When it comes to working on problems, and especially wicked ones, a key insight is “Structure is Always Better than Good Intentions!”  Success with problems is tied directly to creating a structured process for finding and attacking problems.  In the last post, I described two structured approaches to finding and dealing with organizational problems:  GE’s Work Out, and Google’s TGIF.

In the GE experience, once leaders, managers, employees and consultants became proficient in using Work Out to “mess with Mr. InBetween,” they realized that the problems they identified and worked on fell into two categories which they called  “Rattlers” and “Pythons.”

“Rattler” problems were named in respect to the rattlesnakes that are native to the American West.  Although  usually found in plain sight, coiled up on a rock, shaking their rattles to warn you if you got too close,  many people didn’t notice them.  Once they were pointed out, however, they were perfectly obvious to everyone.

Rattler problems were relatively easy to fix.  Once a rattler was recognized, the leader, without much risk, would draw his or her revolver out of its holster and blow its head off – a straightforward solution.  Problem found,  identified and named (“It’s a rattler”), and with one shot, problem solved. The group was ready to move on to the next problem.

“Pythons” were an entirely different kind of problem.  They were huge, much bigger than the rattlesnakes, and were slimy and repulsive.  They were never found in plain sight curled up on a rock taking the sun, but always submerged deep down into the muck and mud of the swampy part of the organizational culture.  They were seldom seen or even talked about, though many people had a vague sense that they existed.

When some intrepid “snake hunter” would announce that there was a python in the swamp and that something needed to be done about it, others would react with outrage and denial, often insisting that it couldn’t be true.  The “python announcer” would be in in jeopardy, seen as a “naysayer”and a complainer, and was often punished. Since people who were responsible for a python had consistently ignored it, or even benefited  from its presence, others quickly learned that it was not a good idea to announce the presence of a python in the swamp.

Dealing with a python turns out to be much more difficult than shooting off the head of a rattler.  Pythons can never be seen clearly, submerged as they are in the dank and murky waters of the swamp.  There is nothing to shoot at.  If a “Lone Ranger” tries to get close enough to get off a shot, he or she would be wasting ammunition;  or, even worse,  running a risk of the snake rearing up out of the muck, and dragging her down into the swamp to finish her off by throwing coil after coil of its massive body around him and squeezing him to death.

As  the GE people learned more about their python problems, they discovered that the traditional way of treating them – assuming that they were rattlers and and so what was called for was to shoot off their heads – was counterproductive.  When it came to pythons, what was required was a different approach. What worked best was to gather together a diverse group of people who, working together, could, find, name, and define the problem, each person bringing to the table a specific skill, specialized knowledge or unique insight.   First, a person was needed who could organize the group into an effective team in order to determine the nature of this specific python. Once it was identified and named,  it was essential to have on the team people who knew a lot about pythons and about the swamps they liked to hide in;  people who had wrestled pythons before;  and people who knew what to do with pythons once they were captured.

It was also essential to include on the team people who could  invent in real time new and different strategies for getting it under control.

And finally,  having enough human resources – arms, legs, minds and muscles – was crucial, so that once the python was found and exposed, members of the team could get down into the swamp,  get their arms around it, and  have enough strength to lift it out of the swamp and subdue it, all the while avoiding being pulled down and crushed.

There is a risk in bringing together a group of people to figure out what to do with a python.  If they only talk, talk,talk and then do nothing,  not only does the python gets bigger and stronger, but people will become cynical that any serious action will be taken.  In the meantime,  the python  will continue to hide out in the swamp and wreak its havoc.  Talking is never enough. Once  the members of the team have created an action plan for dealing with the python,  they need to get out of the conference room,  get down into the swamp, and confront the python head on!

It is clear that the GE  Work Out has been successful in many settings in dealing with both “rattlers” and “pythons.” Equally important were the important lessons that people learned about working on problems along the way. Many people, however,  when face-to-face with a difficult problem,  do not go beyond announcing  “It’s a rattler,” and quickly reach for their pistols.   After all, they think,” a problem is a problem is a problem,” and what you do with problems is solve them!

A classic example is the blatant approach presented by Ross Perot.  Founder of Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in 1962. Perot sold his company to General Motors in 1984, and immediately became a vociferous critic of how GM did things.  Bragging about those who came from EDS, he said in 1986, “The first EDSer who sees a snake kills it.  At General Motors, the first thing you do is organize a committee on snakes. Then you bring in a consultant who knows a lot about snakes.  Third thing you do is talk about it for a year.”

Perot was both right and wrong. He was right when he criticized GM for its tendency to  talk problems to death. He was wrong when he assumed that what was required was to “shoot all snakes.”  If the problem was a “rattler,” then he was on target.  But since most of the problems GM was struggling with at the time – and ever since – were pythons and not rattlers, he was very, very wrong.  You cannot shoot pythons and hope to accomplish anything.

Part of the problem that Perot was criticizing was that those in charge at GM, while well prepared to talk about shooting rattlers,  fired few shots because of bureaucratic restrictions. The situation was even more complicated by the fact that most of the problems were not rattlers at all but pythons, and the GM leaders didn’t know it. They needed help in understanding the difference!  Bringing in consultants who knew the difference between rattlers and pythons, and especially those who knew a lot about what it took to wrestle with pythons, would have been an excellent idea.

What is clear is that Perot, in his attack on GM, confused “rattlers” with “pythons.”  People who share this confusion – and there are many – usually hold several hidden assumptions about problems and what to do about them:

– Things are simple.  After all,  “A problem is a problem is a problem; ”

– I am expert in finding problems;

– I know what needs to be done;

– I have a pistol;

– I am a really good shot;

– I can shoot its head off;

– So let’s just Fire,  and don’t worry about Ready, Aim.

Actually, as we have seen, a problem is not a problem is not a problem.  While all problems have some elements in common, they are also different in important ways.

Let’s take one more  look at our “Problem Cowboy” who is busy reaching for his pistol:  First, what he thinks is the problem will almost always be seen differently by others.  Once other people  hear what our Cowboy thinks is the problem, they will often disagree:  “What you think is a problem,” they say, “is not really important.”  If our “cowboy” continues forward, he runs the risk of investing time, effort, and resources in trying to “fix” something that doesn’t need “fixing,” as well as alienating others who may have important insights to contribute.  Every situation involves other people in one way or another and they must be part of defining the problem before any actions are taken.

Second, our “cowboy” may be a bad shot, and when he pulls the trigger he may inflict collateral damage on innocent bystanders.

Third, if the problem is a python and not a rattler, taking pot shots may only make it angry!

And finally, a single individual with an itchy trigger finger needs to slow down, ask, listen, explore, and involve others, in order to learn what kind of a snake is out there, and, once there is a greater understanding of the problem,  work together with other people to decide what is best.  Pulling out a pistol and waving it around may be the worst thing to do!

In 1973, when Horst Riddle and Melvin Webber came up with the insight that problems can be divided into two categories – tame and wicked – they were clear in insisting the wicked problems were not necessarily evil or immoral except when they were treated as if they were tame.  Treating  pythons as if they were rattlers,  according to their view,  is not only wrong, but it also makes things worse.

GE’s experience with Rattlers and Pythons helps us come to a number of important conclusions about the pythons that are lurking all organizational swamps, some of which are these:

• There are important differences between problems.  They are not alike!
• What is required are “different takes on different snakes;”
• No matter how successful one has been in the past in shooting off the heads of rattlers, no single person knows enough or has the skill to take on a python alone.  
• When it comes to wrestling with pythons, more of us is better than one of us.
•  Since most people have had limited experience in getting pythons under control, working with teams whose members have a wide array of perspectives and skills is essential.
• Creative thinking and innovative actions will move things forward.  Thinking and acting differently are what is required.

GE’s experience with Work Out, and their discovery that the problems they uncovered fell into two different categories, supports our conviction about the existence and importance of tame and wicked problems, aka known as rattler and pythons.  Unfortunately, there are many people in key positions who think that all problems are rattlers, and, unaware that most of them are actually pythons hiding in the swamps, they are quick to pull out their pistols and blaze away.  When many of these problems refuse to die, and even seem to gain more life, they end up puzzled, confused, and  disappointed.  And then, all too often, they start looking for someone to blame.

October 20

During the difficult days of World War II, one of the most popular songs on everyone’s lips was an up-beat, optimistic, “sunny-side-of-the-street” tune by Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer called Accentuate the Positive.  Introduced by Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters in the 1944 movie, Here Come the Waves,  it was sung in the style of a sermon preaching that the path to happiness would be found by emphasizing the positive side of life.

Here are the words to the first stanza:

Who could disagree?

Accentuate the positive?  Yes, of course!  Eliminate the negative?  Make it happen!  Latch on to the affirmative?  Go for it!  Don’t mess with Mr. InBetween?  Sounds good, but wait a minute,  not so fast….  Not messing with Mr. InBetween turns out to be not such a good idea.  Why?  Because “InBetween” is where most of our most serious problems can be found.  Most of the problems that trouble us, that stop us from moving toward our goals, that interfere with good relationships, that insure the persistence of dysfunctional teams, that lead to failures in business and in government, are right there with Mr. InBetween:

• In between our good intentions and the consequences of our actions;
• In between what I think is the problem and what you think it is;
• In between our stated values, and what how we actually act;
• In between what we know we should do and what we end up doing;
• In between my thinking you are responsible for the problem, and you thinking that I am.
• In between what we say we will do and what we actually do.

It is only by getting acquainted with “Mr. InBetween” that we can come to understand what the problems really are, and then decidewhat we can do about them.

T. S. Eliot, in his poem The Hollow Men, was aware of the importance of “in-between” places.  His metaphor of ” Shadow” focuses our attention there:

          Between the idea
          and the reality
         Between the motion
         and the act
        Falls the Shadow

      Between the conception
      and the creation
      Between the emotion
      and the response
      Falls the Shadow

The “Shadow”  is that dark unknown place – between what we imagine we will do and what we actually do, between the “the motion and the act,” between the “conception and the creation,”  between our feelings and our responses, – where we find many of our problems.  If we want to see improvements, then we must move into the “Shadow,” make sense of what we find there, and then decide what to do.   It’s in Eliot’s Shadow that Mr. InBetween lives!

The idea of “in-between” suggests the existence of a Gap, that space, large or small, between where we are and where we want to be.  As I have suggested before, adopting Gap  Language is one of  our best opportunities of understanding and defining problems.   We frequently use the term”Gap”  to signal the presence of difficult and important problems:  The Gender Gap, the Achievement Gap, the Diversity Gap, the Income Gap, the Education Gap, to mention only a few.

Two of the most troublesome Gaps are  The Knowing-Doing Gap and The Not Knowing -Doing Anyway Gap.   The Knowing-Doing Gap is where we know what needs to be done, or what we should do, but we don’t do it.  Even more problematic is The Not Knowing-Doing Anyway Gap, where we don’t know what to do, but go ahead  and  do something anyway!  These gaps are the territory of Mr. InBetween, and unless we are willing to get down and dirty and”mess” with him, we have little chance of narrowing these Gaps and making things better.

Structure Trumps Good Intentions Every Time

Everyone wants to see their problems get solved, yet frequently we do not go beyond our good intentions.  If we are serious about addressing problems,  our good intentions are not enough.  Too often people say,  “Yes, of course we need to do something with this problem, and we will.  So let’s all do the best that we can,” and let it go at that.  Vague intentions not only don’t help, they may make things worse by creating unrealistic expectations. What is needed to “mess with Mr. InBetween” is to get into the Shadow and wrestle with the problems that reside there. And success over time in this wrestling match  requires  structure:  It is only through a well-executed sequence of planned and tested activities that will actually lead to change.

Here are two excellent examples from the business world:

GE’s Work Out:

First,  a brief definition of the GE Work Out:

GE Work Out is an internal process with clear rules and procedures for identifying, naming, and addressing the most important organizational problems by involving the people who have first-hand knowledge of the problems and by clearly assigning responsibilities for taking action.

The Work Out was developed during the 1980’s as way for GE to become more agile and successful in solving organizational problems.  Work Out began as an open and straightforward process of identifying real problems in real time.  Over the years, Work Out approaches have become more complicated as they were expanded to confront complex, embedded, long term problems.

Here is a simplified version of how it works:  A group of people reporting to the same boss gather together with the clear understanding that they are going to identify and, when possible, take action on their most important problems. Team members are invited to describe their perception of the problem.  The boss’s role is to listen carefully to these problem statements until he or she understands them, and then respond with one of three options:  One, “I can fix this and I will.”  Two, “I need more information before I can make a commitment.  I will do some research and get back to everyone in three days with my decision.”  Three, “This problem is one I can’t tackle by myself since it involves other areas in the company.  I will get a team together in the next week and we will see what we can do.”

What the boss cannot do is dismiss the problem as insignificant, minimize its importance, or retaliate in any way against the people who have presented it.

Making Work Out work with ever more complex problems  requires ever more complex approaches. But the fundamental principles are sacrosanct:  Leaders send a clear message that they want to hear about problems; they demonstrate a willingness to understand them, and are committed to taking action; people feel free to raise problems without fear of ridicule or retaliation;  and once a problem is identified and accepted, then all share the responsibility of following-up with appropriate actions, and keeping one another informed.

Google’s TGIF

Google’s approach for messing with “Mr. InBetween” became known as TGIF.  Early in its history, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin institutionalized a weekly meeting that featured a no-holds-barred Q & A session with whoever showed up.  People would bring questions and problems that concerned them, and Larry and Sergey would deal with them, one by one.  As the company grew, and the logistics accompanying expansion became difficult, they created a system called Dory (though no one could remember why it was called Dory).  People would put their questions online, and then others would vote on which were the most important.  When they got to TGIF there would be a queue of questions on Dory that had been ranked by Google employees as to their importance.  The rule was that Larry and Sergey could not cherry pick the questions they wanted to address, but had to start with number one and move down the list.  In their book, How Google Works, Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg describe an interesting innovation that raised the stakes.  TGIF attendees were given red and green paddles and were encouraged to wave the red ones if they didn’t believe that a question was fully addressed.  When the system was upgraded to a digital version, anyone watching could register a green or red opinion on line.

Climb, Confess and Comply

Former CEO Eric Schmidt summarized  Google’s approach for “messing with Mr. InBetween” as “Climb, Confess, and Comply,” modeled after the training given to airline pilots when they run into a serious problem.  The first step is Climb: Get out of danger and make sure that a disaster is not about to happen, The second step is Confess:  Talk to whoever is involved,  especially to those who are offended, accept responsibility for having “screwed up, and explain clearly and non-defensively what happened.  And finally, Comply:  Decide together what needs to be done, and then get busy doing it.

Climbing, confessing and complying was Google’s shorthand way of signaling that people are expected to bring problems to the table and that they deserved a positive response when they do. “When someone comes to you with bad news or a problem,” says Schmidt, “…[and] they are in climb, confess and comply mode, they have spent a lot of  time considering the situation.  [Y]ou need to reward their transparency by listening, helping, and having the confidence that the next time around they will nail the landing.”

These examples of creating structure to get into the middle of problems come from organizations.  Creating and using structure to attack problems  is equally important in intimate relationships, friendships, and families.

Problems of all kinds, and especially wicked problems,  are best understood, and best attacked when those involved are able and willing to “mess with Mr. InBetween.” It is only by understanding the Gap between where we are and where we want to be that productive work can occur.  And this is best achieved by having in place and implementing a structured approach for “messing with Mr. InBetween.”  When dealing with problems there is always room for spontaneous and unrehearsed experiences and events, especially when the problem exists between individuals, but organizational issues respond best over time to a structured approach that is effectively executed.

So, here’s our new updated version of the song:  “Accentuate the positive, Eliminate the negative, Latch on to the affirmative,”  and plan on “Messing with Mr. InBetween!”