Firefighters are Great... (Just Not at the Office!)

What are We Talking About?

In a professional/technical setting, 'Firefighting' is the term used to describe the constant process of reacting to urgent problems as they arise, rather than taking a proactive approach to problem-solving. It is why some people (and organizations) are constantly dealing with urgent or unexpected problems as they pop up, rather than working out ways to prevent those problems from occurring in the first place. This mode of operation is characterized by a constant state of crisis management, with employees feeling like they are constantly putting out fires. In this mode, employees are typically focused on fixing problems as quickly as possible, rather than taking the time to address the root cause of the issue. It leads to a cycle of repeated problems, unintended consequences, and a lack of progress in addressing the underlying issues causing the crises.

Pitfalls of Chronic Reactive Thinking

While firefighting can sometimes be necessary in a professional setting, falling into a constant firefighting mode is loaded with pitfalls. Prolonged periods of working in this mode are stressful and exhausting for employees, as they are always reacting to urgent issues instead of being able to plan and execute their work in a more structured and intentional manner. Constantly dealing with urgent problems can lead to burnout (read this as: retention issues) and an overall lack of motivation, which can impact productivity and job satisfaction. Additionally, firefighting drives the lack of progress on larger, more strategic projects, since employees are focused on fixing urgent problems rather than pursuing long-term goals.

Another pitfall of firefighting is the expense of living in a reactive state. Constantly reacting to urgent problems requires significantly more resources than strategically planning and executing a solution. The costs (which include time, money, and staff) seriously affect an organization's bottom line and the quality of products/services delivered to the customer. Additionally, prolonged firefighting leads to a loss of reputation or credibility. Problems are never addressed effectively, which in turn leads to rushed and piece-meal solutions being pushed out before they are fully ready. Expensive, bug-ridden products or mediocre, poorly executed services have a huge impact on an organization's ability to attract and retain customers, partners, and employees.

The Best Way to Break the Cycle? Avoid it to Begin With!

To avoid long-term firefighting at work, it is important to prioritize proactive problem-solving and risk management. This involves identifying potential problems before they arise, developing long-term strategies & contingency plans, and allocating resources to address issues before they become urgent crises. Stuff happens in every business; unforeseeable events, unpredictable shifts, and even bad luck occur every day. Firefighting is okay in those situations. But it shouldn't become the way daily business is handled. By taking a more proactive approach to problem-solving, organizations can reduce stress and create a more stable and productive work environment. 

So, what can organizations do to avoid falling into a constant firefighting mode? Here are five potential strategies:

1. Proactive Problem-Solving: Rather than waiting for problems to arise, organizations can take a proactive approach to problem-solving. This can involve identifying potential problems ahead of time and developing plans to address them, as well as investing in risk management and contingency planning.

2. Prioritize Strategic Projects: To avoid getting sidetracked by urgent problems, organizations can prioritize strategic projects and allocate resources accordingly. This can help ensure that long-term goals and objectives are not overlooked in the face of short-term crises.

3. Invest in Training and Development: To help employees effectively address problems as they arise, organizations can invest in training and development. This can include providing employees with the skills and tools they need to address problems effectively, as well as promoting a culture of continuous improvement and learning.

4. Review and Reflect: Organizations can review their processes and reflect on their performance to identify areas for improvement. By analyzing past performance and identifying opportunities for growth, organizations can take proactive steps to avoid falling into a constant firefighting mode in the future.

5. Seek Outside Perspectives: If problems or issues are persistent, in spite of the actions taken to reduce or eliminate them, it’s time to bring in new voices. Competent people from outside the organization will quickly identify the issues without personal investment or ego, so that corrective actions can be taken.

Conclusion

Firefighting is required on some occasions but should be closely monitored. It is too easy for the rare ‘emergency’ situation to evolve into the way an organization does business. As explained above, constant firefighting mode presents severe and damaging challenges for organizations. By taking a proactive approach to problem-solving, prioritizing strategic projects, investing in training and development, and reviewing and reflecting on their performance, organizations can avoid the pitfalls of firefighting and position themselves for long-term success.

So, the next time firefighting creeps up, pull out a lesson from the Star Trek handbook. No, not the Scotty Principle. Instead, try the ‘Doctored <pun intended> McCoy’ Principle. It's where you say: "Darn it, Jim! I'm a <insert your job here>, not a firefighter!" Then you pull your team together, work out a strategy to get things back on track, and work together to execute that plan.

Your team, your organization, and your customers will be glad you did!

Thanks for reading! Please let me know what you think. I respond to all comments personally.

Also - please consider signing up for the Leitwolf newsletter!

Solve Your Problems Face-to-Face

What Are We Talking About?

This week’s post is a shorter one, but it’s proven very important… In today's fast-paced, interconnected world, conflict arises more frequently than ever before. Whether it's at work, in our personal lives, or in society at large, disputes escalate quickly and cause harm to both individuals and communities. While there are many ways to address conflicts, deconflicting problems face-to-face is a critical piece of the puzzle that can lead to effective and sustainable resolutions!

Deconflicting face-to-face means bringing people together in-person and in the same room. This is even more important in a work with VTCs and phone calls replacing actual in-person meetings left and right. Conflict resolution is one of those areas that is still best face-to-face. There is something to be said for getting the parties involved in any type of dispute (anything from miscommunicating teams, arguing family members, etc.) together to discuss the issues and work towards a resolution.

This approach works: it allows individuals to communicate directly with each other, rather than relying on intermediaries who muddle the messages or technology where things like non-verbal information can get lost or misconstrued. The parties get to present issues from their perspective, allowing the other players to hear those concerns, and the in-person setting promotes the advancement of win-win scenarios. Lastly, it provides an opportunity for individuals to express and resolve their emotions, which can be an essential part of the resolution process. (Even in a work setting! We are all humans, after all.)

Outcomes & Advantages

One of the most significant outcomes from this type of face-to-face deconfliction is that it builds mutual understanding between those involved. When individuals meet in-person, they’re more likely to listen to each other and find common ground. They ask questions, clarify misunderstandings, and explore different perspectives. This all contributes to more creative solutions that address the underlying causes of the conflict, rather than just the symptoms!

Another advantage that comes from this type of conflict resolution is that it builds trust between parties. Like we mentioned before: when individuals meet in-person, they can see things that are missing from other forms of communication - such as each other's body language and facial expressions. Taking these cues into account during mediation can help to build rapport and empathy. This can be particularly important in situations where there is a history of mistrust or animosity between parties. By building trust, individuals are more likely to work together on a solution.

Finally, it creates a sense of ownership and responsibility for the final solution. When individuals work together to resolve a conflict, they are more likely to feel invested in the outcome. This can lead to more sustainable solutions that are more likely to be implemented and respected by all parties involved. Make the parties own their part of making the solution a reality!

Conclusion

Face-to-face deconfliction is an essential component of problem-solving that can lead to lasting change. By fostering mutual understanding, building trust between the sides, and creating a sense of community/ownership, this tool can help people address conflicts in a way that is respectful, collaborative, and effective. As we continue to navigate the complex challenges of our modern world, it's essential that we look for opportunities to foster face-to-face interactions in our daily lives.

Thanks for reading! Please let me know what you think. I respond to all comments personally.

Also - please consider signing up for the Leitwolf newsletter!

Quit Kicking Cans

Let’s Talk About Debt, Baby (insert bad 90s cover music)

If you’ve never done it before, run a search for definitions for the word ‘debt’. Depending on where you look, you’ll get a wide range of answers. From the practical: ‘an I.O.U. for money, goods, and/or services’ to the more idealistic (and slightly ominous sounding): ‘trespass or sin requiring reparation or expiation’. Debt is one of those terms that can cover a lot depending on the context. 

For the sake of this discussion, let’s keep it simple and say that debt is an obligation or liability that is owed to someone else. In general, debt involves an agreement to get something now with understanding that repayment will occur at some point in the future (usually with interest). For a lot of people, the most common way to relate is from a financial perspective: one party borrows money or assets from another party with the agreement to pay later. This could be in the form of loans, bonds (well played Mr./Ms. Monopoly), or credit. Because very few things are ever free, let’s keep that part about interest in mind!

Debt can be both a good and bad thing depending on the context and how it is used. In some cases, debt can be beneficial. We can all think of financial examples of ‘good debt’, like taking on debt to invest in a new business or some form of education. This kind of debt is generally considered ‘good’ because it can greatly improve your future financial growth and potential prosperity. The same for debt you take on to buy assets that appreciate in value, like a home.

On the other hand, debt can also be harmful if it’s not used responsibly. Taking on high levels of credit card debt can lead to financial strain and difficulty making payments. Similarly, taking on too much debt in a business (which we just heard could be considered good) can lead to financial difficulty and even bankruptcy if it’s not managed properly. Good or bad, the concept of debt is an important part of life and is used by individuals, businesses, and governments everywhere. 

You might be saying to yourself: “Self, I’m not a finance person. In fact, I am a technical person! Why did I just spend time reading the last 300+ words about debt?”

My response is simple: It’s because the concept of debt is not limited to money and finance!  

In fact, debt is all over in the technical/business worlds and the same underlying principles apply: its virtually unavoidable and needs to be managed (just like financial debt).

To prove my point, let’s look at two common types of debt: Technical and Organizational.

Technically Speaking… Debt can be Technical!

(WARNING: All puns intended) The term ‘technical debt’ is widely attributed to a software developer and computer programmer named Ward Cunningham. He used the metaphor of financial debt as a way to explain the trade-offs between short-term gains and long-term costs of owning complex systems. To paraphrase his explanation, technical debt is the cost of additional rework caused by choosing an easy, corner-cutting solution now instead of using a better, well-thought-out approach that takes longer. 

Basically, it is the cost of doing things the ‘easy’ way instead of the ‘optimal’ way. It is the sum of all the trade-offs, shortcuts, and sloppy practices that went into the product as it was being built. It’s the reason every product has technical debt even if we don’t necessarily see it. No matter what product we make, we all build this type of debt in as we make it.

Examples of technical debt include:

• Inefficient software/code that requires a higher upgrade or patch frequency.

• Lack of standards/practices that lead to poor performance and/or drive rework.

• Poor planning on integration that causes increased complexity and longer timelines.

• Cost cutting on hardware component that cause product to be slower/less compatible and physically limits your products functionality.

Just like with financial debt, there is interest on technical debt. At some point, you’ll have to pay for those corners that were cut! Anyone who has ever had to go back and add unplanned/unsupported features or integrate two completely independent products can tell you how fun that process can be! The costs can sometimes be more than the original cost of the product, depending on the level of complexity and how much technical debt had accrued.

Because we rarely make perfect ‘optimal’ products technical debt can’t be eliminated. We have to make trade-offs as we go. We just hope the ones we make are the right ones. Due to the cost, resource, and other potential impacts, it is essential that we be aware of and monitor technical debt so that it doesn’t accumulate to the point where it derails your product (or worse!). 

Organizational Debt (a.k.a. Proof You Were Right About How Dysfunctional Things Are!)

The organizational equivalent of technical debt is known as (<queue drum roll> wait for it…) organizational debt. Organizational debt is the cost of running, maintaining, and updating an organization that has been built in a way that is less than ideal. We call it ‘organizational’ because it can be an entire company, a project team, a business unit, or any combination. Basically, any group tasked with making a thing can be affected. Similar to technical debt, organizational debt can hide lurking in processes, structures, and systems and causing havoc in ways that are hard to understand, hard to change, or difficult to improve. 

Because running any organization is filled with trade-offs (just like technical development), it’s nearly impossible to eliminate organizational debt. That means we are left with monitoring and management as the way we control the effects it has on development and maintenance. Because its a type of debt, it accumulates over time and if not addressed, can become a significant obstacle to achieving organizational goals. Identifying causes and developing ways to reduce them can help organizations to improve their performance, adapt to changing market conditions, and create a more agile and resilient organization.

Examples of organizational debt include:

• Bureaucratic processes that slow down decision-making and hinder innovation.

• Silos and lack of communication that hinder collaboration and information sharing.

• Inefficient and outdated systems that cause delays and errors.

• Lack of clear roles and responsibilities that leads to confusion and inefficiencies.

Organizational debt also has interest. Not dealing with a poor performing employee can cause the entire team to function at a reduced level or even break down entirely. Repeatedly choosing suppliers or vendors based largely on non-technical factors (read this as ‘cheaping out’!) can cause your organization to develop products using inferior parts, leading to unhappy customers, increased support/repair footprints, etc. Hiring unqualified or inexperienced personnel to save money can lead to poorly written code with more bugs that will take time and money to fix. This will in turn cause your customers to throw things, say bad words, and potentially find a new solution to their problems.

Organizational debt also needs to be monitored, but it can be much harder to do for this type of debt. This is because it accumulates in, across, and between every functional area. It assumes different forms in each case. Basically, this type of debt is the chameleon-like monstrosity lurking within organizations of every size. People at every level need to be looking for this type of debt, developing strategies to monitor it, and be empowered to mitigate it. The goal of every organization should be to keep debt in check before it grows and destroys your business (before stomping off to eat the capital city of an Asian island nation). 

Conclusion (a.k.a. The Payoff)

Both technical and organizational debt can have significant impacts on a business. Any time someone says to deal with a problem later (and kicks some poor, unsuspecting can down the road) they just added to your debt! Technical debt can create issues with product quality and customer satisfaction, while organizational debt can create issues with employee retention and business growth.

If you are part of the technical team responsible for making a product, technical debt can have you pulling your hair out. If you’re constantly fighting fires instead of building products, it may be time to call a time out and rally your troops to look at why. There’s a good chance the root cause is technical debt coming due. (With interest!)

If you are a manager, business owner, or other stakeholder who is sick of fighting folks who are supposed to be on the same team, you should probably start taking a hard look at why. Sit down and start asking hard questions. Bring in fresh perspectives and consider making changes to how business is done. Pay down the organizational debt before it’s too late. Change isn’t easy, but it is a necessary part of life. (No matter what business you’re in!)

So, how can businesses avoid technical and organizational debt?

To avoid technical debt, businesses should:

• Build your technical culture around accountability, quality, and maintainability.

• Prioritize minimizing technical debt in project planning and budgeting.

• For software: best practices! Also, regularly review and refactor code.

• For hardware: best practices! Also, don’t cheap out and test, test, test.

• Take process improvement seriously and look at everything as a process.

• Use automated tools to detect and manage technical debt.

To avoid organizational debt, businesses should:

• Prioritize communication and tear down silos! Put away the Blame-throwers!

• Empower group leadership to handle issues and actually resolve problems. Stop kicking those cans!

• Implement continuous improvement and effective learning.

• Regularly review and update processes and systems.

• Establish clear roles and responsibilities.

• Use data and analytics to identify and address inefficiencies.

At the end of the day, debt can be good or bad. It depends on you and how you handle it (or don’t handle it). But for Pete’s sake, leave those poor cans alone… They’ve suffered enough!

Thanks for reading! Please let me know what you think. I respond to all comments personally.

Also - please consider signing up for the Leitwolf newsletter!