people from different departments, and for the many unprogrammed spaces that allow informal chats and meetings to happen across the disciplines.

In an interview with Frank Gehry, Campbell revealed that the architect intended for the seemingly obscure organization of the corridors and spaces because the brief specified: " ... there are seven separate departments that never talk to each other. [But] when they talk to each other, if they get together, they synergize and make things happen, and it's gangbusters." (Business Week Online, June 19, 2007.)

This brings us to the point that creativity can provide effective solutions to problems. The process of getting there and the outcome often do not take us through the most efficient way, but if it effectively solves the problem, should we not give more room for creativity?

Effective and efficient systems would, as in our effective and efficient building example above, see unprogrammed systems and spaces as wasteful, and accordingly, decisions would be made for what is seemingly optimally and financially more viable.

But as we have seen from both 3M and the Stata Building examples, if anything, it is the unprogrammed spaces and systems that provide buffer zones for creative ideas to happen.

Allowing time for employees to come up with new ideas has been shown by research to be an essential element for creativity to occur within an organizational context. Yet again, this is counterintuitive to the efficient systems espoused by highly organized workplaces.

The challenge is how to create a system that allows enough room for flexibility and creativity while at the same time ensuring that the system is not so relaxed that efficiency and productivity are undermined. This challenge also lies in finding the appropriate laxity within a specific culture.

*****

In the first four years since the founding of our company, Kayee set out a company policy for flexible working hours. Anyone could come in late or leave early as long as deadlines were met and meetings started on time. Realizing that people have different productive times and sometimes have to take care of personal matters, the aim of this policy is to cater to individual needs while still tapping into their productive and creative hours.

But over the course of the years, it became harder and harder to maintain such a system, because people came in late even when meetings had been announced in advance, and deadlines were not met.

What Kayee realized in the end was that it would take a high level of self-discipline and individual respect for the system and everyone involved for the system to work. In the end, to her great dismay, Kayee abolished flexible working hours.

An overly rigid system stifles individual creativity. We are still searching for the organizational formula for the laxity needed for creativity in an efficient system, within an Indonesian cultural context (or is it our company culture?).

How might we create a buffer zone for creativity within an Indonesian context? All suggestions are welcome.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

On Self Motivation

The Jakarta Post, Features, July 15, 2007
Published as "How to maintain self-motivation"
Kayee Man & Dewi Susanti

Oka, our coworker, recently asked Kayee: what keeps you going when you're motivation is low?Specifically, he was referring to work. Off the top of her head, Kayee answered that it was a vision of her future that keeps her going when it gets tough. She also answered on behalf of Dewi -- it wasn't that difficult. Dewi prefers working to socializing, so when she's in the office, work is her only option, really.

We're surrounded by people with varying levels of motivation. We hit a trough in the office when the configuration of people with low motivation resulted in what appeared to be more like a plague of the unmotivated. We are a small team and the phenomenon recurs periodically. At times, it really does feel like a chronic disease that is incurable.

Money can only motivate people so far: We can always dangle a carrot in front of people to edge them along, but the carrot doesn't seem to stretch that far along the path of motivation. Goals and challenges are useful as motivators if they are meaningful to individuals.

We, being idealists, believe that the key to a successful organization is to have a team of intrinsically motivated people. That is, people who work because they get self-satisfaction from what they do and because they want to do what they have to do. Which brings us back to our coworker's question: What enables us to keep working when we're not really in the mood to do what we have to?

Kayee has already suggested looking to the future. When confronted with a task that she'd really prefer to leave until tomorrow (ideally, for all eternity), what boots Kayee into action is the big picture she has in mind for what she wants to achieve.

Also, seeing how a task, which she'd love to see disappear by the wave of a magic wand, actually fits into the big picture. When the dreaded task realizes itself as a necessary piece of the jigsaw of one's vision of life, one would or should just get on with it.

Of course, this requires one to have a strong vision of oneself in the future. Lets call it a self-vision. Martin Luther King set us a great example when he said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'"


Self-discipline strategies

Even with strong self-vision, to crank out the work that is the bane of one's life requires self-discipline: "I shall not leave my chair until this piece of writing is done. I shall reward myself with a long chitchat with friends when the 50 powerpoint slides are done" are just a couple of strategies Kayee uses. Kayee's biggest motivator for being self-disciplined in getting work done is the image of an evening at home without a laptop on her bed.

Dewi does not think that she is as self-disciplined as her brother who would wake up early on weekend mornings and run for an hour and do weightlifting for two hours in the afternoons (she would rather sleep in or lounge), or like her architect friends who would enter competitions just to entertain their minds. So Dewi's strategy for being self-disciplined is to set goals that have externalities to them. These can come in several ways.

The first is to be mindful that missing a deadline will affect other people. Being immersed in a team means that if she (or anyone else) misses the deadline, it will affect other people's work and the progress of the team. Dewi just would not want to bear the responsibility of dragging the whole team back and being on the blame.

The second externality is to align some of her work with goals that are set up by external institutions. In anything she does, she likes to think how doing one thing can serve more than one goal.

For example, while teaching an architectural studio, she would combine it with researching on how students learn, what modules tick them off more than others, what motivates them, etc. While doing this, she would think of how what she has learned could fit into a theme for a conference or seminar somewhere with set deadlines for submission of abstract and paper. If one goal fails to motivate her (for example students being lazy), then she has another to look forward to.

But apart from these externalities, like most people who challenge themselves to do something, Dewi would incrementally raise her own bar in doing things.

Like her brother who would incrementally add either time or weight or speed to his exercises, Dewi would incrementally challenge herself to do better training (albeit using the same underlining module), not to repeat what she has done before or the way she has done it, to aim for more prestigious conferences or seminars, etc.

Now, self-discipline calls for self-control. Kayee must confess that, at times, it takes nothing less than being handcuffed to her laptop to control herself from moving away from her work space to the point of distraction.

We see it a lot happening in our office: the inability to control one's body and mind to physically be at a work station and mentally be focused on some task. If being strong-willed isn't your forte, we suggest the following: Lock yourself in an empty room and give someone the key.


Learning from our mistakes

What we have witnessed over the years is the tendency to apportion blame when work doesn't get done. The problem with this is that we tend not to blame ourselves when things don't go as planned at work. We blame others: The system, the policies, the process, the management, the leadership are common victims of blame.

Our contention isn't that the above are never the cause of work failures, but that a lack of self-management is often as much to blame as external forces when things go wrong or do not get done at work.

After sitting down with a number of coworkers for a chat (read: "tell me why your work isn't done"), Kayee can conclude with some authority: A big contributor to why workers don't get work done is because they cannot manage their time and tasks. Which leads us to our next point: we need to self-reflect.

Self-reflection is a very uncomfortable process, because it often means admitting to our own shortcomings and failures. Perhaps in Kayee's cases, these have been so blatantly clear that attempting to lay blame on others would just be a waste of energy. Now, we know better than to get into self-defense mode; when things go wrong, we ask ourselves how and why did things go wrong and what was our role in the failed process.

Having a sense of humor helps, as does accepting the fact that we can't be perfect and as the cliche goes ... we can all learn from our mistakes and failings and be better workers. Self-reflection deflects self-defense. We really should start doing some serious thinking when everything and everyone else is at fault except me.

Finally, self-reflection should lead to self-adjustment. What have I learned? What did I do well? What should I do differently in the future? What should I do to do better next time? are only some examples of what we should expect from productive self-reflections. In short, a future self-image can drive us to be self-disciplined in our work. This can keep us going when our motivation is low to complete tasks.

Being self-disciplined requires self-control and self-management. Self-management requires one to self-reflect so that we can self-adjust. What is the result of all this?

Harry Emerson Fosdick said it best: "No horse gets anywhere until he is harnessed. No stream or gas drives anything until it is confined. No Niagara is ever turned into light and power until it is tunneled. No life ever grows great until it is focused, dedicated, disciplined."

Admittedly, it can be very tiring mentally to have to be on top of all things at all times. What does our friend Oka do when he has reached this point? He watches movies and reads inspiring books. Dewi signs up for yoga retreats. It's called self-rejuvenation!

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Vision & Change

The Jakarta Post, Features, 1 July 2007
Published as "Vision, change and life goals"
Dewi Susanti & Kayee Man

As you go about your daily life and routine, both personally and professionally, how often do you wonder where your life is heading and how your present activities might contribute to your life in the future? Or do you tend to live for the day and not get too worried about where you are heading in life?

Having a personal goal, a vision for a company, an objective for a project are all important things to have -- or so we've heard from many.

But as most of us know by experience, our path toward a goal, a vision, or an objective, doesn't come in a straight red-carpeted line with people on both sides to cheer us on along the way. More often than not, the road toward our intended destination is obscure, dotted with roundabouts, full of ups and downs with seemingly no road signs or people around to guide us.

Alternatively, there is a temptation to dwell in a cozy corner we have encountered and be reluctant to move on. When we have a clear view of what's before us, surrounded by people whose company we enjoy and love, why would we choose to set our feet on an unclear path?

Why leave a comfort zone you already have now for an obscure goal that you may or may not achieve? Sure, if it gets you to where you want to be, the chances are you will feel more satisfied. But there is also the risk of losing the security you already have -- security that you will most likely never get back if you took the plunge.

This contemplation may come to most people who are going through major change in their lives -- be it personally or professionally -- such as those thinking about leaving a job, changing their career path or moving to a foreign place or country.

Similarly, companies are also faced with having to make major decisions. These may require them to cut back on employees, change regulations, terminate production or alter lines of business.

Change is a natural course of life. As noted by Henry A. Wallace, "The only certainty in life is change". Prevailing circumstances can force change to happen, but at other times, deliberate change is needed to realign one's self.

Yet if we have a clear goal, vision, or direction, we may not have to worry so much about the risks involved.

Here's why: When someone makes a decision, he is really diving into a strong current that will carry him to places he had never dreamed of when he first made the decision. We wished we had come up with that preceding sentence, but real credit is due to Paulo Coelho in his best-selling book The Alchemist.


Many ways to Rome

Like sailing in the sea, life often takes us to experiences and places we had never dreamed of. Like getting to a destination in the sea, life very much represents the Indonesian saying of banyak jalan menuju Roma (there are many ways leading to Rome); as in the sea, there is no set road leading to the destination.

Yet, like sailing in the sea, without a goal, the boat will drift away with no set trajectory and, at the end of the day, the boat will probably get lost in the big ocean, going nowhere. Of course, the journey of life itself can mean as much as reaching a goal. Perhaps we'll use an illustration from The Alchemist to make our point.

The Alchemist tells a story about a shepherd boy who wants to find the secret of turning metal into gold. While on his way to find an alchemist who would become his teacher, the boy meets a man who gives him a spoon filled with oil, and asks him to take the spoon around a city without spilling the oil.

Seeing this as a test, the boy had his focus on the oil, making sure it doesn't spill. When he returns, however, the man asks him what he saw in the city. The boy admits he didn't see anything. So the man sends him off again, to make sure the boy would see the city the second time around. Having never visited the city, the boy was really excited, forgot about the oil in the spoon and spilled all of it.

The man then said: "The secret of happiness is to see all the marvels of the world, and never to forget the drops of oil on the spoon".

Like the boy, we tend to be either focused on the drops of oil -- the objective of one's life at any given moment -- or on the marvels of the world, the enjoyment of living itself. Although a balance between the two is hard to find, it is not impossible to align what we are currently working on with our objectives in life, and enjoy the process at the same time. Just for good measure, we must also throw in the need and ability to adapt to or create change along the way.

In their highly acclaimed book Built to Last, James C. Collins and Jerry I. Porras maintain that it is not enough for a company to have a goal. In their words: "But core ideology alone, as important as it is, does not -- indeed cannot -- make a visionary company. A company can have the world's most deeply cherished and meaningful core ideology, but if it just sits still or refuses to change, the world will pass it by."


Boeing policy for change

The authors tell the story of the time Boeing, which up until the World War II was producing military airplanes, decided to develop a prototype for commercial jet aircraft. The decision was made despite the fact that 80 percent of their business had come from the Air Force, the sales reports for commercial airlines in both the United States and Europe were not interested in a commercial jet from Boeing and that the prototype would cost them roughly a quarter of Boeing's entire corporate net worth.

Boeing's decision made it become a major player in the commercial aircraft industry and brought the jet age into commercial airline traveling. Boeing also left behind McDonnell-Douglas, which "made the explicit decision to stick with piston propellers and take a cautious wait-and-see approach to commercial jet aircraft. Douglas waited and saw Boeing fly right past and seize dominant control of the commercial market. ... in 1958, Douglas introduced the DC-8, but never caught up with Boeing" (Collins & Porras, 1991, p.91-92).

If we pay close attention to the changes that have occurred in the past decades, we will realize that changes have happened at an exponential rate in comparison to previous decades. Informational technology is probably the most obvious example of life-altering changes.

Nowadays, a personal computer (PC) is a common feature in a household. Most of us reading The Jakarta Post are likely to have one computer in our offices and another at home. Yet, the PC is a foreign, intimidating object for people of our parents' generation.

Our ability to adapt to these changes is the key to our being able to survive and compete within the workforce. And if we want to stay ahead -- set the trend, so to speak -- the chances are we will have to create changes that others will have to adapt to.

In the words of Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, "You can't just keep doing what works one time, because everything around you is always changing. To succeed, you have to stay out in front for that change."

To reiterate: it is important to have an objective in life either in the form of personal aspiration or a vision for a company. Yet, while living toward this objective, we should also enjoy the marvels of the world and be open to and even drive changes.

Resistance to change is a major block to creativity and problem solving (James L. Adams, professor emeritus at Stanford University).

Without our openness to and drive for change, we will not only undermine the achievement of our own life goals but also shut out our own chances of contributing to progress in society.