The Fisherman’s Tale: How false goals cause leaders to make poor choices.
In the introduction to our organization: https://www.human-ci.com/blog/human-continuous-improvement-its-within-our-grasp-we-just-have-to-start-9pkkw, we shared that we would outline three guiding mindsets and subsequent actions that will, if embraced, contribute towards aligning humanity’s collective power with its common good. Here we discuss the first of the three mindsets: Understanding the true goal of your process. Once you understand the goal of your process, the next action is to align all activities and decisions regarding your process with your goal.
As Continuous Improvement practitioners, we assert that an often forgotten pillar of Continuous Improvement is respect for PEOPLE. This pillar is about removing frustrating parts of the process to make people’s jobs better and engaging their minds to solve problems. However, if the process itself, or the organization it fuels, harms the community, harms the environment, or mistreats employees—then eliminating waste in the process is like rearranging chairs on the Titanic; it pales in comparison to these bigger problems at hand. We cannot say Continuous Improvement is for people while we optimize processes that support businesses or organizations that contribute to the decline of humanity.
To dig into this idea, let’s explore an analogy demonstrating how false goals are detrimental to an organization.
Imagine a fishing boat in a fictional land, with a captain that employs a group of fishermen. They sell most of their catch to the nearby villages and consume some at their dinner tables. One day the captain announces to the crew that the ship will go into new waters to try to catch more fish. The new waters are in a part of the sea that fishermen avoid due to large, unpredictable waves, frequent severe weather, and colder temperatures. After the first day of their long journey to the new waters, the fishing crew brings back more fish than ever. However, the crew is cold and damp from the constant rain and tired from the extended work day and the constant jostling of the boat . The captain declares the day a success and determines that they will return to the new waters again the next day, and each day afterward. The crew voices a few concerns; however, the captain decides they cannot give up the extra fish due to a few complaints from the crew. The number of fish they catch per day increases. As the months pass, the captain of the crew regularly brags in town about how many fish they are catching and how clever he is to have chosen the new daily fishing route. Meanwhile, the fishermen dread coming to work each day. The fun and camaraderie amongst the crew that used to make the days pass quickly is gone. Due to the cold and damp conditions, many get sick, taking a toll on the community due to medical expenses. Their misery spreads to their families and to the wider community. As time passes, many of the crew feel there is no other option but to quit. The captain remains focused on their daily catch numbers, which for a few months seem promising. However, as more fishermen quit, the crew loses expertise, starts to catch fewer fish, and has trouble managing the rough new waters. Eventually, with a smaller, less experienced crew, the trips are no longer viable. The community loses income, jobs, and a source of food.
As you reflect on this analogy, consider what went wrong. Has your organization made decisions similar to the captain’s? Decisions that are meant to optimize one metric, but in the long run caused serious damage to your business?
While you may be able to see in this example how the captain’s thinking wouldn’t lead to the best outcomes, similar thinking is prevalent in organizations because our goals are not defined with all impacted parties in mind. All along, the goal of the fishing boat was not just to catch the most fish possible. The true goal was to maximize the fishing boat’s value to the employees, their community, and their environment. If the captain had made his decisions with this holistic goal in mind, he would have made the right choice to stop going back to the new waters each day. The fishing crew, the captain, and the community would have continued to thrive while catching the right amount of fish.
In the analogy of the fishing crew, the leader held to a typical view of his responsibility as a leader to optimize his process. The focus was narrowed to one output of the process: Catching more fish. This ignored the long term impact of his decision. Our philosophy shifts the goal of process optimization to include the value the process brings to humanity. This perspective requires that we evaluate inputs such as buildings, people resources, and material resources; and outputs such as environmental impact and the effect on the lives of the employees.
We want to hear from you:
How do you see your organization fitting into the broader “economy” that supports it? What are your thoughts on your organization's inputs and outputs and how they affect humanity?
How do we balance setting micro goals around a finite resource with the macro goal of human continuous improvement?
Could the captain of the fishing crew have changed his mind? What might have caused him to reverse course? Why do organizations often keep going down detrimental paths despite all the warning signs?
Next, we will put a pause on our three mindsets to explore contrasting profiles of leadership in “A Tale of Two CEOs," a story with a focus on the recent "Return to Office'' controversy. You can also join the conversation and read our latest articles on our website: www.human-ci.com
