Watch Your Language!
From my office in the USA, I was remotely mentoring a Chinese manager who worked for an American company in China. One day he asked about the most effective ways to provide coaching feedback to his team members, so I shared tips from my experience (a topic for another post). At our next call he thanked me for the good advice and casually mentioned that it was much easier for him to give coaching feedback in English than in Mandarin. I had to learn more about this!
At that time, the Chinese business culture tended to be somewhat top-down directed (bosses telling employees what to do), while the American style was to empower the employees to make their own decisions. He told me that it sounded awkward to provide American-style coaching in Mandarin – the concepts were awkward to express in the language, so they sounded insincere. Ever since, I have remained aware of the effect that language has on thought and perception.
This concept applies even to the effect of word choice within a language. One time, a customer was complaining about device failures where a thin protective layer was disappearing from a product in use. Knowing that the protective layer was chemically inert, everyone began referring to “the erosion issue”.
After spending months unsuccessfully attempting to re-create an erosion mechanism, it was finally discovered that the protective layer itself was not failing, but an adhesion layer attaching the protective layer was being chemically attacked via tiny pores in the protective layer. By naming the issue “erosion” after the speculative cause, the thinking of the entire team was biased away from the true cause – it was “corrosion”, not “erosion”.
Lesson-learned: language and word choice influence thinking and behavior!
Over the years we’ve been exposed to Six Sigma, Juran, Deming PDCA, 8D, Dale Carnegie, A3, Shainin, and more. Each technique works pretty well, and has been demonstrated many times in a wide variety of industries and circumstances. At the core they are all essentially the same!
Each approach relies on an underlying logical flow that goes like this: [a] make sure the problem is clearly defined; [b] be open to all sources of information; [c] vet the information for relevance and accuracy; [d] use the process of elimination to narrow down all possible causes to the most likely few; [e] prove which of the suspects is really the cause of the issue; [f] generate a number of potential solutions; [g] evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and risk of the potential solutions; [h] implement the winning solution(s); and [i] take steps to make sure your solution(s) don’t unravel in the future.
The differences between the paradigms resides in supplementary steps and toolkits. For example, 8D contains the important “In
Your primary role as a manager is to ensure your team’s success. Internalize this. Make sure your team members know this. Build an environment of trust and collaboration. A direct report of mine would frequently leave me out of the loop as problems escalated, preferring instead to “work harder”. It was clear that he felt uncomfortable delivering bad news to me (his boss) when things were not going according to plan. Let me tell you the rest of the story.
