Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [474]
In The Goal, this conflict was not resolved in a win-win way. The short-term need was stronger and the machine was reset, but the need of the machinist was not addressed. From the machinist’s point of view, this was yet another example of management making crazy decisions. Can we find a win-win solution?
Given that the situation was critical and assuming that the machinist wanted to find a win-win solution (after the event), the focus should be on breaking the C-D′ connection.
Any assumption underlying C-D′ has to explain the logical reasoning between the two entities. As C is a positive and acceptable need, we have to understand why D′ (not resetting the machine) is perceived by the machinist in this situation as the only way to achieve C (be acknowledged for the contribution).
One explanation can be that the machinist has just completed a long setup process (several hours). During the setup time, no production was done. This is pure downtime for a critical machine. By telling me [the machinist] to reset the machine, “they” (my managers) clearly radiate to me that my efforts were useless and not needed. I do not feel appreciated.
The assumption is that appreciation is measured by the efforts we put in. This assumption can be challenged. A potential injection can be: In this critical situation, management needs my support and willingness to make an extra effort and reset the machine again.
Is it a win-win or just a nice name for a compromise? Cynical people may say, “You have ended up doing what you were told in the first place!” We say it is a step in the right direction. The conflict is driven by our emotions and our emotions are influenced by perceptions. It is correct that in this case to the outside world it looks like a compromise, but for the person addressing this problem it may bring a relief.
The major lesson that can be learned from this experience is that an open conflict is not that easy to resolve. Hence, maybe the next time the person who knows the Cloud method may control the reaction before the situation deteriorates.
Please note that using this approach too often with the same person—breaking the Cloud on your side—can create a situation in which the other side will expect you to always break the Cloud on your side. In the end, you would like these people to participate in solving the problems by breaking the Clouds on their side—after you have demonstrated your openness in dealing with problems and a willingness to “give up” on your initial want.
Step 7: Communicate the solution.
Generally, we recommend that once you find yourself in a “tug-of-war” situation, you should suggest taking time to think about the problem. If this is accepted, then you have the chance to build the Cloud, develop a solution, and then come back and communicate it.
If this is not the case and you or the other person imposed a solution, there is still value in using the analysis as a learning case to handle such situations better in the future.
In the example of the machinist, the resetting of the machine was imposed and done. The value is in addressing the emotion and considering the outcome if the injection suggested in Step 6 would have been used. In this case, the machinist should use the injection as a mode of operation for himself. Hence, he does not need to communicate the solution to anybody. Yet the managers of the machinist can benefit from such a mindset. They are not the “other side”; they suffer the same problems and having another personal conflict does not help them at all.
In planning the communication, we use the TOC understanding of the layers of buy-in (decision making). They stem from the work that was done in investigating the resistance to change.7 This understanding recognizes that accepting a solution contains several layers. (I refer here to the views that contain five layers. Other TOC practitioners may use different numbers.) In preparation for the communication,