Conflate, v. a: to bring together, fuse; b: to confuse
The federal government’s response, under the direction of the Obama Administration, to the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf has been to conflate the spill at the bottom of the sea with the clean up at the water’s edge in Louisiana. While one causes the other, their solutions require different approaches and technologies. Fusing two separate issues creates one confusing problem.
By conflating the spew with the clean up the Obama Administration committed the classic error of conflating responsibility for outcome with impetus for action. Action to stop the flow and clean up the wetlands and beaches should be his administration’s prime responsibility. Right now, holding BP accountable is secondary to getting the leak stopped and the shoreline clean.
Conflation is not simply a matter of semantics; it is a root cause of organizational dysfunction. As we have seen in the Gulf disaster, problems become entwined with processes so that inactivity supersedes responsibility. As a result, nothing gets solved; and as we have seen, people suffer.
What’s happening in the Gulf mirrors what happens in many organizations when problems are not defined and people in charge lack the authority and responsibility to do their jobs. When that happens, workers receive make work assignments that spur activity but do not contribute to progress. Little is accomplished because no one has the problem or its solution in clear focus.
Avoiding such confusion is not easy but if those in charge at every level were to ask themselves and their peers three questions it could improve clarity of purpose, direction, and progress. And here’s the good news: these questions are stone simple. So simple in fact they get railroaded by the urgency of acting now, when in reality we should be thinking now and acting later.
What’s our purpose? In the Gulf, it is to stop the leak and clean the shoreline. Plain and simple. Holding people accountable comes later. Organizations faced with problems need to identify the root cause of the problem and consider how to solve it. Now begins the process of thinking quickly as well as actively by identifying resources.
What do we need to do now? Here is where conflation is most dangerous. By acting on the outcome before you have a solution, you put the cart before the horse. In the case of the Gulf disaster, crews and materials were sent to the well-head but little was done initially to protect the beaches and wetlands. The way to avoid such confusion is to think through the problem, marshal your resources, choose your problems, and attack them swiftly. Then you move to the next set of problems.
What is our goal? In the Gulf, it is a clean ocean and restored wetlands. Unless you tackle both problems simultaneously, neither outcome will be achieved. Applied brainpower typically works. As Stephen Covey has taught, you envision the outcomes and work out the steps to achieve it. Think about what you want to achieve and work backwards.
Making sense of the answers is the next step. That requires a concentration of efforts as well as manpower. But by asking such questions, as well as others you may develop, helps focus attention on the problem and concentration on the solution without conflating the two. That requires on the ground leadership.
So the person in charge needs to ask: what do I do? Some leaders can solve the problems themselves by taking charge. If that is not possible, the leader finds a point person to whom he assigns total responsibility and authority, and has that person go at the problem with all due haste. To be fair, President Obama has done just that by designating Admiral Thad Allen as his point person to coordination actions in the Gulf.
Asking good questions will not tame an oil spill a mile down in the ocean or prevent the desecration of precious wetlands, but forethought can set the table for execution that will avoid conflation of purpose and solution and achieve intended goals.
Posted FastCompany.com 6.15.10
[ add comment ] ( 2 views ) permalink The federal government’s response, under the direction of the Obama Administration, to the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf has been to conflate the spill at the bottom of the sea with the clean up at the water’s edge in Louisiana. While one causes the other, their solutions require different approaches and technologies. Fusing two separate issues creates one confusing problem.
By conflating the spew with the clean up the Obama Administration committed the classic error of conflating responsibility for outcome with impetus for action. Action to stop the flow and clean up the wetlands and beaches should be his administration’s prime responsibility. Right now, holding BP accountable is secondary to getting the leak stopped and the shoreline clean.
Conflation is not simply a matter of semantics; it is a root cause of organizational dysfunction. As we have seen in the Gulf disaster, problems become entwined with processes so that inactivity supersedes responsibility. As a result, nothing gets solved; and as we have seen, people suffer.
What’s happening in the Gulf mirrors what happens in many organizations when problems are not defined and people in charge lack the authority and responsibility to do their jobs. When that happens, workers receive make work assignments that spur activity but do not contribute to progress. Little is accomplished because no one has the problem or its solution in clear focus.
Avoiding such confusion is not easy but if those in charge at every level were to ask themselves and their peers three questions it could improve clarity of purpose, direction, and progress. And here’s the good news: these questions are stone simple. So simple in fact they get railroaded by the urgency of acting now, when in reality we should be thinking now and acting later.
What’s our purpose? In the Gulf, it is to stop the leak and clean the shoreline. Plain and simple. Holding people accountable comes later. Organizations faced with problems need to identify the root cause of the problem and consider how to solve it. Now begins the process of thinking quickly as well as actively by identifying resources.
What do we need to do now? Here is where conflation is most dangerous. By acting on the outcome before you have a solution, you put the cart before the horse. In the case of the Gulf disaster, crews and materials were sent to the well-head but little was done initially to protect the beaches and wetlands. The way to avoid such confusion is to think through the problem, marshal your resources, choose your problems, and attack them swiftly. Then you move to the next set of problems.
What is our goal? In the Gulf, it is a clean ocean and restored wetlands. Unless you tackle both problems simultaneously, neither outcome will be achieved. Applied brainpower typically works. As Stephen Covey has taught, you envision the outcomes and work out the steps to achieve it. Think about what you want to achieve and work backwards.
Making sense of the answers is the next step. That requires a concentration of efforts as well as manpower. But by asking such questions, as well as others you may develop, helps focus attention on the problem and concentration on the solution without conflating the two. That requires on the ground leadership.
So the person in charge needs to ask: what do I do? Some leaders can solve the problems themselves by taking charge. If that is not possible, the leader finds a point person to whom he assigns total responsibility and authority, and has that person go at the problem with all due haste. To be fair, President Obama has done just that by designating Admiral Thad Allen as his point person to coordination actions in the Gulf.
Asking good questions will not tame an oil spill a mile down in the ocean or prevent the desecration of precious wetlands, but forethought can set the table for execution that will avoid conflation of purpose and solution and achieve intended goals.
Posted FastCompany.com 6.15.10
( 2.9 / 76 )
Calendar
