Comments on _The Choice_ by Goldratt, chapter 15 & 16

I read and took notes on chapter 15 & 16 of _The Choice (Revised Edition)_ by Goldratt.

CHAPTER 15: Comfort Zones*

Have you ever classified people as open-minded or conservative? What about action-oriented people or procrastinators? After thirty years of trying to induce organizations to change, such classifications are so deeply ingrained in my thinking that they do have major ramifications on my actions. I tend to decide early on whether or not I would like to work with a company based on the classification box I have slotted the top management into. This audit visit forced me to realize that that classification might lead to grave mistakes. Let me describe what brought me to such a radical conclusion.

That was the first paragraph of the chapter. It seems that the chapter will focus on the practice of classifying people as open-minded/conservative and action-oriented/procrastinator. 

Most of the chapter talks about a company implementing Goldratt's ideas. And then the company went into "paralysis" when it came to implementing the ideas further (into the last link of the supply chain, retail).

In November 2005, I was disappointed to find out that no effort had yet been taken to continue to the next link of the supply chain—retail. Considering that at that stage I was already spoiled by the go-getter attitude of this company, you can imagine my frustration at witnessing their apparent procrastination. No wonder that as 2006 drifted along and still no efforts were initiated to seriously approach the retailers, I started to apply some gentle, and then less gentle, pressure. What we faced can be described as paralysis. Actually, considering the number and intensity of the reservations that were raised to support the argument that there is no point in approaching the shops with the replenishment offer, the attitude can be better described as "active paralysis." If such a phrase does not exist, it sure needs to.

What caused such a drastic change in behavior?

I pondered this question for a long time. On one hand, all my experience leads me to believe that there are some people who are more open-minded than others. On the other hand, characterizing people as open-minded people or conservative people, as action-oriented people or procrastinators will lead to the ridiculous conclusion that the managers of the company all went through an almost instant transformation.

This is the last paragraph of the chapter. I guess the next chapter will explain more about the practice of classifying people into these categories.

 

CHAPTER 16: People Are Good

looks like the benevolent universe premise.

What are the plausible causes that can explain that group's behavior described in father's report? To really test myself I deliberately erase from my mind Father's warning, and I concentrate on the first thoughts that pop up. The managers of this company are now on top of the world; they already brought their company to a performance level that is considerably higher than anybody else in their industry. They got hefty bonuses. Everybody is praising their achievements. Maybe they'd had enough?

Anytime I've ever heard the phrase "they'd had enough", it always meant that somebody was sacrificing and they'd had enough sacrificing and didn't want to do it anymore. I don't think that's what happened with these managers.

I claim that they don't move because they don't want to risk their good situation. Father will highlight that this hypothesis doesn't stand the test of predicted effects. When the project started, the company was in a good situation; their net profit was above the industry standard. Managers who don't want to risk a good situation are not likely to change procedures and policies that they followed for decades—procedures and policies that brought them to be a successful company. But the facts are that they enthusiastically changed the way they were guiding production, that they did change dramatically the internal and external mode of distribution. And they made all those changes in less than one year. I cannot claim that they just paused to allow the system to stabilize. The system was humming already at the end of 2005, and not moving for an additional year cannot be called just a pause.

A bit further in the chapter:

I can see the smile spreading on his face. "Efrat," he will say, "for you a number like two-and-a-half million is scary, but this is their day in and day out reality. They are currently servicing those shops and, of course, they have the proper infrastructure to handle it. Just ask yourself, what is the difference between what we asked them to do, and launching a promotion, something that they routinely do?"

Good thing I played all of it out in my head. I saved myself a major embarrassment. To categorize these managers as risk avoiders, especially when the next step involves almost no risk, is ridiculous.

But, the important thing is that I think I learned my lesson. The first causes that jumped into my mind were derogatory, were unsubstantiated, and regarding the enormous potential of the next step, these causes were actually accusations. I feel uneasy when I recall what I thought about the shops' owners. I ignored the vast experience I have bargaining with owners of small shops and ending up holding the short side of the stick. These people don't have business smarts? They will not be able to grasp the win for them in our offer? Nonsense.

If it weren't for the fact that I know that I will have to justify my answer to Father, if it weren't for the fact that I know how he is going to analyze it, I might have accepted my speculative causes as truth. Where would it have left me? In a situation where I would be convinced that there is no point in continuing to push them to proceed to the next step. I would substantially lower my expectations of what can be achieved and I would do it for no good reason. Moreover, I would be even more convinced in my skepticism about people.

Maybe Father is right. Maybe our perception of people's behavior should be reexamined. I started to think about it a while ago, when I realized the extent to which we tend to blame people when we are involved in conflicts that do not have an acceptable compromise. But now I realize that the tendency to blame people is stretching far beyond the situations where we are personally involved in a conflict. Here is a case that I was not involved in. There is no apparent conflict, and nevertheless my tendency to blame, to bring up unsubstantiated derogatory "explanations" blinded me to the extent that I was about to give up on an excellent opportunity to achieve incredible improvements.

I know what Father will say, I've heard him pondering it for as long as I remember. The keys to thinking clearly are the belief in Inherent Simplicity and, not less important, the belief that people are not bad. A belief that leads to the practice that every hypothesis, before it is even entertained as plausible, should first pass the test of not being derogatory.

I don't think that practice is right. It means never considering the possibility that someone is acting badly. 

I think we shouldn't assume that people are acting badly, while also recognizing the possibility that they are.

It looks like the next chapter is about figuring out what caused the managers to not implement Goldratt's ideas in the last link of the supply chain, the retailers.