Instead of thinking vertically, I always like to see if it’s possible to “steal” ideas that work in one sector or discipline and apply them to another. And why not by getting experts in these subjects to talk.
Since you liked my first mock interview (Exclusive: the (fake) Steve Jobs interview on employee experience) and you’ve validated the concept, I’m tackling another subject, that of infobesity in the world of knowledge workers, and for this I’ve summoned the late Eliyahu Goldratt.
Eliyahu Goldratt, who has been an inspiration of mine for some twenty years, was a visionary thinker and the author of the famous Theory of Constraints, a systemic approach to identifying and eliminating bottlenecks in organizations. His ideas were initially applied to the manufacturing industry, although he applied them to other sectors, including IT, in some of his books, and I was curious to see what could be made of them in today’s world of knowledge workers, where information overload is the evil of the century (Workplace Collaboration: When Technology Saturates, Productivity Stagnates and Generations Disconnect and Digital Infobesity: When Collaboration Tools Degrade Productivity, QWL and Amplify Mental Workload).
Here we go!
Me: Eliyahu, thank you for agreeing to this interview. Infobesity has now been identified as a real problem for both organizational performance and employee health, but many see it as a necessary evil against which nothing can be done.How do you approach it in the light of your Theory of Constraints?
Goldratt: First of all, thank you.
Infobesity is the excess of useless or low-priority information, and is comparable to a system that creates unnecessary bottlenecks in a flow of value. The Theory of Constraints (TOC) tells us that every system has a bottleneck which determines its overall flow and constitutes its constraint.
In knowledge work, this bottleneck is often the limited attention and cognitive capacity of individuals.
If we overload this bottleneck, this capacity, with too much information and especially irrelevant information, we artificially extend this bottleneck and its impact.
It’s as if a factory were operating at full capacity, but saturated its critical production station with useless tasks, with the result that the entire production chain, which is subordinate to this constraint, comes to a standstill.
The priority must therefore be to protect and maximize the capacity of the bottleneck, in this case the human brain.
Me: What advice would you give organizations to identify and manage these cognitive bottlenecks?
Goldratt: First and foremost, analyze your workflow, the way you create value by circulating and processing information. Just ask a simple question: “Where is the value really created?
Most of the time, employees are distracted, interrupted and annoyed by e-mails, meetings and digital tools that add no direct value. So it all starts with identifying these distractions as losses in your value chain.
Then apply the TOC continuous improvement process:
1°) Identify the bottleneck. In this case, it’s cognitive ability.
2°) Exploit the bottleneck. Prioritize critical information and tasks.
3°) Subordinate everything else to the bottleneck. Simplify, filter and automate non-critical tasks.
4°) Elevate the bottleneck. Invest in training, prioritization tools and clear processes.
5°) Do it again.
As far as solicitation by managers and other stakeholders is concerned, this is often where things get complicated, because hierarchical discipline or acceptance of the problem as inevitable often means that people don’t dare say “no”.
An employee can be distracted not only by tools, but also by constant demands from superiors or colleagues. To solve this, organizations need to put in place policies that limit these interruptions and encourage a structured flow of communication.
The most important thing is to avoid treating every employee as an unlimited resource.
Their time and energy must be respected as precious assets. This will require both managerial change and technological support.
Me: You stress the importance of focus in your books. How do you apply this idea in an environment where employees juggle multiple channels, demands and priorities?
Goldratt: Focus is essential, because it reduces wasted energy on unnecessary activities. In a saturated environment, you need to develop an organizational discipline around prioritization.
As you yourself pointed out when talking about the effectiveness of collaboration and communication, especially under stress and in times of crisis, there’s no point in having best practices if they aren’t shared and applied by all without negotiation (CRM can save your business, but not the CRM you think!)
One example would be to introduce strict policies to limit interruptions-for example, time slots with no e-mails or meetings. Another is to use tools that centralize and prioritize critical tasks.
But don’t believe that technology will solve everything, because the problem, if accentuated by it, is above all human and behavioral: every employee must understand that his or her time is limited and must be protected. Not only his own time, which he understands quickly, but also that of others , which is more difficult to understand, especially if he’s in a position of power or management.
When an employee is in difficulty due to an excessive information and workload, there’s a tendency to believe that it’s his problem and blame him individually, whereas the cause of the problem is everyone, andin the end everyone is penalized.
Another way forward is to encourage management to clarify priorities. Employees should never be in a situation where they don’t know which task is the most important.
Me: You often mention the responsibility of managers. What is their role or even responsibility in infobesity?
Goldratt: Managers are the guardians of the system. Their main role, as organizers of resources and guarantors of the flow of value, must be to ensure that the bottleneck – again, the cognitive capacity of their teams – is not saturated by unnecessary demands.
To do this, they need to do three things
1°) Clarify strategic objectives. A team that doesn’t understand the strategy, the main and ultimate objective, produces a lot of unnecessary activity.
2°) Limit workload. Too many simultaneous tasks create a mental overload, but you still need to take the trouble to measure these activities, for the right reasons, to avoid using the wrong indicators or too many, and to avoid misusing them (The quantified organization: Grail or Big Brother? and How to motivate your employees to blow hot air instead of being productive (thank you Microsoft).
3°) Encourage feedback. Employees should point out when they are overwhelmed, or when processes can be improved.
On the subject of measurement and awareness, I recognize that unlike the manufacturing world, which is the source of my thinking, this has long been more complicated in the world of knowledge workers, due to the intangible, immaterial nature of production flows, as you yourself noted (Knowledge workers, the excluded from operational excellence?). When you walk around a factory, you can see if it’s dysfunctional, even if you’re not an expert. When you walk around an open space, you see nothing, which can be a reassuring illusion.
But today, tools exist to make the invisible visible, and it’s urgent to invest in them (The open space is not a factory but sometimes you should look at it that way).
Last but not least, managers themselves need to be exemplary in their behavior, as they tend to think that good manners are only for others, and that they are invested with a higher mission that allows them to get away with anything. If they send e-mails at midnight or organize useless meetings all day long, they reinforce the phenomenon of overload.
By this I mean that the solution is not only technological. On the contrary, it’s fundamentally managerial. Technology can help automate and filter, but without a clear vision on the part of managers, it’s useless.
Me: Sometimes, when a constraint is identified and eliminated, another appears elsewhere in the system, as if it were moving. How do you deal with this in a knowledge-work context?
Goldratt: You’re right, it happens all the time, and it’s even normal. In fact, once we’ve dealt with the biggest bottleneck, we realize that it’s now another, smaller bottleneck that is in turn becoming the constraint on the system.
This is good news, because it shows that the system is working better, but that there are still limits to be overcome.
The key is to treat the fight against infobesity and the bottlenecks it generates as an ongoing process. Once a bottleneck has been eliminated, you need to start the analysis all over again and focus on the new one.
In knowledge work, this may mean that external distractions have been reduced, but employees are now faced with problems related to poorly designed tools (A complicated IT experience. Irritant #7 of the Employee Experience) or a lack of specific skills.
It’s important for organizations to understand that every constraint identified and managed represents a step towards a more efficient system. It’s a never-ending process, but it’s a permanent opportunity to improve.
Me: You mention automation as a lever in the fight against infobesity. How do you balance this with the need to retain something human in the workplace?
Goldratt: Automation is a powerful tool, but it needs to follow a clear strategy. Automation doesn’t mean replacing people, but rather giving them more time to concentrate on high-value-added tasks. However, two pitfalls must be avoided.
The first is toautomate indiscriminately. If you automate unnecessary or poorly designed processes, you’re simply amplifying the problem (AI Success Depends on Tackling “Process Debt”). Digital tools have two virtues: they enable you to operate faster and on a larger scale. Applied to dysfunctional processes , they will make you dysfunction faster and on a larger scale. Compared to a manufacturing plant producing not one but 10 defective parts out of every 1,000, you’re going to produce 10 times as many bad decisions, documents that don’t meet expectations, with quality problems, erroneous figures, inappropriate interpretations and recommendations…
The second is to dehumanize essential interactions. For example, automated communication tools need to be complemented by human exchanges when the situation calls for it. There are tasks, moments, when interactions bring pleasure and pride, and these must be preserved (How Gen AI Can Make Work More Fulfilling).
Ultimately, the aim is to create an environment where humans and technology live in symbiosis to optimize the value stream.
Me: Some organizations believe that infobesity is inevitable in an ultra-connected world, that it’s a necessary evil. How do you respond?
Goldratt: I would say that infobesity is not an inevitability, but the consequence of organizational and cultural choices. If you take a proactive approach to controlling the flow of information and prioritizing what matters, you can eliminate much of the problem. This requires leadership, discipline and a willingness to challenge the status quo.
Unfortunately, there’s no app for that. You can buy the best technology and hire the most expensive consultants, but you can’t buy courage.
Me: Finally, what would you say to organizations that think infobesity is a minor problem?
Goldratt: I’d ask them one question and one question only: “ If you were wasting 30 to 40% of your physical or financial resources on useless activities, would you act immediately to put a stop to it? Why should you tolerate such a waste of your most precious resource: your employees’ brains? “.
Infobesity is not an individual problem but a systemic one. If you underestimate it, you compromise your ability to create value, your competitiveness and your future success.
Me: Thank you, Eliyahu, for this discussion.
Goldratt: Thank you. Remember: in a complex system, order is born of clarity. You have to learn to prioritize what really matters, even if it means accepting that you won’t deal with the rest. Once again, the time, attention and brains of your employees are not an infinite resource.
