Why are we still overlooking company catalysts?
Hidden accelerators that are usually ignored, underestimated or even discouraged at times when they are needed most
For some reason, I love to learn and then write about what I learned about excellence in (new) product development & manufacturing. Despite my background and initial bias for thinking that technical problems are the most difficult part of engineering, I must admit that it’s not. Building a great team is.
This article describes what I call company catalysts: anything other than primary business activities that are beneficial to the primary activities. They are particularly applicable to organizations that engage in product development & manufacturing.
Chemical catalysis
In ICE cars, the principle of catalysis is used to bring about and accelerate the reaction of toxic exhaust gases to well, less-polluting gases. The great thing is that they never run out: the mere presence of the catalyst is sufficient to make the reaction go (faster).
There are many such reactions where catalysts are used to increase the reactive efficiency; another great example is the synthesis of fertilizer.
Catalysis is the process of increasing the rate of a chemical reaction by adding a substance known as a catalyst. Catalysts are not consumed in the reaction and remain unchanged after it — Wikipedia
Corporate equivalent
In the corporate analogy, I noticed that a similar phenomenon exists. But rather than chemical elements, they are elements that make teams run better in both financial terms (increased labor productivity, decreased onboarding time, better quality of work) as well as social terms (higher morale and commitment, increased wellbeing).
The deceiving part is that things would likely run profitable and thus seemingly fine even without the presence of any catalysts. It is only when they are added or removed, the organization may start to notice the difference.
Ironically, these catalysts are often overlooked when needed the most. Under pressure, companies tend to double down on working rather than taking a step back to look at their way of working.
As a system architect for a large contract manufacturer, I often wonder why some projects just run smoothly while others seem to have continuous headwind. Actually, that’s been my experience at previous companies as well. And at any level: team, department, division or the entire company. Sometimes, things just work. At other times, gears are grinding.
While there can be many reasons for this, my observation is that quite often, it can be attributed to the lacking of one of the following “catalysts”. Please note that this list is not in particular order and probably incomplete.
→ Cohesive individuals
→ Intolerance towards toxic individuals
→ Company wiki
→ Principles over processes
→ Sandboxing
→ Pantry whiteboard
Cohesive individuals
Humans are quite diverse. Some team members get along great, while others not so much. Some people need a daily talk, others are best left alone. That makes this catalyst so hard to describe.
However, what I will say about this is that some people tend to function as a social glue/lubricant of some sort. These types of individuals can be found everywhere: they may be team members, project or team managers, or facilitary personnel.
Although their position may have some effect, their social presence does most for the company. They just walk around and talk to people. They listen. They are generally likeable. They recommend people to talk to particular other people. They are capable of probing the atmosphere and nudge it in a different direction just by talking about the weather.
While the value of employees is usually only measured in terms of their formal role or position in the company, I believe this undervalues these individuals significantly, as well as their value to the company.
Intolerance towards toxic individuals
On the other side of the coin, there are toxic individuals. They come in all shapes in sizes. Sometimes it’s obvious, sometimes it subtle. I am not going to describe them, you’ll know if you experienced it. These people are often tolerated by management for various reasons. Fixed contracts, particular domain knowledge, their position or just fear of difficult conversations.
What I’ve learned is that there should always be an exit strategy for toxic individuals. Although this can be very difficult, it is even harder to understate the damage such individuals can do to progress or morale. I’ve so often thought “how bad can it be” or “it will improve” and postponed difficult decisions. But no, really, rip off that band-aid asap.
An important caveat is to distinguish a toxic individual from a situation where there is just a mismatch between otherwise “regular” people.
Company wiki
All companies build up knowledge. When part of the primary business activities, knowledge is usually called intellectual property and is both valued and documented. However, the vast majority of knowledge is actually not documented, and often only accesible through particular individuals or obscured in some document on a network drive folder: you have to know where to look.
The knowledge I’m talking about expands much further and ranges from (engineering) best practices, to HR info to company processes, ways of working, project overviews, (references to) project documentation, document templates, IT instructions, who works on what, etc, etc.
Wiki’s provides knowledge continuity against staff turnover and provide a kickstart to new projects and new hires
Some companies use something like a “knowledge base”. Although this is a good initiative, it doesn’t quite capture the full potential of the companies collective knowledge, as the information is often written only by one or very few people and is rarely kept up-to-date.
Most company-specific problems are actually recurring (i.e. the next project will have similar problems as well as new ones). If a nearby senior employee happens to hear about it, or team member has seen a similar problem before, things tend to go well because there is collective knowledge available that can quickly guide others in the right direction.
The trick is to use an actual wiki like Mediawiki, Confluence, Notion, Nuclino or pick your own. As long as it has collaborative editing features, excellent search features and most of all: is uncluttered and user-friendly. Although this initially takes a bit of training, it pays off very quickly for new hires and new teams.
Once “part of the system”, it requires very little maintenance and will see heavy usage, similar to Wikipedia: the worlds 5th most visited website. Essentially, wiki’s provide knowledge continuity against staff turnover and provide a kickstart to new projects and new hires.
Principles over processes
Part of maturing as a company, is to capture corporate operations into procedures or processes. While this has great benefits, processes are often interpreted as a set-and-forget solution to, well, all problems. The false belief is that as long as everyone follows the processes, things will work out.
Unfortunately, this is not often recognized, as those who authorize the processes are rarely the ones using them. Quite commonly, processes are actually just way too complex. Yet, some managers may still dismiss practical concerns under the “that’s part of your job” umbrella. This is not a catalytic mindset.
Instead, there should be a vigorous incentive to minimize the number of hoops to jump through. If the process step cannot be defended other than circling back to “that’s just the process”, the process itself should be changed.
Looking at corporate processes and realizing they should change, requires a principle which I will call a “catalytic mindset” for now. I may write more about this in the future, but until then, I recommend reading this article.
Sandboxing
Whether it’s on the factory floor in volume production, or in the midst of the design process, companies should account for some slack or headroom for “sandboxing” in their projects. What I mean with this, is to account for additional work to follow a hunch.
Oftentimes, there are ideas on how to improve a product design with out-the-box ideas, but they are considered “too risky for this project”. Or, there are ideas to make processes go smoother, but “there’s no time for that now”. In practice, those ideas will never be tried. As a result, the company never really innovates, and those most creative will leave sooner.
In reality, all progress is derived from risk. By accounting for additional “risky” work inside a time- and/or money-capped sandbox (that is: the common risk-averse path is also taken), the company significantly increases their innovative capacity and boosts creative morale.
Oh, and did I mention the importance of documenting it in a company wiki?
Pantry whiteboard
This one has a very simple rationale: it is extremely common for engineers to take a short break to the coffee machine whenever they are stuck at something. Whether it’s a difficult problem to solve, not sure how to best approach things, or just want to vent ideas.
A change of venue changes a state of mind
Rather than preventing small talk at the coffee machine, I encourage it. Because it allows for two important things:
- Serendipitous meetings can occur, strengthening the internal network
- Offer a fresh look onto problems by outsiders
A change of venue changes a state of mind: our minds to open up to new ideas and new people. Sure, a fair use policy applies, but in general people can and should be trusted that they are doing the right thing. What the whiteboard does, is allow people to visualize their ideas and problems to others while in a different state of mind.
Benefits and consequences
One large benefit for employees is the feeling of working effectively: not being hindered in doing what needs to be done is a great motivator. In addition, being part of a strong team while being heard and understood has huge benefits to morale and overall feeling of purpose and wellbeing.
For the employer, the single largest benefit is increased labor productivity. The ability to get (significantly) more output from the same people sounds like a pipe dream, yet the chemical equivalent is abundantly commonplace.
In a growing economy, scaling is often prioritized over productivity and efficiency. Within reason, this isn’t much of a problem. However, during periods of recession, strong competition or labor & material shortages, efficient companies have less to lose, and are in a stronger position to come out on top.
In light of recent worldwide developments, it has become increasingly clear we must be more efficient and sustainable with all resources. Not just our natural resources. Human resources just as well — or really even more so.
I hope that this article provided sufficient food for thought :). Feel free to leave thought and remarks in the comments.
