Archive

Collaboration

Silos

April 3, 2024
Article, Business, Collaboration, Community, Culture change, Deming, Organisational effectiveness, Psychology, Quintessence, Systems thinking
Leave a comment

Silos

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.

The Perils of Misclassifying Collaborative Knowledge Work

March 20, 2024
Article, Business, Collaboration, Innovation, Learning, Management
Leave a comment

The Perils of Misclassifying Collaborative Knowledge Work

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 World Where the Greater Good Predominates Over Profits

March 16, 2024
Alien tech, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Collaboration, Community, Compassion, Culture change, Dignity, Economics, Fellowship, History, Joy, Needs, Nonviolence, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence, Rightshifting, Systems thinking, WhatIf
Leave a comment

A World Where the Greater Good Predominates Over Profits

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/

Deming’s 95/5 Principle Negates Individual Coaching

March 15, 2024
Alien tech, Article, Business, Capability development, Coaching, Collaboration, Collective psyche, Culture change, Deming, Dialogue, Improvement, Learning, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy
Leave a comment

Deming’s 95/5 Principle Negates Individual Coaching

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.

The Spread of Collaborative Knowledge Work

March 12, 2024
Article, Business, Careers, Collaboration, Culture change, Rightshifting
2 Comments

The Spread of Collaborative Knowledge Work

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?

The Executive Fuckups Crippling Software Development

March 11, 2024
Actionable Insights, Alien tech, Article, Business, Collaboration, Culture change, Management, Marshall Model, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Quintessence, Software development, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

The Executive Fuckups Crippling Software Development

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™.

The Power of Reflective Questions

March 5, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Capability development, Collaboration, Community, Conversations, Culture change, Dialogue
Leave a comment

The Power of Reflective Questions

The Impact of Our Questions

When it comes to understanding employee satisfaction and well-being, the questions we ask hold immense power. They shape the depth of insight we receive and the degree of self-reflection they prompt in others.

Simple vs. Reflective Questions

Consider these two contrasting questions:

  1. “Do you feel happy in your work and workplace?”
  2. “What factors contribute to making you feel happy or sad about your work and workplace?”

The first question stands broad and surface-level. A simple yes/no response fails to encourage any deeper self-reflection on the part of the employee. While they may respond truthfully, that single word provides no window into the nuanced drivers behind their feelings. Some might describe this as a “closed” question.

The second question, however, demands thoughtful introspection. It pushes the employee to pinpoint the root causes and specific elements that amplify or detract from their workplace fulfillment and positive sentiments about their role. Some might describe this as an “open” question.

The Value of Self-Reflection

An insightful response might go:

“I find happiness in this role’s meaningful work and growth opportunities. However, the long hours, lack of work-life balance, and poor management communication leave me frequently stressed and discouraged.”

This level of self-reflection yields far richer insights for the employer and embloyee, both. They gain a holistic view into not just the employee’s mood, but the underlying factors and pain points shaping their experience each day.

Fostering Authentic Understanding

The quality of the questions we ask directly impacts the quality of self-reflection. When we ask binary, closed-ended questions about complex issues like happiness, we restrict the potential for enlightening personal contemplation, and meaningful dialogue.

In contrast, open-ended exploratory inquiries serve as prompts for valuable self-reflection. They require respondents to purposefully examine their emotions, motivations, and the nuanced elements influencing their attitudes and engagement levels.

As employers, if we seek authentic understandings rather than superficial sentiments, we must create room for self-reflection through our questions. Instead of asking “Are you happy?”, we might choose to frame inquiries that facilitate thoughtful exploration: “What brings you a sense of meaning and fulfillment in your work? What factors leave you feeling dissatisfied or burnt out?”

The Path to Better Connection

When we invite this level of self-reflection, we don’t just understand an employee’s current state. We gain powerful insights into the roots of their experiences – both positive and negative. Armed with that deeper awareness, we can enact changes, reinforce strengths, and directly address issues eroding engagement and achievement, and sucking joy.

In the quest for connection, self-reflective questions are an under-utilised superpower. They enable not just data collection, but a purposeful exploration of the human experience we’re aiming to improve. Let’s craft questions that illuminate richer truths and inspire more fulfillment.

Power or Profits – You Can’t Have Both

February 28, 2024
Article, Business, Collaboration, Culture change, Delegation, Management, Organisational effectiveness
Leave a comment

Power or Profits – You Can’t Have Both

“Command-and-control is less and less the model for how the world works. Hierarchies, with their emphasis on obedience and conformity, are ill-suited for a modern economy in which knowledge workers must improvise and bend the rules.”

~ Gary Hamel

Organisations often face a tradeoff between distributing power to lower level employees (and thereby increasing innovation and productivity) versus maximising management power and control. The traditional hierarchical structure concentrates decision-making authority with senior managers. While this enables top-down control and accountability, it can come at the expense of agility, innovation, and employee empowerment.

Some argue that pushing down real power and autonomy to rank-and-file workers or frontline staff threatens the traditional managerial chain of command. And this may be true. However, the counterargument is that empowered employees with a voice in key decisions, access to resources, and fewer bureaucratic constraints are more engaged, productive, and creative.

Studies of organisations that have “flattened” their traditionally steep hierarchies show they often outperform their more top-down competitors. Giving teams ownership of projects and problems paired with accountability for outcomes can drive faster iteration, customer focus, and solutions that leverage insider knowledge.

However, power distribution introduces messy realities to the tidy organisational chart. Concerns around losing control can make management reluctant to adopt more decentralised structures. And managers oppose changes seen as diluting their status or job security. The instinct is often to limit autonomy to non-critical functions.

So organisations face a stark choice between retaining centralised control or pushing down power to unlock greater innovation and responsiveness. The reality is you cannot have both tightly held managerial authority and the agility enabled by widespread employee empowerment. Attempts to blend elements of both will inevitably lead to confused systems with conflicting priorities.

Organisations have a choice – commit fully to either top-down control or bottom-up autonomy. There are reasonable argumentsfor both options. But make no mistake – compromising between the two by granting partial empowerment on select issues resolves nothing. It brings only greater frustration and deteriorating morale over time. Organisations have the choice of direction for the organisation and its culture – management power or burgeoning profits. The middle ground is ultimately untenable.

Further Reading

Lilla, M. (2024, February 26). Against managerialism. Current Affairs. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2024/02/against-managerialism

Getting the Best Out Of Experts

February 5, 2024
Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Capability development, Collaboration, Experts
Leave a comment

Getting the Best Out Of Experts

While many organisations instinctively “push” niche expertise onto various teams, whether relevant or not, and whether needed or not, a pull model where teams can tap into specialist support when truly needed is more effective. By enabling on-demand access to experts – both from inside and outside the company – organisations can empower teams to pull specialised knowledge to solve pressing problems as they arise. And avoid the all-too-common scenario where teams don’t beging to understand the experts and advice being foisted upon them.

Maximise Visibility of Specialists

Organisations might choose to maintain an intranet portal that profiles in-house and out-of-house experts across domains like user research, UX, supply chain analytics, product architecture, analysis, design, coding, quality, and emerging tech. Enable teams to easily identify and connect with relevant expertise.

Equip Access Channels

Setup dedicated collaboration tools like Slack channels, internal discussion boards, and email lists connecting experts to front line teams. Enable the just-in-time asking of questions, without gatekeepers or bottlenecks, for when specific challenges and needs emerge.

Identify External Partners

Research specialised firms or freelance consultants that can provide on-demand expertise for when in-house skills gaps exist in key areas. Develop preferred provider networks and put in place in advance the necessary contracts, terms, budgets, etc. for making this provision as frictionless as possible.

Incentivise Timely Support

Monitor internal/external experts via responsiveness and accountability metrics. Ensure incentives exist for them to provide timely and effective support.

Summary

This pull-based integration allows expertise to target real needs rather than being arbitrarily imposed from the top-down. Support happens in the flow of work not in a vacuum. The organisation facilitates access, teams pull when they really need it. This on-demand model maximises the application of niche expertise effectively, at the exact point and time of need.

The Era of Collaborative Knowledge Work

January 30, 2024
Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Collaboration, Culture change, Fellowship, Improvement, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence
Leave a comment

The Era of Collaborative Knowledge Work

Work dynamics have been evolving rapidly in recent decades. Back in 1959, management expert Peter Drucker coined the term “knowledge work” – jobs focused more on expertise application versus manual tasks. Today, many observe the economy shifting from industrial production to innovation through agile collaboration.

Fundamentally Different

The nature of work has fundamentally changed. We have shifted from an industrial economy largely based on manual labour to a knowledge economy increasingly based on intellectual collaboration. This transition invites a new way of looking at work, focused on both recognising and facilitating collaborative knowledge work (CKW).

In this model, cross-disciplinary teams come together to brainstorm and refine breakthroughs iteratively. Silos give way to fluid circles of contribution. Motivation stems intrinsically from the shared mission, not extrinsic rewards. Experimenting with unconventional ideas bears lower risk when paired with constructive peer feedback.

But embracing the CKW paradigm depends on adopting a distinctly different approach to work. How can groups establish norms where everyone feels comfortable contributing without fear of judgement or rejection?

Autonomy, Mastery and Shared Purpose

Part of the solution links back to aligning clearly around higher purpose. When autonomy coexists with shared accountability, inspiration untaps. Structuring reciprocal mentorship allows members to develop emotionally and motivationally while exchanging honest developmental guidance.

This differs drastically from the hierarchical command-and-control management style of the past century that was well-suited for manual labour but proves limiting for knowledge work. Managers can no longer simply dictate tasks and expect compliance. For collaborative efforts to thrive, managers must nurture a culture that empowers teams with autonomy while providing direction, support, and facilitation.

What About Management?

Those in the know recognise the incompatibility of CKW and the traditonal management paradigm. Yet, organistions intent on making the best of CKW are faced with transitioning away from the concept of management towards e.g. sefl-managing teams and fellowship. In essence, we’re talking about culture change. Here’s some guidance in that regard:

Guidance for Old-Guard Managers

For managers used to traditional modes of top-down management, adopting a collaborative approach invites a paradigm shift. Here are key ways to enable more participatory and productive knowledge work:

  • Provide transparent context and clarity around broader goals while giving teams discretion in determining how goals are achieved.
  • Cultivate constructive exchanges where all team members feel comfortable contributing ideas without fear of judgement.
  • Ask probing questions, identify gaps, and point to resources, not dictate solutions.
  • Focus on facilitating the collaborative process through conflict resolution, dialogue around communication norms, and adaptive coordination.
  • Champion new ideas that arise from the team and rally support across the organisation.
  • Evaluate performance based on the effectiveness of collaborative processes and quality of outputs.

Advice for New Managers

For those assuming their first management role, the collaborative approach may feel more intuitive. Still, translating intent into impact invites concerted learning. Here are some areas for new managers to consider:

  • Foster emotional intelligence to nurture relationships, understand different working styles and motivations, and resolve interpersonal friction.
  • Hone facilitative teambuilding techniques like liberating structures, engagement through powerful questions, and conversation mapping.
  • Promote inclusion by valuing diverse voices, ensuring equal opportunity for contribution, and mitigating dominant perspectives.
  • Develop fluency in digital collaboration tools and appropriate applications for remote and hybrid work settings.
  • Elevate and practice orchestrating for collaborative work.
  • Pay attendtion to the quality of interpersonal relationships and the overall social dynamic.
  • Attend to folks’ needs.

The CKW paradigm brings substantial promise and possibility but requires managers themselves to transform. By embracing this challenge, leaders can unlock unprecedented potential from today’s knowledge workers.

The future lies in fully unleashing human potential by connecting talent to shared missions. But practical change management matters. How might we reinvent team rituals and processes to make this vision an everyday reality? The answers will come collaboratively, through commitment to the journey of learning together.

US and THEM

January 23, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Collaboration, Community, Conversations, Culture change, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence
Leave a comment

US and THEM

In any human organisation, natural subgroups emerge from shared interests, backgrounds and experiences. While we might expect some clustering, problems arise when – as is common in tech organisations – an “us vs them” mentality takes hold between ingroups and outgroups.

Some common divides in tech companies include:

Ingroups

  • Engineers
  • Product Managers
  • Executives
  • Long-Serving Employees

Outgroups

  • Non-Technical Roles
  • Contractors/Consultants
  • Recent Hires
  • Remote Employees

Impacts

Divides often lead to biased decisions, limited information sharing, poor collaboration, feelings of disrespect, high turnover, groupthink and tokenism. Organisations fragmented by subgroups usually suffer as a result.

We’re All In This Together?

Rather than expecting executives and HR to fix these issues, employees at all levels have significant power to act.

Actions for Individual Contributors

  • Look into the basic phenomenon of ingroups and outgroups
  • Build relationships beyond your immediate team
  • Model inclusive language and behaviour
  • Call out subtle exclusion when you see it
  • Learn more about internal groups you don’t interact with often

Tactics for Teams

  • Set expectations for mutual understanding between groups (charters can help)
  • Invite rotation of cross-functional team staffing
  • Discuss observations about silo behaviour in retrospectives
  • Provide onboarding mentorships to new hires across the company
  • Avoid protecting the team (instead, seek mutual dialogues and benefits)

Folks who own the way the work works also play a crucial role too by implementing structural changes to connectivity. But culture shifts come largely from how rank-and-file employees relate, day-to-day. Each person can choose to reflect upon their language, decisions and behaviours that might be isolating colleagues and subgroups, and solidifying ingroup and outgroup divisions.

The end goal is a culture where people bring their whole, authentic selves to work (often risky), uniqueness stands out more than fitting in, and outsiders get welcomed rather than excluded.

What tactics have you found most effective for strengthening connections between workgroups? What benefits have you seen? Let’s exchange ideas in the comments!

Delegating to Teams

September 10, 2023
Advice Process, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Collaboration, Culture change, Delegation, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence, Teambuilding, Trust
Leave a comment

Delegating to Teams

Who’s in Charge?

Traditionally, delegation was a top-down process. Managers assigned tasks to individuals and monitored their performance. However, with the emergence of self-organising teams, the rules of the game have changed. Senior managers now face the unique challenge of delegating to a collective rather than individuals.

What’s Different Now?

The Shift in Authority

The conventional hierarchical model of a company places a single person, or a few individuals, in a position of authority. They are the go-to people for making decisions and ostensibly bear the brunt of accountability. In stark contrast, a self-organising team operates on a distributed model of authority. This means that every team member has a say in how things are run, and decisions are usually reached through consensus, a democratic process or the Advice Process. The power dynamics are less vertical and more horizontal.

Collaborative Decision-Making

When authority is distributed, the decision-making process also becomes a collective endeavour. It’s not about one person dictating the course of action but a dialogue that brings in multiple perspectives. Senior managers who are used to making unilateral decisions might find this unsettling. The challenge lies in learning how to navigate this collective process without undermining the team’s autonomy.

Absence of a Single Accountability Point

In a hierarchical setting, if a task fails, you know whom to hold accountable—the person to whom you delegated the task. In a self-organising team, there’s often no single point of accountability. Everyone is responsible, which means no one person can be singled out for a failure. This lack of a straightforward accountability trail can complicate how senior managers assess performance and enforce consequences. It can help to have the team nominate a single person to the role of “contact person”. This can be a rotating role. This person serves as the single point of contact between the team and external parties, including senior management.

  • Spreading the Load, Maximising Learning: When there’s no single point of accountability, responsibility is shared among team members. This means the burden of a setback is felt less acutely by one individual, creating a psychologically safer space for team members. They are more likely to view failures as opportunities for collective learning, rather than as points for individual criticism.
  • Enhanced Problem-Solving: Because everyone is responsible for the outcomes, all team members have a vested interest in solving problems. Rather than leaving it to one individual to fix things, the entire team rallies to identify solutions. This collaborative approach often yields more innovative solutions by drawing from a diversity of perspectives and skill sets.
  • Fosters Ownership and Engagement: Shared accountability nurtures a strong sense of ownership among team members. When everyone’s accountable, everyone cares. This tends to boost engagement and motivation, as team members feel they have a real stake in the project’s success or failure.
  • Risk Mitigation: In a hierarchical structure, the failure of a task often leads to an exhaustive search for where things went wrong, usually zeroing in on an individual. In a self-organising team, since accountability is collective, the emphasis shifts from blame to understanding the systemic issues that contributed to the failure. This provides a more comprehensive view of risks and how to mitigate them in the future.
  • Reinforces Team Cohesion: Shared responsibility often leads to stronger bonds among team members. They sink or swim together, which fosters a sense of unity and mutual support. This is particularly beneficial for tasks that require high levels of collaboration and interdependence.
  • Easier Talent Allocation: Without a single point of accountability, senior managers can more flexibly allocate talent based on the task’s evolving needs. If one person’s skills are better suited for another project, they can be moved without disrupting the accountability structure, making resource management more efficient.
  • Senior Management’s Role: For senior managers, this means a shift in focus from micromanagement to coaching and mentoring. The upside is that this often yields higher job satisfaction for the manager, as they can concentrate on strategic oversight rather than getting bogged down in the nitty-gritty of task-level management.

In sum, while the lack of a single point of accountability in self-organising teams may initially seem like a drawback, it brings a range of benefits. These include a more engaged and cohesive team, better problem-solving, and a healthier approach to managing both success and failure.

Reimagining Delegation

Given these differences, the act of delegating to a self-organising team isn’t merely about passing down tasks. It’s about empowering the team to function within a set framework, giving them the freedom to decide how best to achieve objectives. This demands a different set of management skills, focused more on guidance and less on control. See also: Auftragstaktik

Handling Uncertainty and Risk

For a senior manager used to hierarchical structures, this new terrain comes with its share of uncertainties. You may be uncertain about how decisions will be made or how to enforce accountability. This requires a level of comfort with ambiguity and a willingness to adapt one’s management style.

The challenge lies in adapting delegation strategies to suit a work environment that’s fundamentally different from the traditional hierarchy. It’s about learning to delegate not to an individual but to a collective, and trusting that collective to manage itself effectively.

Delegating Responsibility

To effectively delegate to a self-organising team, clearly outline what needs to be done without prescribing how to do it. This allows the team to take ownership of the task and leverage its collective skills and knowledge.

Setting Boundaries

While a self-organising team relishes autonomy, it’s crucial to establish parameters. These could be deadlines, budgets, or quality standards. Providing these constraints equips the team to manage itself effectively within an agreed-upon framework. The Antimatter Principle as policy affords benefits, here.

How to Communicate?

Clear communication is vital when delegating to any team, more so with a self-organising one. Since there may not be a single point person, communication flows to the entire team. Modern tech makes this child’s play.

Written Guidelines

Document what you’re delegating. This ensures everyone is on the same page and minimises misunderstandings later.

Regular Check-ins

Have periodic touchpoints with the team to assess progress. These meetings shouldn’t be about micromanagement but an opportunity for the team to seek support, guidance and clarification.

What If Things Go Wrong?

Let’s face it; not every delegation attempt will be successful. With self-organising teams, it can be difficult to pinpoint where things went awry…

Troubleshoot as a Team

Instead of assigning blame, involve the team in identifying the root cause of any setbacks. This fosters a culture of collective responsibility.

Adapt and Learn

The aim isn’t to avoid mistakes altogether but to learn from them. Revise your delegation approach based on the insights you’ve gathered.

Are You Ready?

Delegating to a self-organising team demands a shift in mindset. As a senior manager, it’s a challenge that tests your ability to relinquish control while still ensuring accountability. Are you ready to take it on?

Why Managers?

September 8, 2023
Alien tech, Article, Business, Collaboration, Culture change, Fellowship, Management
Leave a comment

Why Managers?

Who’s In Charge?

For years, companies have automatically installed managers at the helm of software development teams. Why? Perhaps it’s because this model has been employed across various other industries with some semblance of success. But is this the right approach for software development?

Does Archaism Matter?

Historically, the concept of a manager has roots in the Industrial Age, where assembly lines were all the rage. These lines seemed like they needed supervision and structure. The manager became the linchpin in ensuring that production flowed more or less smoothly. While this may have worked in a factory setting, software development isn’t assembly work. It’s more akin to crafting a work of art. So why are we still clinging to archaic notions?

What Devs Need

Developers don’t need someone hovering over them, dictating their every move. They need autonomy and space to innovate. Software development is a field that requires creative thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and an in-depth understanding of technologies. These skills can’t be micromanaged into existence. Instead, a supportive, collaborative environment is more beneficial. So, if not managers, then who or what can create such an environment?

Why Not Self-Management?

Self-management or self-organising teams are a game changer in the software development industry. Such teams have no formal manager but work towards a common goal. Every team member is responsible for managing their tasks and collaborating with their teammates. While this model isn’t flawless, it’s more attuned to the needs and work style of software developers, and collaborative knowledge work more generally.

There Are Alternatives

If going manager-free feels too risky, other structures such as ‘servant leadership’ offer a middle ground. In this framework, leaders exist but act as enablers rather than dictators. Their role is to remove obstacles and facilitate, rather than control. This form of leadership suits the collaborative, innovative nature of software development.

What’s the Bottom Line?

Installing managers in software development teams is a practice that’s way outlived its usefulness. While it’s not going to change overnight, there are alternative methods of organisation that better serve the needs of developers and promote a more effective, humane work environment. So, the next time someone suggests that a manager is essential for a software development team, consider whether tradition is clouding better judgement.

Positive Relationships and Collaborative Knowledge Work

September 6, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Caring, Collaboration, Compassion, Fellowship, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Relationships, Software development
Leave a comment

Positive Relationships and Collaborative Knowledge Work

Why Relationships Matter in Collaborative Settings

In sectors such as software development, and management, where collaborative knowledge work is the norm, the quality of relationships isn’t just a social nicety—it’s a business imperative. Positive interpersonal connections amplify collective intelligence, increase productivity, and enhance the overall quality of work. In contrast, strained relationships lead to communication breakdowns, reduced morale, and compromised results. Hence, any team that aims for excellence might choose to focus, at least in part, on fostering positive relationships.

The Heart of the Matter: Caring Deeply

Before diving into the nuts and bolts of relationship building, it’s important to highlight a fundamental principle: genuine care for those with whom you’re working. In the context of collaborative knowledge work like software development, or management, compassion might not be the first thing that comes to mind. However, a deep sense of care and understanding for your fellows is what turns a group of individuals into a cohesive unit. Compassion fosters a supportive environment where people feel valued, not just for their technical skills but for who they are as individuals. This, in turn, leads to a sense of shared purpose and mutual respect, driving the team to higher levels of achievement.

For those sceptical about the role of compassion in a professional setting, the book “Compassionomics” provides compelling evidence. It delves into the science behind compassion and demonstrates how this emotional intelligence skill significantly impacts relationship building and, ultimately, success.

Having set the stage with the importance of deep care and compassion, let’s delve into the specific strategies to build and maintain positive relationships in collaborative settings.

Master the Art of Listening

Listening is more than just a passive act; it’s an active skill. This is especially crucial in collaborative knowledge work where understanding each other is key to solving complex challenges. Effective listening reveals not only what team members are saying but also what they’re thinking or possibly avoiding saying. Technical teams and management teams may choose to regard this deeper level of communication as critical for addressing challenges and finding solutions collaboratively.

Cultivate Self-Awareness

In a team setting, knowing oneself is as vital as knowing one’s craft. Being aware of one’s own strengths, weaknesses, and emotional responses can help navigate team dynamics more effectively. This level of insight allows one to contribute where most effective, and defer when deferral plays to someone else’s strengths.

Uphold Respect as a Core Value

In any collaborative effort, people bring a diverse set of skills and perspectives to the table. The concept of respect goes beyond mere tolerance of this diversity; it involves valuing and leveraging these different skills and viewpoints to enrich the project. In software development, where cross-functional teams often collaborate, respecting different disciplines—be it engineering, UX design, or quality assurance—is vital for project success.

Make Room for Personal Space

Even in high-stakes environments, it’s crucial to understand that everyone needs space to operate effectively. Overcrowding can lead to burnout, reduced productivity, and deteriorated relationship quality. Allowing for ‘breathing room’ can also offer team members the chance for independent thought, which they can later bring back to enrich the collective effort.

Be Consistent in Communication

Effective communication is a key element of successful relationship building. In a fast-paced, deadline-driven setting, regular check-ins can be the lifeline that keeps projects on track. This doesn’t just mean status updates, but also sharing feedback, insights, and even acknowledging small wins. It keeps everyone aligned on goals and expectations, reducing the room for misunderstandings or conflict.

Embrace Adaptability

The nature of collaborative knowledge work, particularly in tech, is dynamic. Flexibility and willingness to adapt are not just desirable traits but beneficial practices for maintaining positive relationships amidst change.

Summary

In collaborative knowledge work, the importance of maintaining positive relationships is amplified due to its direct impact on productivity and outcomes. By incorporating principles like effective listening, self-awareness, respect, personal space, consistent communication, and adaptability, you can lay down a robust foundation for a successful collaborative environment.

Further Reading

Trzeciak, S., & Mazzarelli, A. (2019). Compassionomics: The Revolutionary Scientific Evidence that Caring Makes a Difference. Studer Group.

I, Relate

September 3, 2023
Article, Capability development, Collaboration, Community, Culture change, Dialogue, Empathy, Joy, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Relationships
Leave a comment

I, Relate

The Unlikely Union: How the Relationship Counselling Ethos Boosts Software Development Productivity

Why Should Techies Care About Relationship Counselling?

At first glance, you might think that relationship counselling and software development occupy opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet, delve a little deeper and you’ll see that both fields share a core essence: human interaction. In a nutshell, successful software development relies on effective communication, collaboration, and conflict resolution, elements that relationship counselling has mastered. Let’s explore how relationship counselling ethos and techniques can turbocharge software development productivity.

The Fabric of Teamwork: Trust and Open Communication

Software development isn’t a one-man show. It involves designers, developers, testers, customers, and often, cross-functional teams from other departments. This melting pot can either cook up an extraordinary result or turn into a recipe for disaster. That’s where relationship counselling principles come into play. Trust-building exercises and open communication channels, often advocated by relationship counselling, can help team members understand and respect each other’s roles, fostering a more cohesive working environment.

Conflict Resolution: The Relationship Counselling Way

Conflicts are part and parcel of any collaboration, let alone software development with its tight deadlines and constant need for problem-solving. Relationship counselling is adept at resolving disputes and finding middle ground, skills that are just as useful in the tech world. Techniques such as active listening and ‘I’ statements can pave the way for constructive discussions, rather than finger-pointing or blame games. This encourages quicker resolution of issues, saving both time and sanity.

Emotional Intelligence: Not Just for Lovers

While emotional intelligence (EQ) might sound like the antithesis of the logic-driven tech sphere, it’s surprisingly crucial. High EQ can enhance problem-solving abilities and contribute to better collaboration. Relationship counselling’s focus on developing emotional intelligence can help team members become more aware of their own reactions and the feelings of others, thereby enhancing overall productivity.

Iterative Improvement: Learning from Relationships

Just like any relationship, software development benefits from periodic check-ins and adjustments. Relationship counselling’s method of iterative feedback and adjustment mirrors prevailing methods in software development. Regular retrospective meetings, a technique in line with relationship counselling’s ethos, allow for continual improvement and adjustment throughout the development life cycle.

The Ripple Effect

Adopting the relationship counselling ethos can have longer-term benefits. Enhanced communication skills, improved conflict resolution abilities, and a heightened emotional intelligence level are not development-specific. They’ll enrich the work environment, thereby leading to better collaborations in the future and stronger, more resilient, more joyful teams.

In Summary

Though it might seem unusual, the relationship counselling ethos offers tangible benefits for software development teams. From trust-building and conflict resolution to fostering emotional intelligence, these techniques can significantly impact productivity. So, the next time you’re stuck in a dev team stand-off or facing a seemingly insurmountable challenge, you might just find the solution in relationship counselling techniques.

Modus Operandi in Software Development

September 1, 2023
Article, Attendants, Collaboration
Leave a comment

Modus Operandi in Software Development

Preamble

In my previous post, there was an implict assumption (under option 2) that development teams attend to folks’ needs – at least, the needs of all the Folks That Matter™ as a core aspect of their modus operandi. I’ve only ever seen one team do this, but in principle there’s no reason why every team could not work this way.

Definition

The term “modus operandi” describes the standard methods and practices that individuals, teams or organisations use to achieve specific tasks. In the context of software development, it refers to the patterns, tools, and methodologies employed to write, deliver, and deploy code.

Preferred Programming Languages

Developers often specialise in certain programming languages like Python, JavaScript, or C++. The choice of language can dictate other elements of the development process, such as the libraries and frameworks that can be used.

Development Methodologies

The development methodology sets the stage for how a project progresses. Common methodologies include Agile, Scrum, and Waterfall. Each comes with its own set of rules and approaches to tasks such as planning, executing, and reviewing work.

Toolsets

Software development usually involves a suite of tools, ranging from integrated development environments (IDEs) to version control systems like Git. These tools streamline various aspects of the development workflow.

Approaches to Quality

The strategies for producing quality products also form part of a developer’s modus operandi. Some teams may favour prevention (e.g. ZeeDee), others testing-based methods such as Test-Driven Development (TDD), while others again might opt for inspections, or more exploratory forms of testing.

Code Review and Collaboration

The way developers collaborate also speaks to their modus operandi. Some might prefer pair or ensemble programming, while others could lean more towards code reviews (synchronous or asynchronous).

Summary

In software development, a modus operandi isn’t just a fixed set of steps but rather a combination of various elements that make up a development approach. This includes the choice of programming languages, methods, tools, and collaboration styles. Understanding a team’s or individual’s modus operandi can be crucial for effective collaboration and synergy.

The Two Questions Guiding Self-Organising Teams

August 30, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Collaboration, Culture change, Fellowship, Self-organisation
Leave a comment

The Two Questions Guiding Self-Organising Teams

Time to update this classic post!

[Tl;Dr: Navigating the complexities of self-organising teams isn’t a walk in the park, but these questions can serve as your compass.]

Start with these crucial questions

  1. “What is the purpose of this team from the peerspective of all the Folks That Matter™?”
  2. “What measures will the team* use to understand and improve its work?”

*For avaidance of ambiguity, it’s down to the team to choose and track their measures (not managers, not customers, etc.).

Misconceptions: Self-Organising Isn’t So Clear-Cut

Ever been embedded in a self-organising unit? It’s anything but straightforward. In theory, it’s about people coming together to figure things out. But the lived experience is something else entirely, full of nuanced emotions and dynamics you’ve got to experience to fully grasp.

The Learning Curve

Need to understand self-organising teams? If you’re new to it, learning on the job is okay, especially with a seasoned coach guiding the way. If you’re joining an already self-organising team, they’ll help you fit in without breaking stride.

But if you’re in a leadership role, misunderstanding the concept can lead you to unintentionally sabotage the very benefits you’re trying to foster. Benefits which include:

  • Elevated engagement
  • Focused commitment
  • Alignment with organisational purpose
  • Improved morale
  • Meticulous attention to detail
  • Productivity
  • Increased speed  of delivery

The Oblique Approach

Chasing these benefits head-on can make them elusive. Instead, approaches like Fellowship, Servant Leadership or Host Leadership can create a more fertile ground. The key is not pushing for self-organisation but enabling a space for purposeful dialogue.

Paradox of Attention

Oddly enough, the more you make self-organising your goal, the more you push it away:

  • Emphasise self-organising, and it weakens.
  • Focus on the team’s purpose, and it strengthens.

Further Reading

Stack, J. (1992). The Great Game of Business. Doubleday.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The Power of Servant Leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
McKergow, M. (2014). Host Leadership. Solutions Books.
Kay, J. (2010). Obliquity: Why our goals are best achieved indirectly. Profile Books.
Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for Performance. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Seddon, J. (2003). Freedom From Command & Control. Vanguard Press.
Derby, E. (2018). Misconceptions About Self-Organising Teams. [Blog Post]. Retrieved from [insert website].

Please Yourself!

August 25, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Collaboration, Culture change, Empathy
Leave a comment

Please Yourself!

Amid the hustle and bustle of life, the act of tending to others’ needs often gets eclipsed by our individual ambitions. Yet, there’s a profound and enlightening reality that lurks beneath this mundane routine. Catering to the needs of those around us is not just a selfless act; it’s a gateway to our inner satisfaction. Let’s delve into this intricate connection that binds our happiness with the happiness of others.

Pleasing Others, Pleasing Ourselves

At first glance, attending to others’ needs might seem a chore or even a burden. However, scratch beneath the surface, and we can uncover a rich and rewarding experience that resonates with our intrinsic human nature as social animals.

1. Understanding Human Connection

Humans are social beings. We thrive in communities, forging bonds with family, friends, colleagues, and even strangers. When we help others, we’re essentially nurturing these connections, thereby enhancing our own sense of belonging and joy. It’s a symbiotic relationship, where our compassion fuels both our happiness and that of the person to whose needs we’re attending.

2. The Joy of Giving

The pleasure derived from giving is often more rewarding than receiving. When we see the impact our help has on someone’s life, a sense of accomplishment and fulfilment washes over us. It’s not just about solving a problem; it’s about adding value to someone’s life and, in turn, enriching our own existence.

3. The Psychological Perspective

From the viewpoint of organisational psychotherapy, attending to others’ needs within a corporate setting can lead to a more harmonious and productive work environment, witgh increased engaement and discretionary effort. By understanding and fulfilling the needs of colleagues, we foster a sense of trust and cooperation that makes daily work more enjoyable and effective.

4. Building Self-esteem and Confidence

When we help others, we also enhance our sense of self-worth. We see ourselves as capable, compassionate, and valuable. This boost in self-esteem doesn’t just brighten our mood; it adds a layer of resilience to face life’s challenges with confidence.

5. The Moral Compass

Attending to others’ needs aligns with many moral and ethical principles found across various cultures. By doing good for others, we’re living a life congruent with these values, leading to a sense of satisfaction and contentment.

Summary

Attending to others’ needs isn’t just about them; it’s equally about us. It’s a shared journey of joy, understanding, compassion, and fulfilment that enriches life in multifaceted ways. In serving others, we find a reflection of ourselves, and through that reflection, we discover pleasure, purpose, and a profound connection to the world around us.

Let’s not underestimate the power of compassion and empathy. Let’s embrace the pleasure of pleasing others and realise that in the process, we’re indeed pleasing ourselves.

A Dance of Egos and Lost Opportunities

August 15, 2023
Alien tech, Article, Collaboration, Lamentation
Leave a comment

A Dance of Egos and Lost Opportunities

The philosopher George Santayana once remarked,

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Perhaps he was onto something, especially in the realm of interpersonal relationships and collaboration. In our world today, a tragic comedy plays out daily between minds and hearts:

You ignore my ideas because they’re unfathomable; I ignore your ideas because they’re stupid.

And while this back-and-forth may seem like a mere disagreement, it carries a weighty cost.

The Stifling of Unfathomable Ideas

Let’s first tackle the issue of “unfathomable” ideas. Ideas that challenge convention, defy logic, or seem too radical often find themselves on the fringes, overlooked or outright dismissed. But isn’t it these very ideas that have driven humanity forward? Think of Galileo championing the heliocentric model of our solar system, or the Wright brothers believing in flight despite widespread skepticism.

Innovation often demands that we break from the norm and dare to imagine. When we label an idea as “unfathomable,” we might be turning our backs on the next big breakthrough. After all, progress is rarely linear, and disruptive ideas are named so for a reason.

The Rejection of “Stupid” Ideas

On the other side of the coin, deeming someone’s ideas “stupid” is a blanket rejection, often rooted more in ego and personal biases than in a careful consideration of the idea’s merits. Labeling ideas as “stupid” stunts dialogue and collaboration, leading to a stagnant environment where only the loudest or most dominant voices are heard.

Moreover, what seems “stupid” in one context might be brilliant in another. The very foundation of respectful collaboration is that no idea is stupid; it’s all about quantity, with the faith that quality will emerge. Dismissing ideas outright denies the possibility of them evolving into something practical or innovative.

The Collective Cost

So, where does this leave us? With a world rife with missed opportunities. For every “unfathomable” idea shunned, we may miss out on groundbreaking advancements. For every “stupid” idea dismissed, we lose the potential for creative solutions.

The real tragedy is that these lost opportunities don’t just affect the individuals involved; they impact all of us. The innovations not pursued, the solutions not found, and the collaborations not formed can set entire communities, industries, and even civilizations back.

The Path Forward

So, how can we step away from this harmful cycle? By embracing humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to communicate.

  • Humility: Recognizing that we don’t have all the answers allows us to approach ideas, no matter how unconventional, with a curious mind.
  • Open-mindedness: Even if we believe an idea won’t work, exploring its roots might lead to an alternate, viable solution.
  • Communication: Instead of outright rejection, pose questions. Understand the why behind the idea, and perhaps, through dialogue, refine or combine ideas into something greater.

Summary

In conclusion, the dance of egos, where ideas are dismissed either for being too outlandish or too simplistic, is a dance that serves no one. Might we tune into the rhythm of collaboration, understanding, and shared growth? Maybe, then, we can hope to harness the full spectrum of human potential and ensure that the world isn’t left the poorer for ignored ideas.

“Just Leave Me Alone to Do My Thing!”

July 17, 2023
Article, Collaboration, Community, Feedback, Product development, Software development
Leave a comment

“Just Leave Me Alone to Do My Thing!”

The Ubiquitous Cry Across Various Occupations and Its Implications on Collaboration and Customer Experience

I’ve many times seen a fair share of sentiments expressed by folks from various fields, and one recurring theme often surfaces: “Just leave me alone to write code!” This is a common cry from developers everywhere, highlighting a fundamental desire for solitude to focus on their craft. While the specific wording might differ, similar sentiments are echoed across several fields. Here’s a selection:

  1. Architect: “Just leave me alone to design buildings!”
  2. Graphic Designer: “Just let me create my designs in peace!”
  3. Gardener: “Just leave me alone to tend the plants!”
  4. Musician: “Just let me play my music without interruption!”
  5. Chef: “Just let me cook without interference!”

These expressions are not merely cries of frustration or appeals for solitude, but rather, they epitomise the need for creative freedom, mental space, and a conducive environment to manifest ideas into reality.

But what about the users, customers, listeners, diners – the recipients of these creative outputs?

Well, they too play a crucial role. Their feedback, whether it’s a user finding a bug in the software, a homeowner expressing preferences for a home design, a diner offering critique on a new dish, or an audience responding to a musical composition, can be instrumental in refining and enhancing the work. It’s a delicate balance – while folks need solitude for creation, they also require interaction for evaluation, improvement, and growth.

Teamwork is yet another factor, few projects are solo endeavors. Coding involves collaboration with other developers, architects work within a broader design team, chefs coordinate with kitchen staff, and musicians often play in bands or orchestras. These collaborations, despite potential clashes and disagreements, often lead to better outcomes than solitary efforts.

Recognising this balance is key to harmonizing the needs of the workers, users/customers, and teams. On one hand, folks need respect for their creative spaces and processes. They need the freedom to experiment, innovate, and express their expertise. On the other hand, others need them to be open to feedback, collaboration, and the broader perspectives that users, customers, and team members bring.

The takeaway? Let’s create environments that foster both individual creativity and collaborative synergy. Let’s respect the cry of “Just leave me alone to…”, but also remember the value of “Let’s work together on this…” and “What do you think about…?” After all, it’s through this delicate balance that we shape our built world, digital landscapes, culinary experiences, musical scores, and so much more.