6 Simple Rules for Simplifying Everything

In their new book from Harvard Business Review Press—Six Simple Rules: How To Manage Complexity Without Getting Complicated—Boston Consulting Group partners Yves Morieux and Peter Tollman make a valiant attempt at helping increasingly complex organizations improve their performance in an increasingly complex world. We asked Morieux to be similarly valiant in boiling down their rules for Time.com readers. (You’re welcome!)

1. Understand what your employees actually do. “Most management approaches pay less attention to the day-to-day reality of how people behave and why, and instead add unnecessary functions and procedures. We use the term ‘smart simplicity’ to describe the approach of discovering what people actually do and why. The central insight? People act rationally, even if their actions create problems for the organization. They are trying to look after their own interests. The essence of smart simplicity is to understand that, and then change the conditions inside the organization so their interests align with what you need them to do.”

2. Find your fighters. Conflict is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself. But it can be a sign that people are actually doing the hard work of cooperating, which can be difficult and create tension and resentment. But the people who are resented might be the glue that holds cooperation together. We call them ‘integrators.’ They’re often not in positions of formal power. They often operate at the intersection between two groups. They have an interest in cooperation and the power to make collaboration happen.Integrators can be well-liked, but they can also be resented. They are forcing others to make hard choices. You can identify integrators by the fact that they are the focus of strong feelings, either positive or negative. Give integrators the power, incentives and authority to succeed.”

3. Give more people more power… “The real key to performance is combining cooperation with autonomy. The problem with standard approaches to an increasingly complex business environment is that by creating new layers and processes and systems to deal with these challenges you also sacrifice people’s autonomy. That makes the organization less agile. One of the effects of smart simplicity is to balance autonomy and cooperation. It gives people enough power to take the risk of interpreting rules, using their judgment and intelligence. If more employees have power to make decisions in your organization, that means they can solve problems on their own.

4. …and take away resources from everybody. “Having fewer resources means people have no choice but to rely on each other, which helps to foster cooperation. Think of a household with several people living in it. If those people own multiple televisions, there is no need for them to cooperate about what to watch. But if you take away all the televisions except one, they will have to cooperate. Do they want to watch baseball or Shakespeare?”

5. Make sure your employees eat their own cooking. “People work better when they understand–and have to live with–the consequences of their actions. A car company’s products were famously hard to repair. Then the company sent its engineers to work in repairs. Confronted with the repair problem themselves, they quickly found solutions to make cars easier to fix.”

6. Don’t punish failure—punish the failure to cooperate. “If people are afraid to fail, they will hide problems from you and your peers. Reward people who surface problems—and punish those who don’t come together to help solve them.”

TIME Management & Leadership

The One Thing Business Schools Need to Start Teaching

Getty Images

If you ask 20 random grads to explain why they went to business school, a large majority will list networking as one of the top reasons. Makes sense, too, since the connections one makes in b-school can be useful down the road in finding jobs and excelling at them. Which is why it’s all the more curious that if you comb through the course curriculum of 20 random business schools, you’d be hard-pressed to turn up more than a handful that actually teach their students how to network.

I was prompted to try both experiments recently after reading an article by David Kahn, chief revenue honcho at the Wall Street Journal Office Network, bemoaning the fact that most businesses do a poor job teaching their employees how to network, especially those workers who are not directly connected to obvious revenue-generation functions. As Kahn writes:

“Sure, many companies, firms and agencies offer workshops on presentation skills, closing strategies, storytelling and the like. But these are sales tactics, not networking ones. And yes, many encourage staffers to attend conferences and other industry gatherings, if for no other reason than to collect business cards. But such efforts are Networking 0.5, as relevant to accumulating real relationship capital as tenth grade Home Ec is to becoming a Michelin chef.”

This is a serious oversight, Kahn explains:

“The instincts, skills and strategies necessary to build a vibrant and productive professional web of contacts are varied, complex and by no means natural to most people, even ‘natural salespeople.'”

For the very same reasons, most business schools should be taken to task for their inability or unwillingness to recognize the importance that networking will assume in the professional lives of their graduates. “At all levels of higher education, graduate and undergraduate, most schools do an incredibly poor job of teaching networking skills in any formal or practical way,” says Ivan Misner, author of several books on the subject. “It’s extraordinarily rare.”

But by any name—”networking,” “relationship capital,” “social capital”—the sum and substance of one’s connections and networks has value far beyond job searches. They are integral to all sorts of organizational priorities—not only sales, but also recruiting, lobbying and various types of “sourcing,” from partnerships to acquisition targets to industry experts.

A few business schools take networking seriously—most notably the University of Michigan’s Stephen M. Ross School, where management professor Wayne Baker has established himself as one of the gurus of the subject. (“There’s a lot of untapped potential in companies,” Baker contends.) And a growing number of his academic peers have started to research social networks from a variety of angles. But most b-schools and pretty much all undergraduate institutions ignore networking as a discipline entirely or give it passing attention in modules embedded in broader leadership or management sections.

Why? For two primary reasons. First, the idea of trading on one’s personal relationships for professional gain continues to strike some academics as unseemly. (LinkedIn, Relationship Science and Facebook be damned!) “Networking still has something of a bad reputation to some,” Baker says.

Second, even those who understand and value relationship capital’s role in commerce often think of it as a collections of so-called soft skills, with which some small percentage of fortunate folks were born and the rest of humankind can only admire. But while there’s truth in the first notion, the second is just plain wrong. Networking, Bakers says, “is a learnable skill.”

Which means it can be taught. As Kahn writes,

“… reciprocity, mapping relationships, intuiting the self-interest of others, prioritizing conflicting needs, professional matchmaking, normalizing agenda-free but genuine communication—these are the building blocks of robust relationship capital.”

They are also the building blocks of engaging, practical and valuable course syllabi. Let’s hope more schools—at all levels of higher education—start teaching from them.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser