3 concrete tips:Express ideas as explanationsSay how an action will transform a situation or capability, and why that actionNOT : subjective opinion about importance (loose actions / goals)Avoid positive argumentsArguments
Mistaken for multiple reasons:- You cannot be 100% clear about ideas- It's coercive- It's good that we have conflicts of ideas: only those lead to improvement of ideas
Sales is not easy, and all things not easy can be made fun. More on that laterWhat is not fun about sales nowInherently disappointing : getting so many no’s for 1 yes’We make it dull or frustrating in two waysby the typical KPI mana
Ideas/ knowledge can only change in 3 ways:Preventing them from changing: you secure them from changing by justifying their truth, by adding arguments to them that say why they are true, e.g. appeal to authority arguments.Subjectively addi
The same question "why?" about some phenomenon in reality can have 2 very different types of answers: (i) the proposal of a causal explanation and (ii) the justification of the truth of the phenomenon
An explanation is a consistent mental model of a transformation/ task/ change, and it contains:The result or goal you want to achieveThe actions required to achieve that goalThe arguments why (why that particular goal (and not some othe
Epistemology is relevant when explaining *any* human activity, as it is a better/ deeper explanation than explanations at the level of behaviours (actions) or personality (assessments of persons as a whole)
Key aspects discussed related to how companies typically use KPIsStart from the KPI and not from the problem and solution (for which the KPI was supposed to be an indicator)Corrective actions are parochial and without causal powerCor
There are no "problem solving methods".Reason being that if there were such a method, we would be able to automatically crank out solutions by simply following it.The same goes for the "scientific method" (science is also problem solving). Fo
It is not contested that managers rely on their teams to get problems solved.However, in practise this turns out less easy than stated here. I go into some of the reasons why it is not trivial and concrete ways for improving this.
The natural state of any relationship is that fact that ideas differ. That is not “a shame” … or a proof that there is distrust. It is just the natural starting position. If it were a proof of distrust, then the first step would indeed have to
DMAIC:Define the problem (Set the goal, ...)Measure the problem (AS IS, ...)Analyse (Root cause analysis, ...)Implement (Find solutions test and implement)Control (Monitor and sustain improvements, ...)Popper’s method:Proble