U.S. Army photos by Spc. Zachery Perkins

Army field grade officers (FGOs) must be able to solve systems problems. The best FGOs create systems to keep routine processes running routinely. Since FGOs cannot personally oversee every process in a battalion or brigade, systems ensure that things get done without constant FGO supervision. Systems are good for both organizational health and FGO stress levels. Occasionally, however, systems break down. Signs of system breakdown include missed deadlines, wasted time, and angry commanders. When this happens, FGOs need to know how to troubleshoot the system, find the problem’s root causes, and get things running smoothly again.

One of the most useful books on leading and managing organizational systems is Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way by Jeffrey K. Liker and Michael Hoseus. Toyota is legendary for its lean manufacturing systems which simultaneously increase quality and reduce cost by eliminating waste in production processes. Problem-solving is a central part of Toyota’s approach. In Toyota Culture, Liker and Hoseus reveal several of the problem-solving techniques that Toyota managers use to keep their production systems running smoothly.

Two techniques which Army FGOs may find valuable are Genchi Genbutsuand “Five Whys.” Genchi Genbustu means “go and see.” Toyota managers do not solve problems from behind their desks or by sending emails. Instead, they “go” to where the problem is happening and “see” the process in action. The idea is that managers cannot solve problems without understanding the context within which the problem occurs and talking to the people involved.

The “Five Whys” is a method for identifying the root causes of a problem. Often times, the “problems” we observe are merely symptoms. Working on problem symptoms without addressing root causes is often wasteful and can even be counterproductive. The idea behind the “Five Whys” is that the manager asks why something is happening and keeps asking why (at least five times) until he or she finds the true root cause. Importantly, the manager does not ask who. At Toyota, problem-solving is about fixing the system, not assigning blame.

One example from the book takes place in Toyota’s Georgetown, KY facility. Opened in 1986, it was Toyota’s first plant in the United States. A cadre of experienced Toyota managers from Japan were helping train the American management team. One day, an assembly line manager—who had worked at General Motors (GM) previously—suggested they put a key making machine at the end of the production line. When one of the Japanese managers asked why, the manager replied that vehicle keys at GM often went missing during production. If this happened, a key machine could remedy the problem quickly. The Japanese trainer said no. If keys are missing, the manager should go and see why they are missing and fix the problem. Making a new key was a waste of time and money that only fixed a symptom of the problem rather than the root cause.

As a battalion XO, I used these two tools to solve many problems. My first systems problem happened my first week on the job. My battalion commander walked into my office, slapped a file folder on my desk, and said, “XO, I am really tired of signing late awards.”

My first stop was the S1 shop. When I asked why we had so many late awards, the Battalion S1—a new 2LT—told me the main problem was with Army Commendation Medals (ARCOMs). The Brigade Commander was the approval authority, and the Brigade S1 required us to submit the recommendations 30 days before the presentation date. The Battalion S1, in turn, required our companies to submit ARCOMs 60 days before the presentation date which gave her shop 30 days to meet the brigade suspense. Even with a 30-day lead time, more than 50% of our ARCOM recommendations were late.

Next, the S1 and I sat down with her Soldiers and asked why ARCOMs were frequently late. They identified two issues. First, most recommendations required multiple corrections. The first drafts from the companies rarely met brigade standards. Most recommendations went back and forth between the companies and battalion two or three times. Second, once the recommendations were ready, it often took three to four days for the battalion commander to sign them. This conversation gave us two more “whys” to ask.

First, the S1 and I went to the battalion commander to find out why awards were sitting on his desk for days. It turns out the commander preferred working on administrative requirements in large chunks every three or four days rather than a little each day. However, since the staff did not prioritize these requirements, the commander had no way of knowing which items in his inbox were urgent. He simply worked through them in the order he received them. We fixed this problem by creating a “hot” folder. We found the brightest red file folder we could and committed to use it only for urgent actions. The commander committed to actioning everything in the “hot” folder within 24 hours of receipt. Everything else he could continue to work on as he preferred.

Next, the S1 and I visited the company orderly rooms to find out why awards recommendations required so many corrections. It turns out the officers and NCOs responsible for writing the recommendations had no idea what the standards were. They assumed that awards would get kicked back for corrections no matter what they did, so they didn’t give much effort up front to get them right. We asked how the battalion staff could help. They recommended we develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) with a “how-to” section on writing awards, examples of correct award recommendations, and pre-filled award recommendation templates. We agreed to write the SOP, and in return, we asked them to commit to doing the best they could to give us a good award recommendation the first time out. They agreed.

Feeling confident we had identified and addressed the root causes, the S1 and I set about implementing our solutions. In less than a week we had a basic awards SOP on the street. The SOP combined with the “hot” folder yielded striking results. Our late awards went from over 50% to less than 5% in a matter of weeks. The quality of recommendations from the companies improved dramatically. We were eventually able to reduce our ARCOM suspense date from 60 days to 45 days. Although brigade still wanted the recommendations 30 days out, we were able to reduce the battalion lead time to just 15 days. As an extra benefit, the time that the S1 and I spent solving the problem together allowed us to learn more about each other and for me to provide some mentorship on staff work and problem-solving.

Field grade time is busy and stressful even when everything is running smoothly. When things go wrong, it can be tempting to fire off an angry email or look for someone to blame. However, it is frequently the system rather than the Soldier that needs fixing. By taking the time to address systemic causes of problems using tools like Genchi Genbutsuand “Five Whys,” FGOs can create and maintain sustainable systems which will serve them and their organization much better over the long term.

Lieutenant Colonel Trent J. Lythgoe is a US Army aviation officer currently serving as an instructor at the US Army Command and General Staff College. He completed his key developmental time in 3^rdCombat Aviation Brigade. LTC Lythgoe is currently pursuing a Political Science Ph.D. at the University of Kansas. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Command and General Staff College.