Monday, September 20, 2010

Dropping the Baton in the Synagogue

This is from the July issue of FastCompany. FastCompany is a business magazine, and ever since the first issue came my way fifteen years ago I have read it cover to cover. Each month I find articles that make me think about my work as a Jewish educator and as a human being. There are more ideas than I have had a chance to implement and the list grows longer each month. It has introduced me to Seth Godin, the importance of Design and more recently Chip and Dan Heath.


This article made me think about the process of recruiting, and more importantly growing and maintaining the relationships with a member family in our congregation. They come in through so many different doors: nursery school, family education, social justice, a desire to enroll children in religious school, a worship experience, spiritual searching - you name it. And then we get them to join. 


Some time later - hopefully years - they resign. And we are shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked. (cue Sam on the piano - you must remember this...)


Why would they leave? Perhaps they have accomplished what they thought of as their purpose for joining. Maybe the kids have left the house so they see no reason to belong for themselves. Maybe the dues are too high. Maybe, maybe maybe.


This article made me wonder how many ways we drop the baton in our synagogues. With our students. With their parents. With the family as a whole. We should have been working to help them find multiple reasons for being connected to the temple, to develop relationships with other members and with the institution itself that go beyond the reason they joined. I began this line of thought on this blog in April. I am sure there is more to come. I invite your thoughts on this.

Team Coordination Is Key in Businesses

By: Dan Heath and Chip Heath July 1, 2010
At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the American men's 4x100 relay team was a strong medal contender. During the four previous Games, the American men had medaled every time. The qualifying heats in 2008 -- the first step on the road to gold -- should have been a cakewalk.

On the third leg of the race, the U.S.A.'s Darvis Patton was running neck and neck with a runner from Trinidad and Tobago. Patton rounded the final turn, approaching anchorman Tyson Gay, who was picking up speed to match Patton. Patton extended the baton, Gay reached back, and the baton hit his palm.

Then, somehow, it fell. The team was disqualified. It was a humiliating early defeat. Stranger still, about a half-hour later, the U.S.A. women's team was disqualified too -- for a baton drop at the same point in the race. (Freaked out by the trend, the U.S.A.'s rhythmic gymnasts kept an extra-tight grip on their ribbons.)
Team U.S.A.'s track coach, Bubba Thornton, told the media his runners had practiced baton passes "a million times." But not with their Olympic teammates. Some reporters noted that Patton and Gay's practice together had been minimal.

Thornton's apparent overconfidence was understandable. If you have four world-class experienced runners on your team, shouldn't that be enough? Unfortunately, no, it isn't. The baton pass cannot be taken for granted -- not on the track and not in your organization.

We tend to underestimate the amount of effort needed to coordinate with other people. In one academic experiment, a team of students was asked to build a giant Lego man as quickly as possible. To save time, the team members split up their work. One person would craft an arm, another would build the torso, and so forth. (At least one person, of course, was charged with tweeting compulsively about what the others were doing.)

Often, the parts were carefully designed, yet they didn't quite fit together properly, like a Lego Heidi Montag. The problem was that nobody was paying attention to the integration. The researchers found that the teams were consistently better at specializing than they were at coordinating.

Organizations make this mistake constantly: We prize individual brilliance over the ability to work together as a team. And unfortunately, that can lead to dropped batons, as JetBlue infamously discovered back in February 2007.

You remember the fiasco. Snowstorms had paralyzed New York airports, and rather than cancel flights en masse, JetBlue loaded up its planes, hoping for a break in the weather. The break never came, and some passengers were trapped on planes for hours. If you've ever felt the temperature rise on a plane after an hour's delay on the tarmac, imagine what it was like after 10 hours. These planes were cauldrons of rage -- one stray act of flatulence away from bloodshed.

JetBlue did its best to survive the wave of hatred -- its CEO apologized repeatedly and the company issued a Customer Bill of Rights, offering cash payments for delays and cancellations. But the executives realized that these efforts wouldn't eliminate the underlying problems, which were rather unyielding: The weather is unpredictable; New York airports are overcrowded; passengers expect on-time performance anyway. If JetBlue didn't fix its operations -- learning to respond to emergencies with more speed and agility -- another fiasco was likely.

JetBlue's executives knew that a top-down solution by a team of executives would fail. "The challenges are on the front line," says Bonny Simi, JetBlue's director of customer experience and analysis. In October 2008, Simi and her colleagues gathered a cross-section of players -- crew schedulers, system operators, dispatchers, reservation agents, and others -- to determine how the company handled "irregular operations," such as severe weather.

Individual members of the group knew the issues in their departments, and "if we brought enough of them together," Simi says, "we would have the whole puzzle there, and they could help us solve it."
Where do you start? If you ask individuals what's wrong with their jobs, you'll get pet peeves, but those gripes may not address the big integration issues. But if you ask people directly how to fix a big problem like irregular operations, it's like asking people how to fix federal bureaucracy. The topic is too complex and maddeningly interrelated; it fuzzes the brain.

Rather than talk abstractly, Simi decided to simulate an emergency. As the centerpiece of the first irregular operations retreat, Simi announced to the group: "Tomorrow, there's going to be a thunderstorm at JFK such that we're going to have to cancel 40 flights." The group then had to map out their response to the crisis.

As they rehearsed what they would do, step by step, they began to spot problems in their current process. For instance, in severe-weather situations, protocol dictates that the manager on duty, the Captain Kirk of JetBlue operations, should distribute to the staff what's known as a "precancel list," which identifies the flights that have been targeted for cancellation. There were five different people who rotated through the Kirk role, and they each sent out the precancel list in a different format. This variability created a small but real risk. It was similar to slight differences among five runners' extension of the baton.

In total, the group identified more than 1,000 process flaws, small and large. Over the next few weeks, the group successively filtered and prioritized the list down to a core set of 85 problems to address. Most of them were small individually, but together, they dramatically increased the risk of a dropped baton. JetBlue's irregular-operations strike force spent nine months in intense and sometimes emotional sessions, working together to stamp out the problems.

The effort paid off. In the summer of 2009, JetBlue had its best-ever on-time summer. Year over year, JetBlue's refunds decreased by $9 million. Best of all, the efforts dramatically improved JetBlue's "recovery time" from major events such as storms. (JetBlue considers itself recovered from an irregular-operations event when 98.5% of scheduled flights are a go.) The group shaved recovery time by 40% -- from two-and-a-half days to one-and-a-half days.

Ironically, JetBlue's can-do culture contributed to its original problem. "The can-do spirit meant we would power through irregular operations and 'get 'er done,' " says Jenny Dervin, the airline's corporate communications director, "but we didn't value processes as being heroic." The company's heroes had been individuals -- but now they share the medal stand with processes. (Here's hoping that the next American relay team, too, extends some glory from the runner to the handoff.)

The relay team with the fastest sprinters doesn't always win, and the business with the most talented employees doesn't either. Coordination is the unsung hero of successful teams, and it's time to start singing.

Dan Heath and Chip Heath are the authors of the No. 1 New York Times best seller Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard, as well as Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.

5 comments:

  1. Interesting thoughts Ira, but it still ignores the reality that seeking to retain members, while it may be the raison d'etre of many synagogues, it is not, IMHO, the appropriate one. Maybe we need to be thinking about ways to help people continue their Jewish journeys regardless of whether that path includes the synagogue. Only then can we truly be saying we are fulfilling our mission to the Jewish people. We need to loose our myopic vision of what Jewish community is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...and right on cure, Adrian disses synagogue life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Adrian,

    While you may have found that synagogue life does not speak to you, I do. And frankly, so do the vast majority of American Jews - just not all at the same time. Both NJP studies made it clear that most Jews who were not affiliated at the time of the study had been for some time in their adult lives.

    I believe that their departure may have been the result of dropped batons. We failed to help them explore how else the congregation could meet their needs beyond the short term goals they might have had. And when those needs were fulfilled, they moved on.

    I don't really believe that people today don't want a synagogue affiliation. I believe that they may not know what they do want. Assuming that because they may not want what they had experienced as children presupposes that is all that is available. And that is patently false.

    Do synagogues need to constantly improve, grow and evolve with their people? Absolutely. But I believe that being Jewish means being part of a Jewish community. And 13 million of us going on solitary spiritual journeys may sound interesting, but I believe that is called Buddhism. Nothing wrong with Buddhism. Not my cup of tea.

    Now, groups of Jews, going on spiritual journeys together, or coming together to go on individual journeys in parallel with one another, perhaps with the guidance or facilitation of someone who is further on their journey? That sounds Jewish. Almost like a Kehillah Kedoshah. Now where might we find one of those...?

    Don't toss out the whole institution because of individuals experiences. Fix it. Help to figure out how not to drop the baton. Learn how to listen to the questions people are really asking when they ask about conflicts with soccer and dance.

    I still believe the synagogue can be the best vehicle for nearly all Jews. Maybe not right now for you and for others. But I invite all to help figure it out.

    A non-Jew named Abraham once said something about how "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Now he got that from Christian scripture, but I think the point is valid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ira (and Josh:)

    I am not truly anti-synagogue, I am pro-alternative-forms-of-community. I have reached a point where I am not as certain as you that synagogues really can continue to be the best vehicle for all Jews. (You are also erroneously assuming that I don't think it is best for me - on the contrary- I can happily continue to be a member of and work for a synagogue while continuing to espouse a viewpoint that we need alternatives. Much about synagogues does work for me - I just feel I would be remiss in my role as gadfly were I not to suggest that alternatives ought to be examined and considered, and not automatically ruled out because they compete with the synagogues. Why can't all the alternatives simply be complementary and not competitive?

    I would suggest that if I am excluded from working within a synagogue framework because I am simultaneously championing alternative forms of Jewish community, then the charge of synagogues being overly focused on self-perpetuation might be proven true.)

    I think synagogues will continue to be one among several forms of Jewish communities, perhaps the primary one, perhaps not.

    One weakness in the idea that synagogues can be the best vehicle for nearly all Jews is that we all know what happens to organizations that try to be too many things to too many people - they mostly wind up not being much of anything to anybody. There is a limit to what synagogues can do and still fit within the definition of a synagogue as we know it. Maybe we are simply talking semantics - but I don't think so.

    While the context is Jewish Education, I think this quote from Michael Pullan that is in the latest LK working paper says it all:
    "Even as we work to make incremental improvements within existing frameworks, we need as well to rethink the nature of those frameworks themselves, to imagine better ways of deploying and complementing them, to experiment with new models and approaches, and to redesign the system as a whole so that it can more successfully achieve its ultimate objective: inspiring large numbers of Jews to live Jewish lives of meaning and purpose."

    If I seem indifferent to the survival of the institution of synagogue as we know it, it is because my focus is on all of the people, and what varieties (as supposed to single sources) will serve them best and not the institutions.

    The synagogue is fixable, and you are right, looking for and learning from the "dropped batons" is one good way to begin the work. I am just concerned that if we put all our efforts into synagogue reform, we do so at the peril of ignoring the exploration of viable alternatives which can complement each other in providing for the needs of future generations of Jews.

    Like you, I do believe community is a necessary component of Judaism and Jewish praxis. I'm not envisioning millions of individualistic solitary spiritual seekers any more than you are. That's not my cup of tea, either.

    Yes, the synagogue is one place where we can come together. I believe there is room in Judaism for more than one such place or institution. By allowing and fostering these alternatives, we won;t fall into the trap of trying to make the synagogue trying to be too big a tent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adrian, Ira works in a synagogue. With this post, he's not trying to fix American Judaism or propose alternatives for anyone else.

    He's saying: How can institutions like mine do a better job?

    And it's becoming a cliché: Every time someone who works in a synagogue -- or is somehow connected to synagogue life -- asks a similar question, you reply, "Jewish journeys don't need to include synagogues," or something of that nature.

    No one is saying that you're wrong.

    But Ira wasn't asking about the Jewish journeys of individual Jews. He was asking, "How might these principles of team coordination help us as a synagogue do a better job of serving our members?" And even if you don't believe synagogues are the answer for the future of American Judaism, can't you admit that it's a good thing when people who work in synagogues want to do a better job of serving those members who feel some connection to synagogue life?

    Adrian, you heard the word synagogue and walked past Ira without looking closely at what he was saying. You're so wrapped up in your own need to find new approaches (with which, again, I don't altogether disagree) that you can't take a blog post about cooperation-to-better-serve-the-whole at face value.

    Take a chill pill.

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis