your scarce resources on those issues that really
matter and enabling rapid learning cycles, good problem formulation and structured problem-solving
offer a sustainable alternative to the endless stream of
painful reorganizations and overblown change initiatives that rarely deliver on their promises.
Nelson P. Repenning is the School of Management
Distinguished Professor of System Dynamics and
Organization Studies at the MIT Sloan School of Management in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well as
chief social scientist at the consulting firm ShiftGear
Work Design LLC. Don Kieffer is a senior lecturer in
operations management at the MIT Sloan School and
managing partner of ShiftGear Work Design. Todd
Astor is the medical director of the lung and heart-lung
transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital
and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard
Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. Comment
on this article at http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/58330, or
contact the authors at email@example.com.
1. R. Gibbons and R. Henderson, “What Do Managers Do?
Exploring Persistent Performance Differences Among
Seemingly Similar Enterprises” in “The Handbook of
Organizational Economics,” ed. R. Gibbons and J. Roberts
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2013),
2. N.P. Repenning and J.D. Sterman, “Nobody Ever Gets
Credit for Fixing Problems That Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement,” California
Management Review 43, no. 4 (summer 2001): 64-88.
3. A study by Towers Watson reported than only about
one in four change efforts are effective in the long run.
See Towers Watson, “How the Fundamentals Have
Evolved and the Best Adapt: 2013 - 2014 Change and
Communication ROI Study,” (December 2013), www
. towerswatson.com. Others have reached similar conclusions; for example, see J.P. Kotter, “Leading Change”
(Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press,
1996); and M. Beer, R.A. Eisenstat, and B. Spector, “Why
Change Programs Don’t Produce Change,” Harvard
Business Review 68, no. 6 (November-December 1990):
4. A. Mangi and N.P. Repenning, “Dynamic Work Design Decreases Post-Procedural Length of Stay and Enhances Bed
Availability,” manuscript available from the author; S. Dodge
et al., “Using Dynamic Work Design to Help Cure Cancer
(And Other Diseases),”MIT Sloan School of Management
working paper 5159-16, June 2016, www.mitsloan.mit.edu.
5. For very readable summaries, see D. Kahneman,
“Thinking, Fast and Slow” (New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux, 2011); and J. Haidt, “The Happiness Hypothesis:
Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom” (New York:
Basic Books, 2006). For recent overviews of scholarly
work, see J. St. B. T. Evans and K.E. Stanovich, “
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the
Debate,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 8, no. 3
(May 1, 2013): 223-241; and S.A. Sloman, “Two Systems
of Reasoning, an Update” in J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski,
and Y. Trope, “Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind”
(New York: Guilford Press, 2014), 107-120. For a collec-
tion of reviews, see Sherman, Gawronski, and Trope,
“Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind.”
6. K.E. Stanovich, “Rationality and the Reflective Mind”
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
7. G.A. Klein, “Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998).
8. J. Singh and L. Fleming, “Lone Inventors as Sources of
Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?” Management Science
56, no. 1 (January 2010): 41-56.
9. C. Perrow, “Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk
Technologies” (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999).
10. A. Dijksterhuis and L.F. Nordgren, “A Theory of
Unconscious Thought,” Perspectives on Psychological
Science 1, no. 2 (June 1, 2006): 95-109; and A. Dijksterhuis,
“Automaticity and the Unconscious,” in “Handbook of
Social Psychology,” 5th ed., vol. 1, ed. S. T. Fiske, D. T.
Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley &
Sons, 2010), 228-267.
11. J. W. Forrester, “Industrial Dynamics” (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1961), 449.
12. E.A. Locke and G.P. Latham, “Building a Practically
Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation,”
American Psychologist 57, no. 9 (September 2002):
13. G. Oettingen, G. Hönig, and P. M. Gollwitzer, “Effective
Self-Regulation of Goal Attainment,” International Journal
of Educational Research 33, no. 7-8 (2000): 705-732.
14. T.M. Amabile and S.J. Kramer, “The Power of Small
Wins,” Harvard Business Review 89, no. 5 (May 2011):
70-80; and T.M. Amabile and S.J. Kramer, “The Progress
Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement,
and Creativity at Work” (Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard
Business Review Press, 2011).
15. For a summary, see J. Sterman, “Business Dynamics:
Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World”
(Boston, Massachusetts: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 2000).
16. K.E. Weick, “Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social
Problems,” American Psychologist 39 (January 1984):
40-49; Kotter, “Leading Change”; and T.M. Amabile and
S.J. Kramer, “The Power of Small Wins.”
17. J. Shook, “Toyota’s Secret: The A3 Report,” MIT Sloan
Management Review 50, no. 4 (summer 2009): 30-33.
18.“Fishbone Diagram (Ishikawa) — Cause & Effect
Diagram | ASQ,” http://asq.org.
19. For a summary of root-cause analysis techniques,
20. In other work, we have proposed four principles for effective work that may be helpful in more complex situations.
See Dodge et al., “Using Dynamic Work Design.”
Reprint 58330. For ordering information, see page 4.
Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2017.
All rights reserved.