[Tl;Dr: Optimal value to customers means helping them address their active constraint]

The Paradox of Customer Needs

In the context of organisations which develop software, understanding customer needs is paradoxically both straightforward and complex. On the surface, the goal seems clear – create software that meets the expressed requirements and desires of the customer. However, these articulated wants often fail to accurately capture the customer’s genuine, underlying need.

The Theory of Constraints Insight

Eliyahu M. Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints offers a powerful lens through which to view and resolve this paradox. According to Goldratt, at any given time, an organisation faces a single constraint – a bottleneck – that limits its progress toward its goal(s). This constraint represents the pivotal need that, if addressed, would unlock new levels of progress and value for the organisation.

Needs Manifest as Constraints

Through this framework, we can redefine the concept of customer needs in software development: the customer’s crucial need is to identify their current organisational constraint and see it addressed. While customers may articulate a multitude of wants, their fundamental need remains anchored in alleviating the bottleneck that is holding them back from achieving their broader goals.

Continuous Adaptation to Evolving Needs

However, just as individual human needs evolve over time, so too do an organisation’s constraints. As one bottleneck is addressed, a new constraint inevitably emerges, creating a cycle of perpetually evolving needs. This necessitates an iterative, adaptive approach to software development, where efforts are continuously re-aligned to tackle the customer’s current constraint as it shifts.

Fostering Deep Organisational Understanding

To effectively identify and address these pivotal customer needs, a deep understanding of the customer’s organisation is essential. This requires going beyond surface-level requirements gathering and actively engaging with all the Folks That Matter, observing processes, and immersing oneself in the organisational culture (a.k.a. shared assumptions and beliefs). Only through such immersion can one gain the insights necessary to pinpoint the root constraint and develop targeted solutions.

Delivering Continuous Value

By embracing this perspective – that customer needs manifest as organisational constraints – software development becomes an ongoing journey of value delivery. Each cycle of identifying and addressing the current constraint provides tangible value to the customer, propelling their organisation forward. And as new constraints emerge, the cycle repeats, ensuring that solutions remain relevant, impactful, and aligned with the customer’s evolving needs.

Conclusion

True value in delivering solutions to customers lies in addressing customers’ crucial needs, which are inextricably tied to their in-the-now operational constraints. By adopting a constraint-focused, iterative approach and fostering deep understanding of customers’ needs vis their constraint, solutions can continuously meet customers’ fundamental needs, unlocking new levels of service, customer satisfaction, and mutual success.

The Elusive Formula

Contrary to popular belief, there IS in fact a universal recipe for organisational success – a one-size-fits-all formula that can unlock sustainable growth, profitability, and a thriving company culture. This recipe doesn’t come from the latest management fad or self-help book, but from the timeless wisdom of respected thought leaders like W. Edwards Deming, Eliyahu Goldratt, Gerhard von Scharnhorst, and Russell Ackoff.

The Proven Philosophies

For all the money companies pour into consultants, training programmes, offsites, and radical restructurings, the path to genuine enlightenment has been staring them in the face all along. Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge lays out a comprehensive framework for optimising business operations, fostering a nurturing environment, and driving continuous improvement. Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints provides a laser-focused approach to identifying and eliminating bottlenecks choking organisational performance. And Ackoff’s writings on systems thinking challenge conventional wisdom with powerful new paradigms for managing complexity.

The Meandering Quest

Instead of embracing and building upon these proven and time-tested ideas, companies continue to chase after the latest silver bullets and quick fixes peddled by consultants and pseudo-gurus. They cling stubbornly to antiquated command-and-control management models wholly unsuited to today’s volatile business environment. They pin their hopes on radical restructurings and top-down revolutions that merely treat symptoms rather than root causes.

In their frantic pursuit of enlightenment, organisations are engaging in a meandering quest – wandering aimlessly down one overhyped path after another while the real recipe for success remains gathering dust on the bookshelf. It’s the corporate equivalent of floundering through an endless maze, always feeling like the treasure is just around the next corner.

The Missed Opportunity

These philosophies contain profound truths about how to build resilient, adaptive organisations primed for success. And yet, the ultimate irony is that despite their brilliance, the teachings of Deming, Goldratt, von Scharnhorst, and Ackoff remain tragically underappreciated and underutilised in the business world.

The Hard Work of Wisdom

Make no mistake: Embracing such time-honoured ideas is hard work and requires diligence and much courage. That’s probably why we see it happen so infrequently. It’s far easier to be seduced by the newest fad or quick-fix solution that doesn’t require fundamentally challenging one’s mental models or way of operating. Genuinely internalising the teachings of Deming, Goldratt, von Scharnhorst, Ackoff and others demands humility, an insatiable curiosity, and a willingness to continually question shared assumptions and beliefs.

The Path Forward

The truth is, there is no complex maze to navigate. The path to organisational enlightenment is right there for those willing to open their eyes and embrace the teachings that have stood the test of time. Deming showed us how to nurture a thriving system centred on e.g. continuous learning and a deep theory of knowledge. Goldratt revealed the power of focused improvement efforts harnessing the latent potential within our companies. And Ackoff taught us to step back and see the bigger picture – to transcend reductionist thinking and operate with a holistic perspective.

The Roadmap to Success

Genuine organisational success doesn’t require the drunkard’s random walk of eternal struggle and second-guessing. It stems from having the courage to stop meandering up and down dead-end paths and instead follow the roadmap to enlightenment found within these profound bodies of work. Study them, internalise their lessons, and apply them diligently within the unique context of your organisation.

Rediscovering Wisdom

There is indeed a one-size-fits-all recipe for corporate greatness and human potential realised. We’ve had it all along. We just have to take a step back from the noise and rediscover the wisdom of the masters surrounding us. The path to enlightenment was never lost – we simply stopped paying attention.

The Maxim and Its Intellectual Pedigree

For those unfamiliar with the novelist and polemicist Upton Sinclair, he is perhaps best known for his 1906 novel “The Jungle” which exposed horrific conditions in the meat-packing industry and inspired reforms like the creation of the FDA. But one of Sinclair’s most oft-quoted maxims has lived on as sage advice in fields well beyond its original context of Yellow Journalism and muckraking:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

This pithy statement, now known as Upton Sinclair’s Dictum, echoes the perspective of the English mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford, who famously declared

“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

thereby making belief an issue of morality, or ethics.

Both Upton Sinclair and William Clifford saw intellectual honesty and a commitment to following evidence over expedience as paramount moral and ethical imperatives.

The Perils of Motivated Reasoning

Sinclair’s dictum cuts to the heart of the conflict of interest that can arise when people are incentivised to ignore uncomfortable truths or turn a blind eye to unethical practices. Over a century later, it remains as relevant as ever – particularly for business leaders and managers charged with enabling collaborative knowledge work.

The Crucible of Knowledge Work

In fields like software development, product design, team coaching, and other collaborative brain (grey muscle) work, the challenges teams face are often wicked problems – complex issues with no clear right answer, where even reasonable people can disagree with each other. Successfully navigating these choppy waters requires the fearless questioning of assumptions and beliefs, a relentless commitment to empiricism over ego, and a culture where all ideas can be rigorously stress-tested rather than self-censored.

Incentives Gone Awry

And yet, how often do we see teams afflicted by an insidious form of willful blindness, where dissenting perspectives are downplayed or dismissed outright in service of binding to already-held beliefs? Perhaps it’s driven by managers’ career incentives being too tightly coupled to delivering on a specific roadmap or revenue target. Maybe it stems from product leaders’ identities being too inextricably bound up with their “billion dollar baby” and thus being emotionally invested in rationalising sunk costs. Or it could simply be the natural tendency toward the comfortable inertia of groupthink.

Embracing Intellectual Honesty

Whatever the root causes, the antidote is the same – cultivating a culture of intellectual honesty, where all the Folks That Matter have both the autonomy and the enthusiasm to vocalise doubts and scrutinise lchains of reasoning, assumptions and beliefs. Where no stone goes unturned in interrogating the fundamental assumptions underlying key decisions. Where Value at Risk* queries are not only tolerated but actively encouraged as a check against blind spots and biases.

Fostering this boundary-less ethos of truth-seeking is a significant challenge facing modern knowledge-work leaders. But by striving to live up to the spirit of Sinclair’s admonition, we give ourselves the best chance of circumventing the self-deceptions and rationalisations that can otherwise send initiatives careening toward ruinous failures.

Heeding History’s Warnings

Time and again, history’s cautionary tales have proved the adage that “in a battle of conviction against conventional wisdom, conventional wisdom has largely prevailed.” That’s why embracing Sinclair’s Dictum is so vital. For only by creating an environment where people can transcend their vested interests and follow the truth wherever it leads can we hope to part the veils of entrenched assumptions and beliefs.

*”Value at risk queries” refers to the practice of actively questioning and scrutinising decisions, plans, or initiatives to assess the potential downsides, risks, and costs if things go wrong.

The term is taken from the financial concept of “value at risk” (VaR), which is a risk measurement and management method used to estimate the potential losses an investment or portfolio could face over a given time period.

Here, “value at risk queries” means rigorously examining the value potentially put at risk by a course of action – whether that value is financial, reputational, opportunity costs, or other key metrics important to the organisation.

Some examples of value at risk queries include:

• What is the worst-case scenario if this product fails to gain market traction?
• Have we fully stress-tested the assumptions around customer adoption rates?
• To what regulatory or compliance risks are we potentially exposing ourselves?
• How much technical debt and future constraints are we incurring with this architecture?
• Are we missing any significant blind spots in our competitive analysis?

Instead of shutting down or dismissing these tough “what if?” questions, organisations might choose to actively encourage and support value at risk queries. This helps surface potential blind spots and provides a check against overly optimistic planning or narrow frames of reference.

In essence, value at risk queries apply rigorous risk management thinking as an antidote to groupthink and comfortable consensus-building. They stress-test initiatives before making irreversible commitments.

For anyone who has worked in organisations, whether large or small, the phenomenon of workplace “silos” is all too familiar. Silos refer to the tendency for different departments or teams to operate in isolation, with little communication or collaboration between them.

While most folks working in the tech industries are familiar with the pitfalls of organisational silos such as separate marketing, sales, and operations teams, few recognise the similarly damaging effects of silos between disciplines.

For example, often, software engineers operate in isolated codebases, data scientists in segregated modeling pipelines, and designers in siloed UI frameworks. This compartmentalisation breeds many of the same pathologies as organisational silos:

• Lack of big-picture perspective
• Shortfalls in creative insights into how the work works, and could work better
• Duplicated efforts
• Limited knowledge sharing and innovation
• Rigid mental models resistant to change

Yet modern tech products and services require integrating numerous disciplines – systems thinking, the theory of knowledge, understanding of variation, and psychology, as well as the more usual specialsms: programming, data, design, DevOps, product management, and more. When disciplines remain cloistered, the resulting solutions are sub-optimal.

The Power of Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

In contrast, forging multi-disciplinary collaboration unlocks a powerful union of diverse skills, perspectives and domain knowledge. As Deming highlighted in his System of Profound Knowledge, viewing problems through a wide aperture leads to deeper insights.

Some key benefits of this cross-pollination include:

• End-to-end alignment on objectives across the value chain
• Dynamic combination of complementary expertise areas
• Faster issue resolution by aligning priorities holistically
• Continuous learning and growth for all
• Fostering an innovative, psychologically safe culture

Rather than optimising isolated components, multi-disciplinary collaboration enables the co-creation of cohesive products and experiences that delight all the Folks That Matter.

Cultivating Multi-Disciplinarity

Of course, nurturing this multi-disciplinary ideal requires organisational support and the rethinking of ingrained assumptions and beliefs about work. Incentive structures, processes, and even physical workspaces will need redesigning.

But the potential rewards are immense for forward-looking companies – accelerated innovation cycles, more productive ways of working, and formulating solutions beyond what any individual narrow-discipline specialist could achieve alone.

In our age of relentless disruption, the greatest existential risk is insular thinking – holding too tightly to narrow disciplines as the world shifts underfoot. Multi-discipline dynamism, powered by collective knowledge and continuous learning, is the currency of sustained advantage.

For those willing to transcend boundaries and embrace profound cross-discipline pollination, the possibilities are boundless. Those clinging to compartmentalised organisational and disciplinary silos, however, face morbid irrelevance.

Deming’s SoPK

For decades, W. Edwards Deming advocated his “System of Profound Knowledge” (SoPK) as the key to transforming businesses into continuously improving, customer-focused, multi-disciplinary organisations. At its core are four interdependent principles that combine heretofore disparate disciplines:

1. Appreciation for a System: Understanding that an organisation must be viewed as an interconnected system, not just isolated silos. Each part impacts and is impacted by others.
2. Theory of Knowledge: Recognising that learning and innovation arise from the synthesis of diverse theories, concepts and perspectives across domains.
3. Knowledge about Variation: Grasping that complex systems involve inherent variation that must be managed holistically, not through narrow inspection alone.
4. Psychology: Harnessing intrinsic human motivations and driving participation, rather than extrinsic forces like punitive accountability.

In most organisations, none of these profound knowledge principles are well known, let alone deeply embraced, appreciated and systematically applied. They represent a radical departure from traditional siloed thinking.

When applied holistically, Deming’s SoPK philosophy exposes the many drawbacks of organisational disciplinary silos, including:

• Lack of big-picture, end-to-end perspective
• Redundancies and inefficiencies from duplicated efforts
• Suboptimal solutions from narrow specialisations
• Fragmented vision and strategy misalignment
• Resistance to learning and change across boundaries

Deming’s philosophy highlights the advantages of multi-disciplinary collaboration to optimise systems holistically. Narrow specialisation alone is dysfunctional.

By shining a light on these drawbacks upfront, the importance of breaking down counterproductive disciplinary silos becomes even more stark. The vital need for collaboration, systems-thinking, applied psychology and profound cross-domain knowledge is clear across all disciplines and value chains.

By highlighting these drawbacks upfront, the importance of breaking down counterproductive silos becomes even more stark. The need for collaboration, systems-thinking, applied psychology and profound knowledge cuts across all disciplines.

The System View: Beyond Isolated Parts

Deming’s first principle stresses that an organisation may be viewed as an interconnected system, not just as separate silos or departments working in isolation. Each group’s efforts affect and are affected by other parts of the system.

Silos represent a fragmented, piecemeal view that is anathema to systems thinking. By reinforcing barriers between marketing, sales, engineering, operations and more, silos prevent the shared understanding required for optimising systems as a whole.

Knowledge Through Diverse Perspectives

According to Deming’s Theory of Knowledge, continuous learning and improvement stems from the interplay of diverse theories, concepts and perspectives. Innovation arises through making connections across different mental models and multiple disciplines.

When teams comprise members from various disciplines, their unique backgrounds and experiences foster richer exchanges of knowledge. Silos, in contrast, restrict the cross-pollination of ideas.

Understanding Variation

Deming’s view of variation exposes the fallacy of trying to eliminate every defect or failure through e.g. mass inspection. Complex systems involve inherent variation that must be managed holistically, not narrowly inspected away.

Multi-discipline teams can better grasp the dynamic variations impacting their shared objectives, drawing on complementary viewpoints to guide iterative learning.

Harnessing Psychology for e.g. Motivation

Finally, Deming emphasised the power of harnessing people’s intrinsic motivations, rather than relying on punitive accountability within silos (or communities of practice). When experts from various domains unite on meaningful projects, it cultivates broader purpose and drives discretionary effort.

By removing restrictive boundaries, multi-disciplinary collaboration enables self-actualisation while encouraging collective ownership of outcomes.

Cultivating a Learning Organisation

For many organisations obstructed by siloed thinking, embracing Deming’s Profound Knowledge is no simple task. It requires reimagining structures, processes and even physical spaces to nurture multi-disciplinary engagement.

Yet the potential rewards are immense – from accelerated cycles of innovation and organisational agility, to a workforce invigorated by joy, pride, and deeper fulfilment in their day-to-day. Deming’s wisdom reveals the collaborative imperative for thriving amidst volatility.

The greater risk lies not in disruption itself, but in calcifying into rigid, inward-looking organisational and disciplinary silos incapable of evolving. Organisations have a choice: cling to the illusion of control through silos and narrow specialisms, or embrace the profound knowledge gained by breaking boundaries.

What is a Big Ball of Mud?

In software development, the term “Big Ball of Mud” refers to a system or codebase that has become so tangled, convoluted, and disorganised over time that it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain, modify, or understand. It’s a metaphor for a software product development that started with good intentions but gradually deteriorated into an unstructured mess due to a lack of proper planning, design, and adherence to best practices.

Consequences

The consequences of a Big Ball of Mud can be severe. It hinders productivity, increases technical debt, screws with predictability and schedules, and makes it challenging to introduce new features or fix bugs. Developers often find themselves spending more time trying to understand the existing code than actually writing new code. This can lead to frustration, decreased morale, and a higher risk of introducing further issues.

The Rise of AI-Centric Coding

And a paradigm shift is looming on the horizon – a transition towards AI writing code – and primarily for artificial intelligence (AI) readability and maintainability. While human-readable code has long been the desirable approach, the remarkable advancements in AI technology necessitate a reevaluation of our coding practices and the use of Ai to write code to harness the full potential of these sophisticated tools.

As AI systems become increasingly integrated into software development workflows, the need for code that caters to AIs’ unique strengths becomes paramount. This shift will give rise to coding styles specifically tailored for AI readability and maintainability, encompassing the following characteristics:

Abstraction and Modularisation Paramount

AI systems thrive on highly modularised and abstracted code, where individual components are clearly separated and encapsulated. This coding style will emphasise smaller, self-contained units of code with well-defined interfaces, promoting better organisation and encapsulation, aligning with the strengths of AI systems.

Formalised and Explicit Syntax

In contrast to the conventions and implicit understandings often relied upon by human programmers, AI systems will benefit from a more formalised and explicit syntax. This could involve additional annotations or metadata that make the semantics of the code unambiguous and readily interpretable by AI systems.

Pattern Recognition Optimisation

AI systems excel at recognising patterns, and the coding style will be optimised for this strength. Consistent naming conventions, structural similarities, and other patterns that can be easily recognised by AI systems will become more prevalent, enabling efficient pattern recognition and analysis.

Reduced Redundancy (DRY)

AI systems are better equipped to handle and maintain code with minimal redundancy, leading to a coding style that emphasises code reuse, shared libraries, and other techniques to reduce duplication. This approach will not only cater to AI systems’ strengths but also promote code maintainability and efficiency.

AI-Tailored Documentation

Traditional human-readable documentation and comments may become obsolete in an AI-centric coding paradigm. Instead, the emphasis will shift towards creating self-documenting code that can be seamlessly interpreted and maintained by AI systems. This could involve incorporating structured annotations, metadata, and other machine-readable elements directly into the codebase.

The documentation process itself could be automated, with AI algorithms capable of parsing the code structure, analysing the annotations, and generating comprehensive documentation tailored specifically for AI comprehension. This documentation would be optimised for pattern recognition, logical inference, and other capabilities that AI systems excel at, ensuring that it remains up-to-date and consistent with the evolving codebase.

AI-Generated Code for Machine Consumption

Furthermore, the advancement of AI technology raises the intriguing possibility of AI systems themselves generating code in a style optimised for machine consumption, rather than human readability. This AI-generated code could forgo traditional conventions and practices aimed at enhancing readability for human developers, instead favouring structures and patterns that are more readily interpretable and maintainable by AI systems themselves.

Such AI-generated code might be highly compact, with minimal redundancy and a heavy reliance on abstraction and modularisation. It could incorporate complex mathematical models, advanced algorithms, and unconventional coding techniques that leverage the strengths of AI systems while potentially sacrificing human comprehensibility.

As AI systems become increasingly integrated into the software development lifecycle, they could potentially maintain and evolve this AI-generated code autonomously, with minimal human intervention. This paradigm shift could lead to a scenario where the primary consumers and maintainers of code are AI systems themselves, rather than human developers.

Factors Contributing to Big Balls of Mud

While embracing AI-centric coding practices offers numerous advantages, we might choose to be mindful of the potential pitfalls that could lead to the creation of ‘big balls of mud’ – tangled, convoluted, and disorganised AI-generated codebases that become increasingly difficult to maintain and modify.

Today’s Factors

In the current software development landscape, where human readability and maintainability are still the primary focus, several factors contribute to the formation of big balls of mud:

1. Lack of Architectural Foresight: The absence of a well-defined software architecture from the outset can quickly lead to a patchwork of disparate components, hindering maintainability and coherence.
2. Prioritising Speed over Quality: The pursuit of rapid development and tight deadlines may result in sacrificing code quality, maintainability, and adherence to best practices, accumulating technical debt over time.
3. Siloed Development Teams: Lack of coordination and communication between teams working on the same codebase can lead to inconsistencies, duplicated efforts, and a lack of cohesion.
4. Lack of Documentation and Knowledge Sharing: Inadequate documentation and poor knowledge-sharing practices can make it challenging for new team members to understand and maintain the codebase, exacerbating the tangled nature over time.

Future Factors with AI-Driven Development

As we transition towards AI-driven software development, new factors may contribute to the metastasizing of big balls of mud, if not appropriately addressed:

1. Not instructing AI to include AI-friendly code generation and the needs of AI vis codebase readability and maintainability. Prompt engineeres in the code generation space take note!
2. Lack of AI Training and Optimisation: Without proper training and optimisation of AI models for code generation and maintenance, the resulting codebase may lack coherence, structure, and adherence to best practices.
3. Inadequate Human Oversight and Understanding: An over-reliance on AI without sufficient human oversight and understanding can lead to opaque, difficult-to-maintain code that deviates from architectural principles and design patterns.
4. Inconsistent AI Models and Tooling: Using multiple AI models and tools for code generation and maintenance without proper integration and consistency can lead to fragmented and incompatible code snippets, exacerbating the tangled nature of the codebase.
5. Prioritising Speed over Quality and Maintainability: Even with AI-assisted development, the pursuit of rapid development and meeting tight deadlines at the expense of code quality, maintainability, and adherence to best practices can lead to long-term technical debt.
6. Lack of Documentation and Knowledge Sharing: Inadequate documentation and poor knowledge-sharing practices can hinder the effective use and maintenance of AI-generated code, making it challenging to understand the context, design decisions, and rationale behind the code.

By addressing these factors proactively, software development teams and organisations can harness the power of AI while mitigating the risk of creating tomorrow’s big balls of mud, ensuring that codebases remain maintainable, scalable, and aligned with inhouse best practices.

Conclusion

The future of coding lies in embracing the capabilities of AI systems and adapting our practices to harness their full potential. By prioritising AI readability and maintainability, we can unlock new avenues for efficient and optimised code generation, enhanced collaboration between human developers and AI systems, and ultimately, more robust and scalable software solutions.

While this transition challenges traditional assumptions and beliefs and invites a major paradigm shift, it is an exciting prospect that will revolutionise the software development industry. As we navigate this paradigm shift, it is essential to strike a balance between leveraging the strengths of AI systems and maintaining a level of human oversight and understanding, ensuring that our code remains accessible, maintainable, and aligned with the evolving needs of the host business.

Introduction

As businesses strive for innovation and growth, they often find themselves running up against unseen barriers – ingrained ways of thinking and behaving that can severely limit their ambitions and ability to adapt. In many cases, these constraining (shared) beliefs and assumptions live under the surface, making them extremely difficult to identify and uproot.

This sample dialogue (below) aims to illustrate how engaging with an AI chatbot like Claude can provide a fresher, more impartial perspective to help bring those unconscious blockers into the light. By asking probing questions and suggesting reframes, an AI can serve as a cooperative thinking partner to explore the root causes behind an organisation’s collective blind spots.

Let’s take a look at how this conversational process might unfold:
(Note: this is an actual dialogue generated by ClaudeAI)

Overcoming Organisational Blind Spots: A Candid Dialogue

Are Collective Mindsets Holding Us Back?

Business Team: We’re really struggling as a team at work. Our growth and innovation have hit a plateau, and we can’t seem to get over this hump. We feel like there are some underlying assumptions or beliefs that we all unconsciously share that are limiting our thinking, but we can’t quite put our finger on what they are. Any thoughts?

Claude: That’s an insightful observation. Could you elaborate on the areas where your team has faced repeated roadblocks or struggled to adapt? Have you noticed any patterns in how new ideas get instantly dismissed or shut down?

The Perils of Risk-Aversion

Business Team: You know, now that you mention it, we do tend to instinctively shut down ideas that seem too ambitious or radically different from our current model. There’s an assumption that taking big swings is too risky and that we’re better off sticking to incremental innovations.

Claude: I see, so there seems to be an excessive aversion to risk-taking that could be crippling your team’s ability to innovate more boldly. Where might this belief originate from? Perhaps past failures that bred excessive caution within the team?

Overconfidence from Past Successes

Business Team: And you’re right, we may be overly reliant on past glories and successes rather than pushing for true disruption these days.

Claude: Overconfidence and complacency from previous successes is a common pitfall for teams. Have you explored where those constraining beliefs originated within your group? Sometimes they start from overcorrecting after a past failure. Or they take root from excessive short-term focus and risk-aversion in decision making over time.

Business Team: You’ve hit the nail on the head. We can trace the risk-aversion back to a few high-profile product launches that failed a few years ago. And the reverence for our old products stems from the founders still being closely involved, constantly reminiscing about how we initially disrupted the market.

Shattering Ingrained Narratives

Claude: Those do seem like major sources of the limiting beliefs constraining your team’s thinking. But how can you start dismantling and changing those ingrained narratives collectively? Here are some suggestions:

1. Make the limiting beliefs explicit and discuss them openly together as a team. Bringing these unconscious biases into the light is key.
2. Have you analyzed instances where those beliefs caused you to miss opportunities and calculated the cost of leaving innovation on the table as a group?
3. Could you find examples of competitors or companies in other industries who have succeeded by doing the opposite – embracing risks, continuously reinventing themselves? Study how they cultivated a different organizational mindset.
4. Implement structural changes to counteract the limiting beliefs. For instance, explicitly weighing the cost of inaction, having an “innovation ombudsman” role, or celebrating failed experiments more than static successes.
5. Bring in fresh perspectives through new hires, industry experts, or even customers who can challenge the status quo assumptions.

The ultimate ambition might be to make curiosity, experimentation, and an appetite for disruption core cultural values for your team and organisation.

Business Team: This is immensely helpful. We have a much clearer picture now of how to diagnose and deliberately shift our unhelpful collective beliefs as a team. Change starts by bringing those unconscious biases into the light through open discussion. We really appreciate you laying out such a detailed framework – we’re energized to start implementing these ideas right away.

Bringing in an Organisational Psychotherapist

Sometimes, even with the best intentions, it can be extremely difficult for a team to identify and overcome their own deep-seated collective assumptions and beliefs on their own. This is where bringing in an outside organisational psychotherapist can be invaluable…

By prompting deeper reflection, offering new perspectives, and designing tailored interventions, an experienced organisational psychotherapist or AI assistant can catalyse the crucial process of surfacing and reflecting upon an organisation’s dysfunctional beliefs and narratives.

While working with a human expert may ultimately be advisable for any complex organisational transformation, this dialogue demonstrates how an AI like Claude can provide a potential first step. Through probing inquiries and analytical detachment, an AI chatbot can shed light on the obscured mental models that might be unwittingly obstructing an organisation’s path to greater innovation and growth.

Businesses Ignore Deming’s Call for Real Behavioural Insight

W. Edwards Deming, the pioneering management thinker, strongly advocated for businesses to develop a deeper understanding of psychology in order to optimise systems, drive improvement, and bring joy and pride in work to the workplace.

“Understanding psychology, the study of human behaviour, is the key to managing people.”

Deming wrote. Yet decades after Deming’s teachings, most businesses remain woefully ignorant about true human psychology and behavioural drivers.

The Superficial ‘Pop Psych’ Fixation

Instead of delving into substantive research from psychology, cognitive science, and behavioural economics, the corporate world tends to favour simplistic “pop psych” maxims and heuristics. Businesses love to tout the latest bestselling books promoting ideas like “positive thinking”, “grit”, “growth mindsets”, or “mindfulness” as the secrets to better employee engagement and productivity. Consultants peddle pseudoscientific personality assessments built on shaky Jungian foundations. Corporate training programmes regurgitate self-evident platitudes about “emotional intelligence.”

Human Behaviour Is Central to Everything

This cavalier dilettantism toward psychology is concerning because human behaviour is central to every aspect of an organisation – its culture, management practices, teamwork, decision-making processes, innovation, marketing, you name it. If companies fail to rigorously study and apply research-based behavioural insights, they are effectively driving blind.

Ignoring the Science of Human Behaviour

Psychology is a legitimate field of science that has produced a wealth of empirical findings on human cognition, motivation, bias, social dynamics, and more. And not just academic theories, but proven applications in areas like user experience design, behaviour change, survey methodology, and marketing. Ignoring this body of knowledge is akin to an engineer neglecting physics or materials science.

The System of Profound Knowledge

Deming admonished that businesses must take a fundamentally different view of work, one focused on understanding systems holistically – including the human dimensions and variation. Yet even today, businesses tend to fixate on simplistic notions like employee incentives, traditional hierarchies, coercion, and other regressive pop psych-led management dogma. They give short shrift to the scientific realities of how people actually think, feel and behave.

A True Commitment to Understanding People

Of course, as Deming taught, psychology alone does not automatically confer excellence in management. It requires a coherent philosophy, sustained practice, and an unwavering commitment to continual learning, all of which many businesses still lack. But grasping human behaviour remains a crucial foundational layer.

For companies to truly embrace people-centric management as Deming advocated, they might choose to move beyond gimmicky pop psych trends and selective, self-serving interpretations of research. They may, instead, choose to dive deep into the expansive knowledge base of rigorous behavioural science – including the inconvenient truths it reveals – and apply those insights in thoughtful, judicious ways. Only then can businesses hope to make substantive and lasting improvements. Of course, improvement of any kind seem decidedly out of favour at the moment.

[Or – what’s all this business improvement malarkey, and what’s in it for me?]

Waning Interest Post-Pandemic

As we’ve learned to live with COVID, much has changed in how businesses operate. Remote work is now the norm rather than the exception. Supply chains have been disrupted. Customer behaviours have shifted significantly. In the midst of this turbulence, it feels like interest in business improvement initiatives has waned and taken a backseat.

Survival Mode

The sluggish economy and persistent inflation have put many companies in survival mode, just trying to keep the lights on. Ambitious programmes to reengineer the way the work works, implement new systems, or drive improved effectiveness now feel like costly distractions. After all the chaos of the last few years, who has the bandwidth for that right now?

The Personal Upside

While the economic arguments for deprioritising business improvement are understandable, I think we’re missing something important – the personal upside. Streamlining operations, updating shared assumptions and beliefs, developing better practices, and finding ways to work smarter don’t just benefit the business. They allow each of us to be more successful and fulfilled as individuals.

The Costs of Inefficiency

Think about it – what does bloated, inefficient business activity translate to on a personal level? Wasted time on tedious manual tasks. Constant firefighting and rework thanks to poor ways of working. Headaches and frustrations navigating clunky systems and workarounds. At its worst, organisational dysfunction mentally drains and demotivates employees to the point they burn out or quit.

The Benefits for Individuals

On the flip side, smart business improvements that simplify and optimise how we execute allow us to flow through high-value work with less friction. We spend more time on the energising aspects of our roles utilising our skills and making an impact. Our days feel more productive and purposeful rather than mired in busywork and cleanup. More gets done, with less expended effort.And we learn.

From streamlined reporting that saves hours a week, to improved workflows that reduce costly errors, to delighting customers through superior service – the personal benefits of working at a well-oiled operation are massive in terms of satisfaction, growth, and work-life balance.

The Workplace Attraction Issue

Given the intensely competitive landscape for people, any organisation looking to attract and retain commited and engaged people might choose to prioritise continuous improvement as part of their employee value proposition. When people can channel their energies into engaging, rewarding work day after day, that’s when we build exceptional teams delivering exceptional results.

Don’t Brush It Aside

So don’t just brush business improvement aside as a nice-to-have these days. See it as key driver of personal success and engagement, helping your teams flourish while fuelling joy and delight in the (distributed) workplace.

In any organisation, the beliefs and assumptions that everyone holds in common can have a profound impact on culture, productivity, and overall success. By neglecting shared assumptions and beliefs you may be missing out on harnessing the power of aligning them for optimal performance. But what exactly could this approach unlock for your organisation?

For Executives and Senior Managers

Shaping the Organisational Mindset

As a leader, you set the tone for the entire company’s culture and worldview. However, failing to examine and actively shape the company’s ingrained assumptions can lead to misalignment and hinder performance. Organisational psychotherapy illuminates existing belief systems – a.k.a. the collective mindset – and provides means to cultivate an organisational mindset centered on the things that matter to you, and a unified vision for success.

Transcending Limiting Assumptions

Over time, organisations develop deep-rooted assumptions that act as invisible shackles, limiting innovation, adaptation and achievement of goals. You could be missing out on breaking through these limitations by not exploring the underlying group psyche. Organisational psychotherapy techniques identify and reframe constraining assumptions, allowing you and your peers, and your workforce, to operate from an empowered, possibility-focused perspective.

For Middle Managers

Bridging Misaligned Beliefs

In the pivotal role of middle management, you navigate the shared assumptions of both leadership and frontline teams. Unaddressed, differing beliefs between groups can breed misunderstanding and hinder synergy. Organisational psychotherapy provides a framework for uncovering disconnects and fostering more cohesive, aligned assumptions across all levels.

Fostering Trust and Psychological Safety

Highly effective teams are built on a foundation of trust and the ability to take interpersonal risks. You could be missing out on this key ingredient if psychological barriers rooted in distrustful and deleterious assumptions remain unaddressed. Psychotherapeutic interventions help everyone examine and reshape beliefs around vulnerability, conflict, and collaboration.

For Technical Workers

Unleashing Pioneering Thinking

For technical roles requiring cutting-edge solutions, limiting assumptions around “how things are done” stifle innovation. You may be missing out on radically more effective approaches by not exploring and expanding your team’s collective assumptions about e.g. what is possible. Psychotherapy illuminates blind spots and reframes beliefs to open minds to truely different thinking.

Fostering Knowledge-Sharing

In highly specialised technical domains, knowledge-sharing is critical but often obstructed by entrenched assumptions of competence hierarchies or domain territoriality. Organisational psychotherapy provides means to surface and reflect on these counterproductive beliefs, instead opeing the door to assumptions that celebrate joyful work, collaborative growth and learning.

Summary

Embracing organisational psychotherapy unlocks an often-overlooked yet powerful source of competitive advantage – the shared assumptions and beliefs that underpin an organisation’s culture, communication, and performance. By neglecting this dimension, you may be missing out on by not giving organisational psychotherapy serious consideration as a powerful tool for your toolbox:

For Executives and Senior Managers:
The ability to purposefully shape an organisational mindset aligned with your shared vision and strategic objectives. As well as the opportunity to transcend limiting assumptions that constrain innovation, adaptation, and achievement.

For Middle Managers:
A framework for bridging misaligned beliefs across levels that breed misunderstanding and hinder synergy. And fostering a bedrock of trust and psychological safety that enables teams to take interpersonal risks and collaborate effectively.

For Technical Workers:
Unleashing pioneering, radically different thinking by reframing beliefs around “how things are done.” And cultivating knowledge-sharing by dispelling assumptions of competence hierarchies and domain territoriality.

At every level of an organisation, insidious assumptions and beliefs can act as unseen forces, obstructing potential and stalling progress. You could be missing out on dismantling these forces and instead harnessing the power of shared vision, alignment of mindsets, and collaborative beliefs.

Organisational psychotherapy provides the insight and means to illuminate, examine, and reflect on the collective beliefs and assumptions influencing your organisation’s culture and performance. Is it yet time you explored how to unleash this underutilised power and stop missing out on achieving new heights of success?

Introduction

In today’s knowledge-driven economy, the nature of work has evolved significantly. Collaborative Knowledge Work (CKW) has emerged as a distinct category, requiring a tailored approach to management and organisational practices. However, most organisations continue to miscategorise CKW as e.g. regular office work, leading to a host of unintended consequences that undermine productivity, innovation, and employee engagement.

These consequences include:

• Incompatible work environments that hinder collaboration and creativity
• Ineffective management approaches that stifle autonomy and learning
• Lack of support for the collaboration essential to knowledge sharing
• Misaligned performance evaluation metrics not suited to complex knowledge work
• Insufficient professional development opportunities for continuously evolving skills
• Talent retention challenges due to unfulfilled expectations of growth and autonomy
• Stifled innovation potential from overlooking the need for experimentation

Incompatible Work Environments

CKW often necessitates specific spaces and tools that foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, and creative thinking. Treating it as regular office work may lead to an inadequate work environment that hinders productivity and stifles innovation. Open spaces, whiteboards, and collaborative technologies are essential for CKW, but they may not be prioritised if the work is miscategorised.

Ineffective Management Approaches

CKW requires different management approaches compared to traditional office work. It emphasises autonomy, flexibility, and continuous learning. Applying conventional command-and-control management styles can demotivate knowledge workers and curb their creativity. CKW thrives in an environment that encourages self-direction, experimentation, and personal growth.

Lack of Collaboration Support

CKW heavily relies on effective collaboration and knowledge sharing among team members. Miscategorising it as office work may result in a lack of investment in collaboration tools, platforms, and processes, ultimately hindering the flow of knowledge and ideas. Without proper support for collaboration, the synergies that drive innovation and problem-solving may be lost.

Misaligned Performance Evaluation

CKW often involves tasks that are complex, non-routine, and difficult to measure using traditional metrics. Evaluating CKW workers based on metrics designed for office work can lead to inaccurate assessments and demotivation. Organisations must develop tailored performance evaluation systems that capture the nuances of knowledge work and reward creativity, problem-solving, and continuous learning.

Insufficient Professional Development

CKW requires continuous learning and skill development due to the rapidly changing nature of knowledge work. Treating it as office work may result in insufficient training and development opportunities, leading to obsolete skills and decreased competitiveness. Organisations must prioritise professional development and foster a culture of lifelong learning to ensure their knowledge workers remain at the forefront of their fields.

Talent Retention Challenges

CKW professionals often value autonomy, challenging work, and opportunities for growth. Misclassifying their work as office work may fail to meet their expectations, leading to higher turnover rates and difficulties in attracting top talent. Organisations that recognise and cater to the unique needs of CKW are better positioned to retain and attract the best knowledge workers.

Stifled Innovation Potential

CKW is often associated with the creation of new knowledge, ideas, and solutions. Treating it as routine office work may overlook the potential for innovation and the need to foster a culture that encourages experimentation and risk-taking. By failing to recognise the innovative potential of CKW, organisations may miss out on opportunities for growth, competitive advantage, and market leadership.

Conclusion

In an era where knowledge is a prized asset, organisations migh choose to recognise the unique nature of Collaborative Knowledge Work and provide the necessary support, resources, and management practices tailored to the specific needs of teams of knowledge workers. Failure to do so leads to a cascade of consequences that undermine productivity, innovation, and employee engagement, ultimately hindering an organisation’s ability to thrive in a rapidly changing business landscape.

[A slight departure from my usual topics, but given that one of my clients was a multinational firm of Patent Lawyers…]

Or: How Patents Negate Business Improvement Incentives

For decades, policymakers and capitalists have peddled a revisionist fairytale about the patent system. We’re assured that these government-granted monopolies are a necessity, incentivising the innovation that fuels economic progress. But is this intellectual property fiction obscuring an uglier truth?

Dig deeper, and it becomes clear that rather than driving competition and creative destruction, patents are too often a grotesque corporate lifeline perpetuating stagnation and inefficiency. By erecting fortresses around mediocre inventions, they empower underperforming firms to evade the brisk winds of true market forces.

The Monopoly Malaise

At their core, patents gift companies a temporary but ironclad monopoly over their claimed inventions. During this protective window, other firms are legally barred from independently developing or commercialising that technology without harsh penalties. Rent seeking abounds.

This monopolistic power acts as a force-field, enabling inefficient, unproductive corporations to shrug off the pressures and disruptive threats that typically weed out business deadwood. With competitors theoretically kept at bay by infringement risks, the impetus for continuous operational improvement or cost optimisation is dismayingly diminished.

Low Patent Quality Compounding the Problem

Indeed, many jurisdictions grant objectively low patent quality thresholds. Coupled with the broad patent eligibility for software and business methods, it becomes evident how easily patents can solidify corporate malaise and market stagnation under the guise of “promoting innovation.”

Obstructing Disruptive Innovation

The negative effects of this dysfunctional system spread far beyond individual companies, harming national economies and society as a whole. By propping up and protecting incumbents that underperform, patents directly impede the process of creative destruction described by economist Joseph Schumpeter. This “creative destruction,” where new innovative companies can challenge and replace stagnant incumbents, is crucial for sustained economic prosperity and growth. However, the monopoly power granted by patents obstructs that renewal process.

Disruptive startups and nimbler challengers with truly innovative and efficient technologies face imposing patent armouries held by establishment titans. Even when their novel solutions markedly improve upon what came before, outdated titans can brandish their government-approved monopolies to litigate or hamstring these competitive threats.

The Patent Arms Race Distortion

In many industries, incumbents nowadays compete not through fireworks of innovation but via gamesmanship of their patent portfolios. Funds that could be productively reinvested into R&D and operations are instead diverted into securing banal patents or defending against infringement claims from rival rent-seekers.

Escaping the Captive State Cycle

This myopic reliance on patents actively impedes dynamism and resilience across economic ecosystems. It perpetuates an entrenched corporatocracy of lumbering, low-productivity enterprises shielded from disruptive competitive renewal.

Apologists may well cite patents as an imperfect necessity somewhere on the policy tradeoff curve. But the self-serving delusion that this suspect monopolist nonsense improves business productivity or customer outcomes would be almost comical if the consequences weren’t so pernicious.

Perhaps it’s time to interrogate whether today’s patent system is beyond saving from its own contradictions. Productive companies might choose the freedom to thrive or wither based on their operational merits in a free market rather than fight subsidised stagnation behind legalised fortresses. Only then can vibrant innovation and economic paradigm shifts truly flourish.

The Heavy Tolls of Patent Protectionism

To recap, some of the key ways patents restrict open competition and shield inefficient businesses:

• Funds diverted away from productive operations toward paying licensing fees to rent-seekers
• Reduced freedom to operate and delays from patent thickets
• Resources squandered on defensive patenting and “design-arounds”
• Geographic constraints on market access from having to pay licensing fees across jurisdictions
• Difficulties attracting talent due to patent liabilities and litigation risks from rent-seekers

While patents may incentivise some innovation, their monopolistic downsides appear to be increasingly overpowering any societal benefits in many industries. As we strive for a more dynamic, competitive, and productive economy, its it past time to soberly reassess outdated patent doctrine driving the opposite?

[A follow-on to my previous post: The End of Improvement]

For years, organisations have pretended to be on a relentless pursuit of “continuous improvement.” Executives and managers at all levels have been pressured to implement “new initiatives”, “reengineer” processes, and hit ambitious targets—all part of an elaborate act putting improvement at centre stage. But has this endless improvement malarkey actually improved anything?

The uncomfortable truth is that for many managers, these improvement crusades have merely increased their stress, eroded their autonomy, and undermined their professional standing. Rather than enabling organisations to genuinely work smarter, the improvement police have subjected managers to a demoralising regime of resource constraints, changing metrics, and suffocating controls.

Leading Players Forced to Perform

At the top, senior executives have been both star-crossed thespians and unwitting victims of the improvement theatre. On one hand, they are expected to deliver rousing soliloquies as inspirational champions of transformation, rationalising headcount reductions as “rightsizing” and selling disruption as “rejuvenation.” Yet at the same time, they face relentless pressure from analysts and investors to cut costs and boost short-term metrics like earnings per share.

Their status and influence within their organisations has increasingly hinged not on strategic vision or operational expertise, but on delivering an award-worthy performance complete with unsustainable year-over-year budget cuts and headcount reductions. Is it any wonder top leaders become burned out, jaded husks after just a few years treading the boards of the improvement theatre?

The Overloaded Managerial Understudy

Moving down the hierarchy, middle managers have been conscripted as overloaded understudies to the improvement theatre. Caught between lofty edicts and challenging targets from the leading players above, and implementation pressures from the ensemble below, this critical but underappreciated class has been tasked with doing more-and-more with less-and-less.

From lean six sigma programmes to ERP system rollouts, managers have been bombarded with new tools, KPIs and time-consuming compliance rituals—all while their discretionary budgets and spans of control wither. Their expertise and commitment are repeatedly second-guessed through recurring rounds of process “optimisation” between each act of the improvement theatre.

Is it any surprise that managers increasingly suffer burnout, demotivated by the cognitive dissonance of being improvement enforcers one day, only to find themselves targets of the latest performance drive the next? With each new production, their authority and influence diminish further as indispensable institutional knowledge is upstaged by the latest bestseller, ibusiness class n-flight magazine, consultant’s script or other fad.

The Final Performance

Enough is enough. The idea that organisations can infinitely cut, reduce and optimise their way to success through improvement theatre has been definitively debunked by decades of ineffective and morale-sapping performances. Rather than doubling down with yet another encore, we need to rediscover fundamentals that have been tragically ignored.

Perhaps it’s finally time to rehumanise the workplace by recognising the intrinsic motivation, expertise and institutional memories that managers bring to the table. By realigning the way the work works based on pragmatism and mutual respect rather than dogmatically pursuing an arbitrary definition of “better,” we can foster genuine and sustainable progress over the long run.

After all, if an “improvement” worsens the wellbeing and standing of those charged with implementing it, can it really be considered improvement at all? And are we fools to expect these turkeys to vote for their Christmas? Organisations might choose to pause, escape the pressures, recriminations, frustrations and despair, and simply strive to optimise for the needs of all the Folks That Matter  – including the managers – before mindlessly leaping into the next faddish improvement drama.

The Visionary Notion

What if the primary driving force behind commercial and economic endeavors wasn’t the pursuit of profits, but rather benefiting society, the species, Gaia, and the planet? A visionary notion, to be sure, that seems to defy conventional capitalist wisdom. Nevertheless, if we allow our imaginations to roam freely and look back at periods in history where ethical business practices held sway, we can depict a world truly transformed by this paradigm shift.

Profit Motives vs. Ethics and Humanity

Throughout most of human history, the profit motive has reigned supreme in the business realm. However, there have been notable exceptions driven by religious teachings, philosophical movements, and social ideals that prioritised ethical conduct over mere grubby accumulation of more and more wealth. The Quakers, for instance, were renowned for their commitment to honest dealings and consideration of employee welfare, exemplified by the socially-conscious British chocolate makers like Cadbury. The 19th century cooperative movement aimed to create enterprises that equitably shared profits with worker-owners and the local community.

The Beauty of Ethical Business

Would we call businesses truly putting the greater good before profits “beautiful”? At first, such a description may seem like an odd coupling of aesthetics with commerce. But perhaps there is an inherent beauty to enterprises that create sustainable value for society while exhibiting ethical conduct.

Just as we find natural wonders, artistic works, or selfless acts emotionally moving due to their harmony with higher ideals of truth, goodness, and transcendence of ego, so could businesses centered on benefiting all stakeholders embody a different kind of beauty. One not necessarily based on physical appearance, but on being skillfully crafted exemplars of how our economic activities can align with ethical, aesthetic, environmental and humanitarian principles.

This beauty manifests through their products, services, and operations, harmonising with the world rather than undermining it through greed, despoilment, or exploitation. Beautiful businesses are sustainable and circular by design, creating goods to be celebrated and cherished rather than cynically designed for disposability.They invest in creating opportunity and dignity for workers and communities rather than grinding them underfoot for profit margins.

Where today’s shareholder-driven corporations often exemplify grotesque machineries of extraction, ethical enterprises putting people and planet over money could be sublime new exemplars of applied aesthetics – aspiring toward perfection not through profit metrics, but through positively impacting all they engage with. Their beauty would shine through in becoming tightly interwoven threads in an interdependent tapestry, creating joyful, resilient and regenerative systems that elevate our shared potential.

While the traditional business vernacular focuses on the uglyness of lucrative processes, revenue growth, and reputational brand value, a world where ethical enterprises reign would celebrate hallmarks of perfected form: generative models that produce societal good, environmental integrity, attending to folks’ needs, and uplifting the human spirit. Perhaps then, we could appreciate the highest “good companies” not just pragmatically, but aesthetically – as living artworks of conscious, ethical organisation.

A World Oriented Toward the Greater Good

In such a world oriented toward the greater good, companies measure success not just by financial returns, but by positive impacts. Ethical practices like those espoused by certain faith traditions and thinkers are the norm across these industries. Sustainability is prized over short-term gain, with environmental stewardship prioritised over resource exploitation. We’ve seen glimpses of this in recent decades through the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR), socially conscious investing, and the emergence of benefit corporations legally bound to creating public benefit, not just profits. But such examples have remained the exception rather than the rule in a profit-driven system.

The Global Ethos of the Greater Good

Imagine if this ethos becomes the core operating principle globally. Rather than lobbying for narrow interests, these businesses advocate for the common good. Tax avoidance schemes would be abandoned in a system where contributing one’s fair share is the ethical baseline. Worker rights and equity are vigorously protected, not eroded in pursuit of higher margins. On an individual level, cutthroat workplace could gives way to healthier cooperation, and integration with our personal and community values and family lives. Ethical conduct is rewarded over pure profit-generation at any cost. Kudos is not derived from endless growth metrics, but to positive impacts created for all the Folks That Matter.

A Sustainable Economic Model

Of course, enterprises still need to generate income to remain viable and reinvest in their social missions. But growth is pursued by creating genuine value for society rather than extracting it. Sustainable, circular economic models replace those premised on endless consumption and planned obsolescence.

A Radical Yet Possible Vision

Such a world may seem naively idealistic to modern sensibilities, conditioned to accept profit as the prime directive. But is it any more far-fetched than an entrenched global system that relentlessly exploits people and finite resources in pursuit of perpetual economic expansion on a finite planet? By orienting business toward the greater good, as past ethical movements have done, we might create an economy that better serves humanity. This may read as a utopian ideal today, but it has been a reality at various points throughout our history. A world where businesses prioritise society over self-interest may not be inevitable, but it is possible if we dare to imagine and build it together.

Do you have even the briefest five minutes to contemplate how things might be different?

Further Reading

Ackoff, R. L. (2011). The aesthetics of work. In Skip Walter’s blog post retrieved from https://skipwalter.net/2011/12/25/russ-ackoff-the-aesthetics-of-work/

In the world of organisational improvement and performance enhancement, W. Edwards Deming’s principles have had a profound impact. One of his most famous principles, the 95/5 rule, suggests that 95% of performance issues are attributable to the system and processes, while only 5% are due to the individual worker. This principle has however not led many organisations to prioritise systemic changes over individual development initiatives. So does Deming’s 95/5 principle entirely negate the value of individual coaching? Let’s explore.

The 95/5 Principle: Putting Systems First

According to Deming’s 95/5 principle, the vast majority of performance problems stem from flawed organisational systems, processes, and cultures. Focusing on individual skill development or coaching would be akin to treating the symptoms without addressing the root cause. Deming advocated for a systems thinking approach, wherein organisations critically examine and optimise their practices, policies, and culture to create an environment conducive to success.

In the context of collaborative knowledge work, this principle suggests that individual coaching efforts will have limited impact when the underlying organisational systems and processes are not optimised for effective collaboration, knowledge sharing, and collective problem-solving.

The Shortcomings of Individual Coaching

Proponents of Deming’s philosophy argue that individual coaching alone is insufficient in addressing performance issues within collaborative knowledge work environments. Even if individuals receive coaching to enhance their communication, teamwork, or creative thinking skills, these efforts will be undermined or rendered ineffective when the systems and culture within which they operate are counterproductive or siloed.

For example, imagine a scenario where knowledge workers receive coaching on effective knowledge sharing practices, but the organisation lacks a robust knowledge management system or has rigid hierarchical structures that discourage cross-functional collaboration. In such cases, the individual coaching will yield limited results due to systemic barriers.

Organisational Transformation: The Key to Collaborative Success

According to Deming’s principle, our primary focus should be on transforming organisational systems and culture to foster an environment conducive to collaborative knowledge work. This could involve:

• Optimizing communication channels and knowledge sharing platforms
• Breaking down departmental silos and promoting cross-functional collaboration
• Fostering a culture of continuous learning and improvement
• Implementing agile and flexible processes that adapt to changing needs
• Establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms
• Organisational psychotherapy – enabling the organisation to surface and reflect on its shared assumptions and beliefs

By prioritising systemic changes, organisations create an enabling environment where individuals can thrive and collaborate effectively, minimising the need for extensive individual coaching.

The Verdict: Individual Coaching Has Limited Value

While individual coaching may provide some marginal benefits, Deming’s 95/5 principle suggests that it has limited value in the grand scheme of enhancing collaborative knowledge work. Organisations that solely rely on individual coaching initiatives without addressing the underlying systemic issues will experience suboptimal results and inefficiencies.

The path to success lies in embracing a systems thinking approach, transforming organisational assumptions and beliefs, structures, and culture to create an environment that fosters collaboration, knowledge sharing, and collective problem-solving. Only then can organisations unlock the full potential of their knowledge workers and achieve sustainable performance improvements.

In conclusion, Deming’s 95/5 principle entirely negates the value of individual coaching as a standalone solution for enhancing collaborative knowledge work. Instead, it calls for a fundamental shift towards organisational transformation, where systemic changes wrought through i.e. organisational psychotherapy take precedence over individual development initiatives.

“A man enjoys the happiness he feels, a woman the happiness she gives.”

~ Madame de Rosemonde
from Letter One Hundred and Thirty, Les Liaisons Dangereuse

This insightful quote from Madame de Rosemonde in the classic French novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses highlights a profound truth about the nature of love and human relationships. At its core, love is not about taking or receiving, but about giving. The deepest fulfillment comes not from demanding love and affection from others, but from actively nurturing those around us through empathy, compassion and attending to their needs. And this principle of prioritising others’ needs over narrow self-interest is exemplified in the way many women approach love and relationships.

The Antimatter Principle is the fundamental idea of attending to folks’ needs – putting others’ wellbeing and happiness first through compassion, generosity and nurturing care.

The Feminine Tradition

While both genders are capable of selflessness, tradition has often positioned women as the prime upholders of this radical principle of prioritising others’ needs over our own. From the maternal instinct to subsuming personal ambitions for family, from creating loving homes to knitting together the social fabric, women have long exemplified the art of attending to folks’ needs. It’s the generous aunt welcoming nieces and nephews, the intuitive wife anticipating her husband’s stress, the mother ensuring everyone’s plate is full at the dinner table.

The Source of Joy

In an era of self-absorption, the Antimatter Principle can seem a countercultural relic. An in business, eventhe mention of love can raise hacklesa and foster unease.Yet it is this total devotion to others’ contentment that unlocks true joy and fulfillment, as Madame de Rosemonde suggested. For many women, the deepest wellspring of bliss lies not in being served, but in humble service itself.

The Risks and Rewards

This feminine ethic of radical other-focus can be unstable if unchecked – attending to folks’ needs to the point of self-negation risks dependency and being consumed by the act of giving. But properly balanced, it is a precious fuel source.

The Impact

In our fractured times, reviving the lost feminine way of the Antimatter Principle could be the solution for reweaving tattered social bonds. By recovering the ethic of joyful, unconditional care for others’ needs and happiness, we restore the very matter of love, mutuality and human communion itself.

The Power of Collective Intelligence

In more and more scenarios, solving complex challenges often requires much more than just an individual’s expertise. It demands the ability to synthesise diverse perspectives and pool intellectual resources through seamless coordination and collaboration. This emerging paradigm is known as collaborative knowledge work (CKW).

CKW brings together professionals from varied backgrounds to tackle intricate problems that defy siloed approaches. By harnessing the collective brainpower of multidisciplinary teams, organisations can innovate and achieve breakthroughs that may have once seemed unattainable. This collaborative mindset is reshaping various industries and giving rise to new types of roles and career paths.

Professions Embracing the Collaborative Paradigm

Here are some of the professions where collaborative knowledge work is taking centre stage:

Software and Digital Products

From agile squads to distributed open-source collaborations, software creation has become a team sport where developers, designers, and product experts collectively craft digital solutions.

Management Consulting

Rather than individual consultants, firms are assembling cross-functional teams to provide holistic advisory services that span multiple practice areas for their clients.

Product Design and Innovation

User-centred design demands close collaboration between designers, engineers, researchers, and other stakeholders throughout the product development lifecycle.

Scientific Research

Tackling complex scientific inquiries requires coordinated efforts between researchers across institutions, merging expertise from diverse domains.

Healthcare

Providing effective patient care requires seamless cooperation among physicians, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals.

Legal Services

Navigating intricate legal matters, especially those spanning jurisdictions, necessitates integrated teams of lawyers and paralegals from complementary practice areas.

Education and Training

Developing robust educational programmes involves interdisciplinary instructional designers, subject matter experts, and educational technologists working in concert.

Construction and Engineering

Delivering large-scale construction projects relies on integrated teams that bring together architects, engineers, builders and other specialised roles.

Finance and Investments

Managing investment portfolios and analysing risk profiles is increasingly a shared responsibility between quantitative analysts, economists, and other financial experts.

The New Collaborative Mindset

As the complexities of our world continue to grow, the demand for professionals adept at collaborative knowledge work will only intensify. Thriving in these roles requires a unique blend of specialised expertise and the ability to synthesise diverse perspectives through effective communication and coordination. This emerging paradigm presents exciting opportunities for those seeking to make a lasting impact by pushing the boundaries of what is possible through the power of collaboration. I wonder how many of the above truly understand and embrace CKW, and how many remain mired in the category error of treating CWK like traditional forms of work?

Let’s be honest, executives and seniors managers are forever fucking up their organisations’ software development efforts, big time.

Category Error

The Crux of the Problem

Let’s be honest, successfully executing software development initiatives is no easy feat for executives and senior managers. As the Harvard Business Review aptly states,

“The greatest impediment [to effective software development] is not the need for better methodologies, empirical evidence of significant benefits, or proof that agile can work – it’s the behaviour of executives.”

At the root of these struggles lies a fundamental “Category Error” – the failure to recognise collaborative knowledge work (CKW), such as software development, as a distinct category from other types of work.

Applying the Wrong Lens

Whilst leadership plays a crucial role in complex projects, executives often fuck up development big time by attempting to manage software development through the same lens as:

• Factory work
• Manufacturing
• Traditional office work
• Service work (e.g. call centres, help desks)
• Individual knowledge work

However, collaborative knowledge work demands a radically different approach. Imposing management practices from other categories inevitably leads to “management monstrosities” – dysfunctional, ineffective tech organisations.

The Pitfalls of Misclassification

1. Disconnect Between Business and CKW
   Executives struggle to bridge the gap between business objectives and CKW realities when software development is treated as akin to factory work or manufacturing.
2. Unrealistic Expectations
   Viewing software development through the lens of production lines and factory work breeds cultural mismatches, unrealistic timelines and quality compromises.
3. Resistance to Change
   Legacy systems persist due to inertia from treating CKW like the more understood office work.
4. Resource Misallocation
   Without recognising development as collaborative knowledge work, resources for talent, tools and infrastructure are inadequate.
5. Micromanagement
   An authoritarian command-and-control ethos stifles the autonomy and collaboration that development teams need.

The Crux of the Issue

The HBR quote exposes this truth – executives’ mindsets, shaped by misunderstanding the category of work, undermine methodologies and processes.

Unlocking True Potential

Overcoming “management monstrosities” requires understanding software development as collaborative knowledge work. This shift allows:

• Fostering cultures of learning and evolution.
• Embracing self managing, autonomous team models.
• Aligning resources for teams of knowledge workers.
• Building bridges between business and CKW domains.

With the right categorisation and mindset, executives can transform organisations into innovative powerhouses (fat chance of that happening in our lifetimes).

The Path Forward

The key lies in shedding industrial-era management thinking (they do think, don’t they?) and nurturing environments suited to this distinct category of work.

Open communication, adaptability and appreciating the complexities of collaborative development are vital. Escaping the “Category Error” unlocks outstanding delivery of software solutions and delight for all the Folks That Matter.

Introduction

In the relentless pursuit of delivering value to customers, with unparalleled speed and reliability, the software development world has yet to widely embrace a revolutionary principle – the “Constant State of Ship”. This state, where software artefacts and products are perpetually poised for release into production environments within just 15 minutes’ notice, has emerged as a driving force behind best practices that enable true continuous deployment. Remarkably, this groundbreaking concept formed the foundation of the pioneering “Javelin” software development approach, a visionary approach conceived by FlowChainSensei (Bob Marshall) at Familiar circa 1996 and onwards, foreshadowing the industry’s even-now-yet-to-be-realised embrace of these practices.

The Power of “Constant State of Ship”

The “Constant State of Ship” serves us as an unyielding forcing function, inviting teams to adopt and adhere to a comprehensive set of best practices that catalyse the seamless flow of software into production. Let us explore how this principle reinforces each of thirteen fundamentals of Continuous Delivery (hat tip to Dave Farley):

The 13 Fundamentals Enabled

1. A Repeatable, Reliable ProcessWith the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams may choose to establish a well-defined, automated pipeline for building, testing, and deploying their software. This process needs to be repeatable and reliable, minimising the risk of human error and ensuring consistency across releases.

   The “Constant State of Ship” mindset suggests that teams have a streamlined, automated release pipeline that can be triggered at any moment. Manual steps and ad-hoc and emergency exception procedures become liabilities, as they introduce variability and increase the chances of mistakes during deployment.

   To achieve this repeatability and reliability, teams are supported to invest in build automation tools, automated testing frameworks, and deployment automation pipelines. Every step of the release pipeline can be codified, documented, and thoroughly tested to ensure predictable outcomes each time.

   Moreover, the “Constant State of Ship” principle fosters an environment of continuous learning and improvement. Any failures or issues encountered during a release are promptly analysed, and the release process is refined to prevent future occurrences. This cycle of continuous feedback and optimisation ensures that the release pipeline remains reliable and efficient, even as the codebase and systems evolve over time.

   By operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode, teams are invited to treat the release pipeline as a critical component of their software development lifecycle, investing the necessary resources and effort to make it repeatable, reliable, and capable of delivering changes to production environments at a moment’s notice.

2. Automate All the ThingsIn a “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, manual interventions become significant bottlenecks and risks, hindering the required velocity and reliability. Automation becomes imperative, spanning every aspect of the delivery pipeline, from code compilation to infrastructure provisioning. The threat of an imminent release leaves no room for error-prone manual processes that could delay or derail a deployment. Teams must automate build processes, test execution, environment provisioning, deployment steps, and release orchestration to ensure consistency and minimise the risk of human error.
3. Maintain a Releasable StateThe core tenet of “Constant State of Ship” requires that the codebase and associated artifacts remain in a perpetually releasable state. This principle invites teams to address issues promptly, maintain a high level of code quality, and vigilantly consider the accumulation of technical debt. Any defects, bugs, or instabilities in the codebase could potentially disrupt an imminent release, leading to costly delays or failures. Teams must adopt practices like continuous integration, automated testing, and ensemble programming to ensure that the codebase remains in a stable, deployable state at all times.
4. Focus on Robust (Real) Quality Assurance

   In the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, where the possibility of demand for an immediate release is ever-present, quality assurance cannot be treated as an afterthought. “Constant State of Ship” invites the integration of quality practices throughout the entire development lifecycle, ensuring that quality is baked into the software from inception to deployment.

   While testing plays a role, it is merely one facet of a comprehensive quality assurance strategy. Teams may choose to adopt a holistic approach that emphasises quality as a continuous, pervasive practice woven into every aspect of the development approach.

   This begins with cultivating a culture of quality-driven development, where every team member participates in collective ownership and responsibility for the quality of their work. Practices such as clarity of (quantified a la Gilb) requirements, ensemble programming, peer code reviews, adherence to coding standards, and continuous static code analysis can help identify and mitigate potential issues early in the development cycle.

   Furthermore, “Constant State of Ship” invites teams to embrace principles of iterative and incremental development. By breaking down complex features into smaller, manageable, well-bounded increments, teams can more effectively manage quality risks and ensure that each increment and subsystem meets the required quality criteria before progressing to the next.

   Continuous integration and deployment pipelines play a pivotal role in this quality assurance strategy, enabling teams to continuously validate and verify the software’s functionality, performance, and stability with each incremental change. These pipelines automate the execution of various quality checks, including unit tests, integration tests, and performance tests, providing real-time feedback and enabling teams to address issues promptly.

   However, quality assurance extends beyond mere testing alone. Teams have the opportunity to adopt a holistic approach that encompasses design practices, architectural decisions, and operational readiness. By considering quality implications at every stage of the software development lifecycle, teams can proactively identify and mitigate potential risks, ensuring that the software remains in a releasable state at all times.

   “Constant State of Ship” elevates quality assurance to a core discipline that permeates every aspect of the software development effort. By fostering a culture of quality-driven development and adopting continuous quality practices, teams can attend to the needs of all the Folks That Matter, with confidence, knowing that their software meets the highest standards of reliability, stability, and performance.

5. Implement Robust Deployment PipelinesAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” necessitates the implementation of robust deployment pipelines. These pipelines automate the entire process of building, testing, and deploying software changes, ensuring consistency and minimizing the risk of errors. With the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams cannot afford manual, error-prone deployment processes. Automated deployment pipelines provide a standardised, repeatable path to production, reducing the likelihood of failed or inconsistent deployments.
6. Monitor the PipelineRegular smoke testing of the deployment pipeline is crucial in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. This practice helps catch issues early, before they can impact production environments, ensuring the pipeline’s reliability and preventing costly downtime. The possibility of an imminent release amplifies the importance of having a thoroughly validated deployment pipeline. Smoke tests act as a safety net, verifying the integrity of the pipeline and identifying any potential issues that could disrupt a deployment.
7. Integrate ConstantlyThe “Constant State of Ship” mindset encourages teams to integrate their changes frequently, often multiple times per day. This practice surfaces issues early, reduces merge conflicts, and ensures that the codebase remains in a releasable state, ready for deployment at any given moment. Infrequent integration can lead to divergent codebases, making it harder to identify and resolve conflicts, which could potentially disrupt an imminent release. By integrating frequently, teams can maintain a stable, unified codebase that is always primed for deployment.
8. Evolve the ArchitectureMaintaining a “Constant State of Ship” over time invites the continuous evolution of the system’s architecture (see also: Reverse Conway). Are teams prepared to refactor and adapt their architectures to accommodate new requirements, technologies, and scaling needs, without compromising the ability to release rapidly and reliably? As products grow and evolve, architectural decisions made early on may become hindrances to continuous deployment. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites teams to proactively evaluate and evolve their architectures, ensuring that they remain flexible, scalable, and conducive to rapid releases.
9. Leverage Data EnvironmentsWith the constant possibility of an imminent release, the ability to provision and manage data environments becomes critical. Teams may choose to adopt practices like database versioning, data seeding, and data masking to ensure consistent and reliable testing and deployment across environments, minimising the risk of data-related issues in production. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a robust data management strategy that enables seamless and repeatable deployments, regardless of the data complexities involved.
10. Mirror Production EnvironmentsTo minimise the risk of issues arising from environmental differences, teams operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode may choose to ensure that their development, testing, and staging environments closely mirror production environments in terms of configuration, data, and infrastructure. This practice helps identify and address potential issues before they impact the live production system. The possibility of an imminent release heightens the importance of having production-like environments, as any discrepancies could lead to unexpected behavior or failures during deployment.
11. Codify InfrastructureManually provisioning and configuring infrastructure for each release becomes a significant bottleneck when operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. Adopting Infrastructure as Code (IaC) practices, where infrastructure is defined and managed through code, enables teams to provision and tear down environments rapidly and consistently, minimising delays and reducing the risk of configuration drift. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites a high degree of automation and repeatability in infrastructure management, making IaC a beneficial practice for ensuring rapid, reliable deployments.
12. Foster Collaborative OwnershipAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” invites a high degree of collaboration and shared ownership among team members. Siloed responsibilities and knowledge become obstacles to rapid delivery. Teams may choose to adopt practices that promote collective code ownership, cross-functional collaboration, and shared understanding of the codebase and delivery processes. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a culture of collective responsibility, where all team members are empowered to contribute to and understand the entire delivery process, enabling seamless and efficient releases.
13. Continuous ImprovementOperating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode exposes inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the delivery pipeline and processes with uncompromising clarity. Teams may choose to embrace a culture of continuous improvement, regularly reviewing their practices, identifying areas for optimisation, and implementing changes to enhance their ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably. The constant presence of imminent releases acts as a driving force for continuous improvement, encouraging teams to continuously refine their processes, tools, and practices to achieve higher levels of velocity and quality. FlowChain was designed to systematise this very purpose.

The Visionary “Javelin” Approach

The “Javelin” approach (initally named “Jerid”) pioneered by me and my teams at Familiar from 1996 onward, was truly ahead of its time, recognising the transformative power of the “Constant State of Ship” mindset. By enshrining this principle as a cornerstone from its inception, “Javelin” has paved the way for the modern continuous deployment practices that have since become poised to gain industry standard status. This pioneering approach, along with FlowChain and e.g. Prod•gnosis, Flow•gnosis, Product Aikido, etc. exemplifies the spirit of continuous improvement intrinsic to the “Constant State of Ship” principle, ensuring its enduring relevance and impact.

Deep Cultural Implications

Reshaping the Culture and Mindset

Adopting the “Constant State of Ship” principle suggests a profound transformation that extends way beyond technical practices and processes – it hints at a seismic shift in the culture and mindset of software development teams and their parent organisations. This metamorphosis permeates every aspect of the organisation, reshaping shared assumptions, beliefs, and ways of working. However, navigating such a profound cultural shift can be a daunting challenge, often met with resistance and inertia.

This is where the discipline of organisational psychotherapy plays a pivotal role. By applying principles from psychotherapy, sociology, and group dynamics, organisational psychotherapy facilitates teams’ cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm smoothly and effectively.

A Culture of Ownership and Accountability through Empowerment

The “Constant State of Ship” mindset fosters a culture of collective ownership and accountability. Organisational psychotherapy techniques, such as participative decision-making and fellowship, empower team members to take responsibility for the quality, stability, and deployability of the codebase and overall product. This sense of empowerment cultivates a culture of shared ownership, where individuals proactively address issues, collaborate across boundaries, and collectively strive for continuous improvement.

Embracing Transparency and Trust

Maintaining a “Constant State of Ship” requires a high degree of transparency and trust among team members. Organisational psychotherapy practices, such as surfacing shared assumptions and beliefs, encourage open communication and facilitate the identification of problems and risks early. By fostering an atmosphere where team members feel comfortable expressing concerns, sharing mistakes, and seeking help, a culture of transparency and trust emerges, enabling teams to collectively address challenges and ensure the software remains in a releasable state.

Prioritising Continuous Learning

The “Constant State of Ship” principle instills a mindset of continuous learning and improvement. With each release, teams gain valuable insights into their processes, tools, and practices. Embracing new shared assumptions becomes essential, as teams must continuously refine and adapt their approaches based on feedback and lessons learned. This culture of continuous learning fosters an environment of experimentation, where failures are embraced as opportunities for growth, and success is measured by the ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably.

Aligning Towards a Common Goal

Ultimately, the “Constant State of Ship” principle unifies teams around a common goal: meeting the needs of all the Folks That Matter with unparalleled speed and reliability. This shared mission transcends individual roles, responsibilities, and technical disciplines. It creates a sense of collective purpose, where every team member’s contribution, regardless of their specific function, is valued and recognised as essential to achieving this overarching objective.

By leveraging organisational psychotherapy techniques, organisations can accelerate and streamline the cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm. This discipline not only makes the transition quicker and easier but also more cost-effective, as it addresses the root causes of resistance and inertia, facilitating a smoother and more sustainable transformation.

By reshaping the culture and mindset of software development teams, the “Constant State of Ship” principle cultivates an environment conducive to continuous deployment success. It fosters a sense of collective ownership, transparency, continuous learning, and shared purpose – traits that are indispensable in today’s rapidly evolving software landscape.

Embracing the Future

When the ability to swiftly adapt and innovate is paramount, the “Constant State of Ship” principle emerges as a beacon, guiding software development teams towards a future of quiet competence and competitiveness. By embracing this mindset, as exemplified by the visionary “Javelin” approach, teams can unlock the power to attend to folks’ needs with unprecedented speed, reliability, and quality – solidifying their organisation’s position as industry leaders in the software development arena.

A short story about metacluelessness and the distinction from stupidity.

Hubris in the Corner Office

Sitting in his corner office overlooking the city skyline, Simon felt a swell of pride. At 38 years old, he had accomplished so much – an MBA from a prestigious university, a high-flying career in management consultancy, and now the coveted role of Managing Director at SapriCoZa Tech, the tech division of one of the largest corporations in the country. His achievements were a testament to his sharp intellect and tireless work ethic. Yet when it came to leading SapriCoZa’s technology division, Simon was operating in a realm far outside his expertise.

The Cracks Begin to Show

The first warning sign came when Simon insisted on adopting a radical new software methodology. Despite polite pushback from Megan, the Head of Development, he forged blindly ahead without fully grasping the nuances of the approach. To the developers, it was clear their new leader lacked the technical know-how, but they followed orders, watching helplessly as the project derailed.

As issues mounted, Megan attempted to explain the root causes, but Simon simply couldn’t comprehend where his understanding fell short. How could someone of his pedigree be so misguided? In his mind, his way was unquestionably correct – after all, he was the one calling the shots.

A Slow-Motion Catastrophe

Weeks became months, and the project slipped further and further off the rails, bleeding money and resources. The once-harmonious tech team now operated in an environment of scrutiny and demoralisation. Still, Simon remained oblivious to the self-inflicted mayhem unfolding under his leadership.

Simon’s problem wasn’t lack of intelligence – he was undoubtedly bright. His issue was that he couldn’t recognise the boundaries of his own expertise. In his world of business strategy and operations, he was a savant. But technology? He couldn’t even spell it, let alone steer it.

A Failed Intervention

Finally, Megan felt she had no choice but to escalate the matter to Simon’s superiors, hopeful they could make him see reason. But alas, Simon’s blindspot was total. When presented with the disastrous results of his tenure, he simply doubled down, unable to accept that his approach could be the root cause. The issues, he reasoned, must lie with his insubordinate team.

The Inevitable Conclusion

SapriCoZa’s leadership eventually reached their limit. Though Simon ticked all the right boxes on paper, his obliviousness was putting the entire technology division at risk. With resolve and pragmatism, they asked for his resignation, unable to withstand further damage from his incumbency.

As Simon cleared out his belongings, his overconfidence remained intact – he still couldn’t fathom where he had gone so wrong. His self-assurance, once a strength, had become a ruinous liability that left him unable to recognise his own shortcomings. Never mind. His career options were still numerous, and his future bright.

The Lesson Learned

Simon’s undoing was a harsh reminder that even great intelligence is no protection against being unable to grasp the boundaries of one’s knowledge. While stupidity represents a lack of intellect, far more insidious is the meta-ignorance that allows people to sail forward convinced of their expertise in areas where they are largely unskilled and unknowledgeable. A deficit of self-awareness can undo even the most credentialed leaders.

The Danger of Overconfidence

As a manager, having confidence in your abilities is certainly important for leading teams and making critical business decisions. However, there is a fine line between self-assurance and falling victim to a dangerous cognitive bias called metacluelessness – a lack of awareness about the boundaries of your own competence.

Clifford’s Ethics of Belief

Philosopher William Kingdon Clifford highlighted the ethical importance of not allowing ourselves to remain in a state of false beliefs or delusions. In his essay “The Ethics of Belief,” Clifford argues it is wrong, whenever the occasion arises, to believe something on insufficient evidence. To do so is to erect a “scorner’s chair” for truth and to fail to uphold our fundamental duty as human beings to pursue truth diligently.

Metacluelessness as Unethical Delusion

Metacluelessness directly violates this duty that Clifford lays out. It causes managers to grossly overestimate their skills, knowledge, and overall managerial competence based on delusional confidence rather than objective assessment of the evidence of their understanding. Managers suffering from metacluelessness erect their own “scorner’s chairs” for truth in their areas of responsibility.

They think they have a solid handle on principles, best practices, people, psycvhology, emerging trends, and the complexities involved, when in reality there are gaping holes in their grasp that they fail to acknowledge. Suffering from metacluelessness, managers operate under a false sense of mastery over critical management disciplines. They are clueless about the true extent of their cluelessness and knowledge gaps. This creates disastrous blind spots in their judgment and decision-making.

The Root of Managerial Arrogance

As Clifford states, “The source of all the miserable self-idolatries…the despicable vices…is nothing other than a persuasion existing in men’s minds not based on fair reasoning and evidence.” Metacluelessness breeds overconfidence based on delusional beliefs about one’s true competence. It is the root of managerial arrogance, close-mindedness, dismissal of risks, and poor strategic vision.

Catastrophic Consequences

The consequences can be catastrophic – flawed strategies, missed opportunities, sunk costs from failures, poor leadership examples set for teams, and more. Entire companies have met their demise because executive leadership teams suffered from the “miserable self-idolatry” of individual and collective metacluelessness in critical areas.

Cultivating True Competence

Combating metacluelessness requires cultivating true competence – an awareness of what you don’t know and diligence in addressing those shortcomings. It starts with the intellectual humility that Clifford upheld as critical for a responsible pursuit of truth and knowledge. Admit the limits of your expertise without feeling inadequate. As Clifford wrote, “A generous admission of knowledge gaps is the condition of all real progress.”

The Best Never Stop Learning

Recognise that as a manager, you supervise teams filled with specialised knowledge you cannot possibly match in every domain. True competence means knowing when to rely on the wisdom of others with deeper mastery and looking for opportunities to expand your own understanding through fair reasoning and examination of evidence. It’s about embracing a habit of perpetual learning to strengthen beliefs in alignment with evidential proof.

The best managers never stop questioning their grasp of important principles and best practices based on the ethics of belief laid out by Clifford. Don’t let the “despicable vice” of overconfident metacluelessness derail your judgment through beliefs detached from rigorous evidentiary standards. Proactively identify and confront the boundaries of your competence. Only then can you become a more complete, ethically sound, and effective manager capable of leading teams and companies to success built on a foundation of diligently pursued truths.