To Fix Broken Work Systems, You Need to Reset
30:37 Share

Asana is the number one AI work management platform. It's where work connects to company goals, so your entire organization can move forward faster. Try for free today at asana.com. Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I'm Curt Nikish. Here are some phrases you might hear in an organization. We tried that before, but it didn't work. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, that's the way we've always done things around here.

Now, sometimes those reactions to a new idea or suggestion are based on good experience and they're uttered by well-intentioned people. Other times, those phrases can be a tell. A tell that you're at an organization with too much inertia, too much decision paralysis, too many people stuck in their ways and processes.

To change that, you have to do more than just run a couple of experiments. It takes a reset, according to today's guest. Dan Heath is a senior fellow at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, and his new book is Reset, How to Change What's Not Working. Dan, thanks for joining us. Thanks so much, Kurt. ♪

So I think the idea of being stuck is something that almost everyone can relate to, whether it's in your own career or, you know, your own behavior patterns, or just as we're going to talk about today, being mired in dysfunctional and inefficient work systems.

How does it come about that people get to that point of, well, that's just how things are and I can't change them? I think there are a few reasons. I remember Michael Jordan had a great quote, practice doesn't make perfect, which is what you hear a lot of times. Practice makes permanent. If you have practiced every day shooting a jump shot the wrong way, like you're just going to get really good at shooting the wrong form of jump shot. Routines lock in.

So one reason we get stuck is that every day we come to work and we practice the way things worked yesterday. And every day is providing new data that suggests yesterday's performance is what we're capable of. That's part of what we have to react to to get unstuck is to sort of set our sights anew and to realize that we can escape the gravity of the way things have always worked.

And is that why so many change attempts fail? Yeah. I mean, if you think about the practice metaphor again, you know, if you've been shooting the wrong kind of jump shot and you've had thousands of reps with that form, of course, it's going to be difficult to change. And in fact, I use the metaphor in the book of a boulder that's in your way. So if you picture somebody on a road and there's a boulder between them and where they're trying to get to.

And a lot of times what we try to do is just kind of put our shoulder into the boulder. We think maybe if we work a little bit harder, if we just try a little bit more, we're going to move that boulder. And it just doesn't work when it comes to systems. You know, one of my favorite quotes in the book is from a health care expert named Paul Batalden, who said, every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.

And that quote has stuck with me so much because what it says is if we are mired, then that is not like a transitional state. That's not something that's going to go away like a cold or it's not something you just, you know, hustle your way out of. It's a function of the system we're operating in. And to change that, we've got to change the system. In the book, I'm proposing a two-part framework to get people and teams out of situations like that. The first part is to find leverage points, right?

which are interventions or actions that have disproportionate return. Like if you do a little bit of work, you get a lot back. So in the boulder metaphor, if you picture like a fulcrum and a lever being inserted into the picture where all of a sudden it's not just a person shoving the boulder, but it's like the potential to use amplified force to move the boulder. So that's part one. Yeah. Even if you don't move it,

You're like, hey, we just wiggled it. This seemingly immovable thing. Exactly right. Progress is really what turns change into a sort of flywheel, what sustains change, right?

And then if you kind of visualize the lever and the fulcrum and the boulder, in order for the boulder to move, you've got to push on the other end of that lever. And that means resources. And this is kind of the second big pickle in the book. The first is, how do you find a place where a little bit of action goes a long way? And the second is, if you need resources to push in a new direction, and you're not just swimming in extra cash and employees, that means you're going to have to somehow reshuffle the

the way you're using the people and the systems and the technology and the money you have today to get different results. And so the second part is about restacking resources to push in a new direction. Let's start with the first step to change what isn't working, and that's to actually identify the issue. You know, that's a common problem-solving technique that we've often heard, like first identify the problem before you start to go out and try to solve it, and that people often jump over that.

What do you recommend for that? Go and see the work. That's a phrase I stole from a management professor named Nelson Repenning, who's at MIT. And in fact, the very first story in the book is about a receiving area at a hospital. They're taking in packages and getting them delivered to the appropriate places within the hospital.

At the point when the work began, they had had an average performance of three days to get packages delivered within the hospital. So a nurse orders some medicine, FedEx or UPS, get it across the country in a day or two. And then to get from the basement of the hospital to the third or fourth floor or whatever, it took another three days, which is just crazy. But it didn't feel crazy to the people in the receiving area. Back to the notion of every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.

It had been that way for years. The system had been baked to execute that level of performance. A new manager came in, a guy named Paul Seward.

He had a background in lean manufacturing. And so he immediately spotted some things that were askew. But he also was wise enough to realize, like, it's not enough for me to come in and know the right answer. I've got to get my team to see the situation the way I do and to be motivated to do something. And so he drafted them into the cause and back to the notion of going and seeing the work.

They spent an hour a day for 12 days in a row. They just paused their work and they all kind of walked the flow from where the packages came in on the delivery dock through the inventory scanning, through the sorting, ultimately to the destinations in the hospital. And the signature thing that they found that was causing unnecessary delays was

was that they had employed batch processes in a lot of places where they didn't need to be inserted. So, of course, batch processes are where you wait to do something in the spirit of efficiency. So, like, we all wait to do our laundry until we've got a load or a dishwasher. You know, nobody just washes one spoon at a time. You wait to get a proper load. And so that was the way they'd been thinking about this is,

If you've got to scan packages into inventory, for instance, it makes sense. Wait till you've got 10 or 15 or whatever, and then you can go zap, zap, zap, zap, zap. Intuitively, it seems like it would be more efficient, but what Paul Suitt saw is...

Our metaphor should be to let the river flow, meaning a package should be able to travel unencumbered from the delivery dock to its destination. And our job should be to remove friction. So they all do this kind of walk of the process together. And it doesn't take long once you realize where the sticky points are. Like it took them six weeks to cut delays in half. So in six weeks, they go from three days to day and a half.

And then in another six weeks, 90% of the destinations in the hospital were receiving daily deliveries. And so that's what I think is so powerful about this approach is that, number one, you've got to change the system, which sounds really hard. Oh, gosh, how would we ever change the system? It sounds bigger than just shoving on the boulder. But when you figure out the things that can improve the system, often the results can happen very, very quickly and lock in.

Tell me just a little bit more about the leadership that was shown there. What did Paul Seward say in that situation to Paul?

Not just have this be, okay, we're changing how this one thing is done this way to becoming a system where people said, oh, well, that's working better. What if we did this now? He signaled to them he was going to be listening, not just talking. So the first thing he did, actually, even before they began this hour a day thing, was ask them about their complaints. What can I do to help make your day-to-day life easier? And so they were saying things like,

Well, some of these carts that we use to push the packages around have those, you know, gummed up jangly wheels like you get in the supermarket sometimes. And so Paul Sillow just instantly said, you shouldn't have to deal with that. I'm going to get you new wheels or new carts or whatever you need. Let's remove that source of friction. Even though he knew that that wasn't the thing that's actually causing an extra two days of delays. Yeah.

Exactly right. When you're talking about change, motivation is the game. What Seward is doing is he's saying, I've got to have this team aligned with me. They've got to want to do this. You also write about defining the goal of the goal to help people in this process. How does that relate?

So in organizations, we are obsessed with goals. We want to reduce this number by 15%. We want to double this, reduce share, and such and such, whatever. It's helpful to have a second layer process where we continually ask ourselves, what's the goal of the goal? So I'll give you an example. I write about this guy who bought a Ram truck. So he takes the truck off the lot.

And then he starts getting hounded to fill out a survey. And I think we've probably all had this experience in a variety of domains. But he hears from maybe a half dozen people at least a dozen times within about a week. Just, you know, hey, Ryan, could you fill out the survey for us? We'd really appreciate positive responses. Hey, really?

looking forward to getting the results. We want to improve, blah, blah, blah. What could we have done better? And so Ryan Davidson himself, he works in customer experience in healthcare. And so he kind of threw them a bone and sat down, wrote up a proper survey. He said it was kind of an A minus, like he was generally happy, but some things really bugged him.

sends it back over the transom, and then he never hears from anyone again, except for his sales rep who starts texting him the day he submits the survey, complaining that the sales rep wasn't given all 10 out of 10s. I mean, that is just like a charade of customer data. Yeah.

And if you kind of rewind the tape, you can imagine what must have happened. In the beginning, there were surely good intentions here. You know, some leaders said, we genuinely want to provide a good experience for our customers because we want them to come back and buy more trucks in the future.

So how do we start getting closer to that goal? Well, let's gather some data. Let's get a survey at the end of every transaction and let's see how we're doing. And if we're not doing so good, we can change things. If we are doing good, we'll keep doing what we're doing. And all that's great. It's exactly what you should do. You should be trying to learn. You should be listening. But then the translation that occurs is there's a famous law called Goodhart's Law, which is

When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. And so in other words, what must have happened at this dealership is they started layering on incentives and maybe sticks, maybe carrots and sticks in this case. Like we need 10 out of 10s. That's what we're aiming for. And then all of a sudden, this measure supplants the mission. They're not getting better at delivering a good customer experience anymore.

They're getting better at browbeating customers into giving them falsely inflated scores. And that is just completely absurd, but it locks in, right? And that's where this question about what's the goal of the goal can fit in is that I'm encouraging leaders to not take goals and measurements for granted, to not let them become enshrined at the expense of our ultimate mission. Yeah.

I do have empathy for the salesperson at the dealership that probably has a bonus that's going to make a difference for their family, what they can afford to buy for Christmas for their kids or whatever. Yeah, for sure. And so that's why this has got to be like a systems level process. I think it's probably foolish to expect the sales reps to just uniquely rely on their own personal morality to opt out of these systems that have been enshrined around them.

Well, let's talk about resetting then when you're enshrined in those systems. You recommend starting with a burst of energy and focus. So I think a useful metaphor here is if you've ever tried to raise a stuck window or

And you know that it takes like this kind of tremendous force up front to get the window moving at all. And then once it's moving, it requires substantially less energy to keep it moving. And that's the idea of a burst. That when you're in these entrenched systems dealing with habits, it really helps to have some dedicated time, some kind of density of collaboration. So one of my favorite examples is this attorney named Greg McLaughlin.

told a story about helping his wife get their garden set up. And she had this plan to set up these irrigation hoses to keep things watered. And so his job was to go to Home Depot and get all the supplies.

And he talked about what he called the immutable law of the universe, which is that no DIY home project can be completed with a single trip to Home Depot, which I thought was just brilliant. And sure enough, that holds true in this particular case. He sets things up and he realizes one of the parts he bought doesn't work. And so he's left in this dilemma. It's like a $5 part. And it just seems so wasteful to him to go back

to Home Depot just for that. He described it, it would probably take him $8 in gas and $150 in billable hours to go and fetch that part independently. And so, you know, from an efficiency perspective, you think, okay, we'll just add that to the next shopping list and then pick it up a week or two later or whenever you go back. But he said, from his wife's perspective, that's the wrong way to think about it. She doesn't care about task efficiency. What she cares about is being able to water plants.

that this project is not valuable until it has been worked to completion. And he immediately realized that he was doing the same thing at work with his law practice. Like in the spirit of efficiency, he was like handling tasks in different ways to the extent that, you know, he might have a half dozen or a dozen different projects for clients that were in the 80th or 90th percentile of completion. But, but as he realized that,

These legal plans and documents are not useful until they're finished. I can't bill for them. My clients can't put them into action. It's interesting to kind of realize that there's this tension between efficiency, which is so baked into the way we think about our work, and effectiveness. And so the notion of a burst is...

If you can start out with a day or a week of dedicated work to get to some kind of outcome, even if that work within the burst itself might be quote unquote inefficient, if you can accomplish something, then that starts to give you those little rays of hope that maybe it's possible to move that boulder.

AI is coming to your industry if it isn't already here. But AI needs lots of speed and computing power. So how do you compete without cost spiraling? Upgrade to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure or OCI.

OCI is the blazing fast and secure platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI workloads. Right now, Oracle is offering to cut your current cloud bill in half if you move to OCI for new U.S. customers with minimum financial commitment. Offer ends March 31st. See if your company qualifies at oracle.com slash ideacastai.

When it comes to becoming a little bit less efficient than maybe in how you're working, I mean, sometimes trying to move that boulder or you realize what it's going to take to move that boulder is to not put resources towards one thing and put resources to another, right? And that can get political. How do you kind of approach how to make that choice and how to explain that political choice?

Yeah, well, and that is really the heart of the second part of the framework, the notion of restacking resources. So the idea is where do we get the fuel to push in a new direction when all of that fuel most likely is presently employed? And so one motivation came from, I had a conversation with this guy who's a consultant at a firm called Strategex.

And they are obsessed with the Pareto principle. I'm sure all listeners are familiar with this, the 20-80 rule. So there's a bunch of different formulations of this, but one you've probably heard is 20% of your customers account for 80% of your revenue. Now, interestingly, the consultant, David Philippi, told me that it's even more distorted with profitability. So 20% of your customers might be 80% of your revenue, but they might be 150% of your profit, right?

Meaning that there's a whole chunk of your customers who are unprofitable, and you would have been better off in almost every respect other than top-line revenue by just cutting them loose. Yeah, they're being subsidized by this other great customer. That's exactly right. They're being subsidized by your best customers. And so Philippi described this tool that they use for customers that I thought had –

resonance well beyond the realm of profitability. So he said, they'll do this thing where they go in and kind of tease apart what's the profitability by customer.

And that sounds like a simple thing, but you'd be surprised how few businesses actually have that level of visibility. It's difficult because it might be easy to assign costs based on what people ordered, the cost of the machine part or whatever that they requested. But it's harder to allocate labor. You've got GNA and you've got support costs. And what about marketing? Do you include that?

So they do this hard analysis to get to customer level profitability, and then they force rank all the customers from most to least profitable. But here was what really stuck with me. He said,

And a classic example of this had to do with on-time deliveries. He said, repeatedly, we found that the best customers, for instance, for a manufacturer, will have worse on-time delivery rates than the worst customers. And you think to yourself, well, how could that possibly be? How do you not know who your best customers are and treat them with extra white gloves and so forth? And the answer is...

The people at the bottom might just be buying a random part here and there. And so you can just put one thing in a box and ship it out. It's super simple. The people at the top who are spending millions with you might have these complicated assemblies and might take time and their dependencies and you might procrastinate it a little bit. But if you zoom out from this analysis, so what we're seeing is there's undercoddled people at the top and overcoddled at the bottom who

That, in essence, is a kind of repeatable engine for finding resources. So in other words, you could do that same analysis based on the projects that are underway at work, like which are the most effective to the least. You could even do it on an individual basis in your own relationships in your life, like who are the people at the very top and are you, in essence...

subsidizing your worst relationships by stealing time from your partner, your kids, your best friends, you know, the people who see the minutes and time that they can spend with you diminished by those people at the very bottom of the ledger.

If we need fuel to push in a new direction, the very best place to look is where is that fuel currently being deployed in the least effective way? Can we go there and steal some of that fuel to redeploy in a better way? And how do you get people to do that? You know, it can be hard. How do you get people to let go of some of that work?

It's a great question. In fact, Philippi told me, so they've just done this analysis that shows business leaders like, hey, you have some customers that are hugely unprofitable. But even so, even facing into those facts, the leaders say, well, okay.

gosh, I want people to feel like I'm treating customers the same and I don't want to just tell them to get lost and what happens if we get a bad review? And it's like all this anxiety is dredged up by the idea of kicking customers out the door. Yeah, they've been quote unquote great customers for years. Yeah, they've been with you for years. And Philip, I said, the answer is not to kick them out.

The answer is to change the offer. He said a business's job is to define the offer and a customer's job is to figure out whether they want to accept it or not. And so changing the offer might mean, you know, is there a minimum order size? Could you raise prices somewhat? Could you lower expectations on delivery time for customers below a certain scale? Could you offer them self-service tools so maybe they're not eating as much of your support time and so forth?

And by reconfiguring the bundle, it's like you can trust them to make the decision for them while making sure you're not draining resources in an unjustified way. So you can kind of make those decisions from, you know, the leadership level of an organization. How do you get people to go along with that process? How do you motivate people to go along with these changes?

This is a critical theme in the book that that anytime there's a change effort, motivation is at the center of it. One of the things I pick on in the book is this notion of buy in that we've all heard so much about, you know, that leaders should seek buy in for their ideas. And

And I kind of make this snarky remark that what buy-in means is that you're trying to convince your people to want what you want instead of what they want. To be clear, I don't think it's a bad idea to try to persuade people of a new vision or a new idea. But I do think there is a simpler recipe and a more effective recipe than buy-in.

If you imagine a Venn diagram in your mind, and one circle is the bundle of activities that are going to be needed to succeed at change. So whatever change you have formulated, a bunch of stuff is going to have to happen for you to succeed. That's circle one. And then the second intersecting circle is what are the things that your employees would do if they were boss? What did they wish would change? What would they love to see happen today? And

And if there is any intersection between those two circles, and if there's not, by the way, I think you've got the wrong change mission. There's almost always going to be an intersection. The intersection is where you start the change. In other words, we got to seek out the intersection of what's required and what's desired, right?

And that seems like the simplest, dumbest idea in the world. Like, how could you not start with what people want to do? But what you'll find is it doesn't happen that much in the wild because what typically happens is you become aware of some need, some new strategic direction, some new strategic priority.

And the smart leaders go off in a room and they put on their analytical hats and they map out the closest route from where we are today to where we need to be in a year or three years or whatever. But if you have left motivation out of that formula, you've unwittingly left out the single most important variable in the whole equation.

Even if your line is analytically the straightest one between two points, if there's an alternate path that is meandering and three times as long on paper, but it's the one that people are fired up frothing at the mouth to achieve, like you'd be crazy not to pick that one. And that's what I mean by we've got to be alert to the ability to tap motivation. What about situations where the inefficiency is,

or the stuckness of the system is serving some team members. Isn't that a lot harder to change? It is, yeah. I mean, I think in almost every change situation, I've heard this 20-60-20 thing from enough leaders that I've come to believe there must be some folk wisdom behind it, that in any change, you're going to have 20% advocates or zealots, you're going to have 60% that are kind of indifferent, and then 20% that are opponents, right?

I literally have had several different leaders play those exact numbers to me. Now, I want to say, I think the spirit of the book is you shouldn't be satisfied with 20%, like in the spirit of tapping motivation. I think if you get out of the habit of trying to get people to want what you want and you look instead for what people want, I think that number goes up. But anyway, to the point of your question, what do you ever do about those 20% resistors?

there are a couple of strategies that you can use in almost every case. It doesn't mean it's easy, but these are kind of evergreen strategies. One is what kind of barter can you make? It's like you play along with this mission. I realize this isn't the direction you want to go. Is there something that we can do for you in the spirit of those gummed up wheels on the carts that we talked about earlier? Maybe I can make this easier even as you endure this thing that you don't want. That's strategy one.

I think strategy two is even if the direction of the change is undesired, people's roles within the change can often make it more motivating. So in other words, even if I'm trying to eliminate the batch processes at work and the receiving area, you don't think that's a good idea.

If I can give you more of the kind of work you like to do, maybe it's still a good trade for you. Maybe you like to do more of the systems level work and less of the manual shuttling of packages within the hospital. That's another dimension of a trade that could be made. I think the third lens is usually the most powerful, and that is progress. Progress is the spark that makes believers of skeptics.

So in other words, you take the energy of those zealots. You remember motivation is the signature fuel to push in some new direction. And so you do something, you do some good work and you find a good leverage point and you realize, hey, we can move the boulder a couple of inches and

And then you go back to the skeptics and you're like, see that boulder that we've been living with for years. Like it actually is movable. We just moved it. Does that change your opinion? And I think over time, that sense of progress and all of the self-efficacy that comes with it is the engine by which 20% resistors goes to 18%, goes to 15%, goes to 12%.

What can a team member do to encourage their leader to initiate this process? It's a great question. And I think the best approach is to sell the problem before you sell the solution. We talked earlier about the power of going and seeing the work. And Nelson Repenning shared this example of a paper manufacturer that made corrugated boxes. And

At lunchtime, they shut down the main corrugating machine. They've been doing this for years and years and years.

after some investigation, they figure out that this was the legacy of a time when the local electrical utility was having some instability and they figured out, hey, it's worse around lunchtime. We'll just preemptively, proactively shut down this machine to kind of save the wear and tear from the instability. And then it had locked in as a habit. And so years later, they were still doing this thing. The utility had long since fixed

fixed the original problem that spawned that response, but they hadn't realized it. So if you're the employee, back to your question,

I think what you want to do is be as concrete as possible and as specific as possible about the problem. It's like take your boss out there one day at lunchtime and say, you know, we always shut down this corrugator machine. Why do we do that? Because we're losing an hour every time and then starting it up and shutting it down. It's like wasting paper. I'm just curious if there's any way around that.

It reminds me of the change guru, John Cotter, has this great model where he says that what sparks change in organizations is when people see something that makes them feel something that opens their mind to change. So it's see, feel, change. So it's like you see the corrugator machine shut down, it

It makes you feel curious. It makes you feel anxious. Like, why are we losing all this production time? And that opens the door to change. Dan, this has been great. Thanks so much for coming on the show to talk about it. Kurt, it's been a pleasure. Thank you. That's Dan Heath, author of the new book, Reset, How to Change What's Not Working.

Want to change more things that aren't working for you? We have over 1,000 episodes and more podcasts to help you manage your team, your organization, and your career. Find them at hbr.org slash podcasts or search HBR on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Thanks to our team, Senior Producer Mary Du, Associate Producer Hannah Bates, Audio Product Manager Ian Fox, and Senior Production Specialist Rob Eckhart.

Thank you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast. We'll be back on Tuesday with our next episode. I'm Curt Nikish.