“The Last Samurais” … What awaits the Black Belt community in the new world order?
The movie “The Last Samurai” painted a bittersweet view of how a new world order can affect players. The Samurais were depicted as the elite members of society with mastery of skills necessary to forcibly execute the will of their masters. In other words, they could solve problems too difficult for others. They demonstrated codes of conduct and applied discipline to their charge and responsibilities. They held the view that they were essential to keep societal order and their world in harmony.
The world changed, and change came quickly—so quickly that the advantages Samurais held diminished in relevance, and they could not compete. Their long held and historically powerful traditions, paradigms and values around control and specific tools created a rigidity that was incapable of changing in time. What appeared as agility to their “data supported” world only reinforced their faith that they would persevere. In fact, when change scaled up, many went out on their own, contracting with multiple masters, becoming the Ronin.
Today, we are in the midst of a sea change—perhaps a tsunami. We find that the viability, productivity, and importance of our Performance Improvement Samurais, our Black Belts and Masters, are challenged. Reading commentaries from our Samurais, we find that some need to “blame” poor leadership, bad data, or the business “not getting it.”
What lies ahead when the emerging new business world takes a hard look ahead and chooses who they will need to succeed?
Comments
Although the Samurai were an outdated weapon for their masters, had the seen “the writing on the wall,” perhaps the outcome could have been far different. As a warrior class, their skills could easily be used in the new warrior class, only in a different way.
Master, what does that mean? Samurai Master, can you buy a diploma in Samurai? Did the society no longer need masters or did the society dimiinish the value of the mastery? How do standards or lack therof fit into the model?
Interesting reference to society and value. Please clarify your meaning. Society and value have meanings that need to be put into context, like economic ,moral, political,…
Also, I am challenged sometimes on evaluating the value of standards without a context across the range of stability to instability. When standards lag market requirements, they can be toxic….
Kevin… they were still carrying swords into WWII battles. I think they killed more of their own with their swords than their objectives (the problem enemy). I wonder if that happens today with the tools professionals bring into battle?
Master, The loss of the samurai way of life led to loss of life to “friendly fire,” as follows;
Loss of samurai life led to diminished skills in the use of the sword
Loss of sword fighting skills led to more loss of skills
providing children with a deadly weapon leads to loss of life
providing inexperienced children with a deadly, close proximity weapon, ensures that they only kill one another.
Today the problem is only slightly different… are the professionals really professional?
Many of the tools in the Black Belt’s arsenal are not new, yet they have proven to be effective through many different business climates. Is the belief that Black Belts need new tools for this new world order, or do they need new ways to apply them? Who do you believe are the thought leaders in this area?
Black Belts need the same tools in many cases but need to get back to the basics. They need to get back to the core y=f(x) function and management is one of the X’s. In our new world of connectiveness do we need the same approach to problem solving. How do you drive greater collaboration into the solution? How do you use social network analysis to understand where resistors might be?
Is our question then about tools? Or mathematical functions? Or should we consider whether we may be in a different or emerging environment. Perhaps an environment where the expectation of stability or hope of deterministic or even stochastic predictability are not at play?
Ironically, the proverb, “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail” may shed light into our quandary. Are we defined by our tool kits and practices? Or can we recognize that perhaps we need a new lens through which to evaluate? Have we turned away those in need of help because their problems did not fit our toolkit and blamed them for it?
Do we really believe the myth that all work is done in processes?
My observation is that much of the thinking is at play, but fragmented. Fragmentation always brings opportunity…..
We may indeed be seeing an emerging environment, however that doesn’t necessarily mean “what is old should go away”. Isn’t process improvement still needed? Don’t new products and services need to be created? The simple answer is yes.
If the need is still present, what does the VOC say about the current system? What has worked? What hasn’t?
As times change, we may find the need to supplement our skills to take advantage of new opportunities. This evolution is the same as in any other field (e.g. Statisticians needed to become more strategic vs “number crunchers” as statistical software became more popular).
There is plenty of work to do now to improve the current system, but at the same time we need to keep an eye toward the future. The future always is alot closer to some than to others…
Did the tools become less relevant or did the practice of them become less consistent? Does Six Sigma suffer from broken windows, such that crime is up? (Crime of Bad Process Improvement) tha we didn’t fix the broken windows (poor consulting engagements with little or no standard skill sets)?
All good questions. So, when we talk about Six Sigma, and the value proposition for our Belts, do we mean the “How it’s done?”, or the “Who does it and are they competent?” or the “How to achieve a level of superiority in business performance?” And.. once we resolve that, then, “Is this about improving only stable processes?” If so, “What about all the other stuff that disrupts and destroys organizations?”
I believe that the message should be about change, for the better and that the tools to achieve that change do not need to be taught to someone with the title “black Belt.” Sometimes in our careers we have seen where the certification became the objective, not only for the candidate but also for the folks managing the deployment. We teach that our systems and structures should reward for the behavior we want to encourage, and yet some opex organizations reward for “% certified.”
Black and Decker sells holes, not drills…..
It is an interesting problem. I agree we should reward the behavior we want.
We want projects done quickly, but often Belts only get to work part time.
We want highly skilled Belts, but we send them to GB training vs BB training.
We want the Belts to be efficient, but we let them struggle with project selection (vs the Champion taking a more active role).
We want the Belts to be efficent, but we fail to provide the necessary tools to get the job done.
We want the team to be agressive in finding the right solution, but we often tell them what and how to implement.
etc.
Getting back to top down driven deployments/engagements helps to sort alot of this out.
Getting back to a top down deployment is only part of the answer, we have to turn the deployment into a pull system such that the desire for change pulls on the trained resources to solve the problems in the organization. We have to change our language!! Do we want a project completed? I state NO!! We want results delivered, when we focus on the project vs. the performance of the process (results) we miss the perspective of where the energy should be placed. When we focus on the perspective of a project we are focusing on the activity and not the outcome. We are operating at the X level and hoping for a connection to the Y. We need to operate at the Y level and than find the right X’s to manage and than use the project to introduct change at the X. This all assumes system stability/control.
Is deployment the right word here? I believe that as long as we view overcoming risk, failure, waste or opportunity costs as a deployment we pay a price of overhead, time and rigidity.
In the armed forces, the special forces units have earned respect and distinction, not for training, not for tools, not for titles…. only for results. Many times these results were achieved by their abilities to create capabilities as the circumstances changed virtually.
Have special forces in Six Sigma become indistinguishable from regular forces in what they can or currently accomplish with special problems? In some cases?
Special forces are directed troops they have a mission commander and a mission.
How often do we see engagement in desire for the results is lacking.
I think we are on to something if we want just a problem solved give them
The resources and the mission and execute however, do we even do that? If we want to
Go with the special ops metaphor there has to be top cover when they complete
The objective. We train people (belts) and than don’t give them a mission.