Archive

Organisational effectiveness

Should We Adopt Agile?

February 18, 2024
Actionable Insights, Agile, Agility at Scale, AI, Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Prompt Engineering, Quintessence
Leave a comment

Should We Adopt Agile?

Following on from my previous post concerning surfacing and reflecting on shared assumptions and beliefs about work, here are ten reflective questions for an executive considering flexible software development approaches:

  1. What are our priorities – speed, adaptability, innovation, quality, predictability? How should our processes align*?
  2. Do our teams thrive with more autonomy, or require structure from leadership?
  3. Are staff skills best leveraged through specialisation or multi-skilling and cross-functional collaboration?
  4. How much do we value rapid delivery versus long-term planning and building of long-term capabilities?
  5. Can our culture accept constant change versus needing firm commitments to e.g. delivery dates, feature sets, etc?
  6. Is our leadership comfortable ceding some control over how work gets done?
  7. Do our metrics reflect outcomes, outputs, value delivered, or needs met? Should we measure differently?
  8. Is transparency into work progress more valuable than formal milestones?
  9. Do we believe in Minimal Viable Products over Big Design Up Front?
  10. Are we open to new ideas or convinced our current ways of working work best? How much research have we done?

*I.E. What approach will best ensure our organisation’s processes, systems and structures are optimally configured to support our priorities and goals, around both software development and our wider business?

 

Note: Many more than these ten questions could be relevant to the headline topic. I encourage and invite you to try asking your favourite chatbot for more questions to consider.

Also note: Given the preponderance of proselytisation for the Agile approach currently found on the Internet, I would not recommend asking your chatbot “Should we adopt Agile?” directly. Unbiased and considered advice will NOT be forthcoming.

The Urge to Keep People Busy (And Why It Doesn’t Work)

February 16, 2024
Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Busyness, Culture change, Learning, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence
Leave a comment

The Urge to Keep People Busy (And Why It Doesn’t Work)

In many workplaces, there is an underlying pressure to keep employees constantly busy. The thinking goes that if people have any downtime at work, that time is wasted and money is being left on the table. This leads managers and leaders to pile more and more work onto employees’ plates in an effort to extract maximum productivity. However, this approach is actually counterproductive.

Software companies tend to be prime examples of this misguided busywork culture. There is often intense pressure to continually release new features and upgrades to products. The development team is expected to churn out a steady stream of product increments to show that they are adding value. However, much of this activity becomes useless busywork after a certain point.

Queueing Theory 101

This phenomenon can be explained by queueing theory – the mathematical study of waiting in lines. As Tom DeMarco wrote in “Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total Efficiency”, workers and tasks in a company form a queueing system. If all workers are 100% utilised, queues grow infinitely long and lead times stretch without bound. Companies need slack resources to absorb variation. Trying to keep everyone 100% busy all the time is thus self-defeating.

The Human Dimension

Studies have also shown that human cognitive resources are finite. We all have a limited capacity for productive focus and good decision making each day. Piling on more and more tasks leaves less mental energy for each task. Workers become ineffective at judging what activities are truly important versus those just designed to fill time. The quality of output suffers even as teams scramble to check more boxes.

Additionally, constant busyness leads to burnout over the long run. Workers never get the chance to recharge because they jump from one urgent task to the next. The resultant stress and exhaustion eventually sap motivation and creativity.

Alternative: Focus

Instead of keeping people busy for the sake of looking productive, organisations might choose to create focus. When clear priorities are set, teams have the space to deeply engage with tasks that really further core goals and objectives. Quality output that moves the needle earns more than quantity of output or hours logged.

Rather than endlessly generating and implementing new product features, software teams can choose to carefully consider business objectives and what features will have the biggest impact. Saying “no” to nonessential work is often healthier than taking it on just to keep programmers coding around the clock. Less can truly be more when it comes to productive and innovative software teams.

The Benefits of Downtime

In knowledge economy workplaces, ongoing learning uplifts both individual and organisational success. However, prioritising constant busyness leaves little room for employees to actively absorb new information or develop additional skills. Building protected time for learning into work schedules is thus hugely beneficial compared to attempting to eliminate all downtime.

Sufficient breathing room between intensive assignments provides cognitive space for individuals to deeply internalize and contextualise what they have already worked on. Lessons sink in better when folks have moments to pause and reflect on how the dots connect. Such periodic integration of experiences builds flexible knowledge that better transfers to future contexts.

Dedicated downtime also makes room for individuals to proactively seek out cutting edge knowledge in their domain. Workers use the time to read journals, take online courses, attend conferences, engage mentors and collaborate with peers in the field. Through these networks, they rapidly update understanding and hone best practices awareness. Organisations thrive when individuals return to apply these learnings to internal initiatives.

Importantly,downtime allows employees to pursue self-directed skill building aligned to their own person al and career needs, not just immediate organisational requirements. When individuals direct their own learning, intrinsic motivations energise mastery far beyond what imposed trainings can deliver. Carving space for self-improvement helps attract and retain top talent as well.

Of course, workers also benefit from downtime that simply allows their brains to recharge after intense problem solving. Neural networks expend significant energy forming new connections demanded by complex tasks. Regular periods of low external stimuli are crucial for restoring the actual physical infrastructure enabling learning in the first place.

Rather than something to eliminate through added busywork, downtime facilitates ongoing renewal that powers future performance. Knowledge workers’ most precious asset is the human capacity for rapidly acquiring and applying new understanding. Protecting time and space for learning may thus provide the highest organizational return on investment of any activity, busy or not.

Finally, downtime provides the space to surface and reflect on both personal and shared assumptions and beliefs about the way the work works (i.e. the opportunity for organisational psychotherapy, whether facilitated or self-directed).

Summary

The impulse to minimise any workspace downtime is understandable but misplaced. Workers and companies both thrive when space is made for deliberate thinking, creative ideation, restoration, reflection, and collaboration. The busiest person in the office is rarely the most productive or effective. Organisations migh better choose to create focus for employees rather than frenetic stimulation. Whether explained through queueing theory or basic human psychology, purposeful work will always trump mindless busyness.

What is Rigour?

February 7, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Capability development, Caring, Culture change, Engineering, Fellowship, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Quintessence, Rightshifting, Self-organisation, Software development, Standard work, Teambuilding
Leave a comment

What is Rigour?

Rigour refers to the strict precision and accuracy with which work is executed in fields like software engineering and collaborative knowledge work (CKW). It entails adherence to standards and best practices for needed outcomes.

The Importance of Getting it Right

Attentive rigour matters because carelessness breeds mistakes. Flaws in logic or bugs in code stem from a lack of rigour. This introduces unwanted surprises, and failures down the line. Rigour is an attitude of mind that zeroes in on getting things right the first time Cf. Crosby, ZeeDee.

The Perils of Getting it Wrong

However, the quest for rigour can go awry when imposed hastily or mindlessly. Establishing rigorous frameworks like requirements analysis, peer review etc. does carry overhead. Teams can get so bogged down chasing perfection that creativity, productivity and morale suffer. Or so much time is spent eliminating small defects that bigger picture progress slows. Like most things, balance is warranted.

The Laissez-Faire Extreme

At the other end of the spectrum from rigour lies the laissez-faire attitude. This French phrase meaning “let it be” encapsulates a laid-back approach where participants have broad freedom to work in whatever manner they choose.

In software and knowledge work contexts, laissez-faire environments feature very few enforced policies, protocols, or mechanisms for ensuring quality. Creativity and unhindered workflow takes priority over rigour. Peer reviews, quality assurance, and documentation are optional. Teams self-organise organically without work standards.

This spontaneity can spark innovation but has pitfalls. Lack of rigour tacitly permits cut corners, gaps in logic, unfinished ideas and sloppy execution. With an easy-going approach, easily preventable flaws accumulate and undermine end results.

In applied contexts like commercial software development, laissez-faire practices practically guarantee shoddy work products riddled with defects. User needs demand rigour not as an obstacle, but as an enabler of excellence. Finding the right balance is key.

The absence of rigour embodied in laissez-faire philosophies may promote freedom. But the ensuing chaos leaves the fruits of hard work easily compromised. Some structure and rigour ultimately serves applied collaborative knowledge work better in the long run.

While cutting corners is not an option, forced rigour without context can mean marginal gains at disproportionate cost. Rigour must enable, not encumber, the pursuit of excellence. Teams that foster a culture where rigour flows from all participants, intrinsically and voluntarily, tend to find the sweet spot. Getting there requires clarity of purpose, patience, and care. Do that and rigour lifts the quality of collaborative knowledge work substantially over time.

What does rigour mean to you and your team?

Individual Mindsets vs. Collective Mindsets

February 2, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Capability development, Culture change, Innovation, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence, Systems thinking
Leave a comment

Individual Mindsets vs. Collective Mindsets

We often talk about the need for individuals to change their mindsets – their assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes – in order to create positive change. But as human beings, we don’t exist in isolation. As the saying goes, we are social animals, shaped by the groups and cultures we are part of. So perhaps we might choose rather to shift more of our focus to addressing collective mindsets rather than just individual ones.

Schein On

Organisational psychologist and author Edgar Schein argues that culture stems from a group’s shared basic assumptions and beliefs. These collective ways of thinking and being manifest in organisational policies, processes and behaviors. If the culture has dysfunctional aspects, it perpetuates dysfunction. Merely helping individials adopt more productive mindsets without addressing the surrounding culture is an uphill battle.

For Example

Take a common example – trying to promote more innovative thinking in a risk-averse bureaucratic workplace. Telling individuals to “be more innovative” often backfires. When people attempt new ways of doing things, they get pushback for not following protocols. and Interesting ideas get shut down quickly by naysayers. There are no systems or incentives to support innovation. So you end up with frustrated employees, not actual innovation.

Organisational Psychotherapy To The Rescue

In contrast, #OrganisationalPsychotherapy seeks to invite folks into uncovering and transforming collective assumptions and beliefs – the mental models that shape systems and culture. By facilitating more awareness of existing culture and defining desired culture, interventions get better traction. Collective mindsets shift to be more supportive of stated goals, like innovation, making it easier for individuals to adopt those productive mindsets as well.

Summary

The key insight is that individual mindsets are downstream of collective mindsets. Without addressing dysfunctional aspects of culture and systems, individual change efforts face resistence from the surrounding ecosystem. This highlights the need to focus on group mindset factors first and foremost. Of course, individuals still have agency in driving any kind of change. But we’d do well to spend more time examining and evolving the shared beliefs and assumptions on which any organisation is built. For cultural transformation, that’s likely the most high-leverage point of intervention.

Postscript – Donalla Meadows’ Twelve Points of Leverage

In her influential article “Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System,” systems thinker Donella Meadows articulated 12 places within complex systems where a small shift can lead to fundamental changes in the system as a whole. Her framework offers guidance on how to approach system-level transformation, whether in organizations, societies, or beyond.

Meadows proposes 12 leverage points ranked in order of effectiveness, with the most high-leverage interventions at the top. The higher the leverage point, the easier it is to make major improvements to the system with minimal effort. Her list starts with more superficial leverage points around details like subsidies and incentives, then moves deeper into the fundamental goals, paradigms, and transcending purpose that underpin why a system exists in the first place.

The most powerful leverage points require a deeper, more courageous transformation. But they allow us to redefine the very reason a given system exists, enabling revolutionary redesign rather than incremental improvements. Meadows urges change agents to have the wisdom and patience to address the deeper paradigms, values, and purpose driving systemic behavior. As she concludes, “People who have managed to intervene in systems at the level of paradigm have hit a leverage point that totally transforms systems.”

In examining Meadows’ hierarchy of leverage points, we gain an appreciation for the depth of change required for true systems transformation. It inspires a more radical reimagining of what’s possible. The framework continues to provide guidance to sustainability leaders and organizational change agents seeking to effect large-scale improvements in business, government, technology, education and beyond. In this critical era facing many complex, planetary-scale challenges, Meadows’ words ring truer than ever as we work to create fundamental shifts towards more just, resilient and life-affirming systems.

A Primer on Domination Systems and the Myth of Redemptive Violence

January 31, 2024
Article, Nonviolence, Organisational effectiveness
2 Comments

A Primer on Domination Systems and the Myth of Redemptive Violence

Many human societies have domination systems, as explained by American theologian Walter Wink – interlocking structures which allow one group to dominate and exploit others. This can permeate across political, social and economic spheres.

Those who benefit from these systems often propagate a “myth of redemptive violence”. This refers to the narrative that violence is a morally purifying and redemptive act to uphold order and law. Systems of inequality indoctrinate the privileged to believe their violence against the marginalised serves the greater good.

However, thinkers like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi challenged this myth. They spearheaded nonviolent civil resistance against injustice in America and British-ruled India respectively. Both believed redemptive violence was an untruth – it only perpetuated further harm without achieving moral redemption.

Gandhi pioneered satyagraha or “truth-force”, inspiring India’s independence struggle through nonviolent protest, civil disobedience and economic non-cooperation. Rather than defeating the British, the goal was to convert them from wrong to right.

Martin Luther King was profoundly influenced by Gandhi. King described nonviolence as the most powerful means for oppressed minorities to reclaim basic dignity and rights. As with Gandhi, King’s vision was for nonviolent activism to transform social consciousness and achieve justice without bloodshed.

Tragically, extremists assassinated Gandhi in 1948 and King in 1968. However, their movements succeeded in dismantling unjust systems nonviolently. India gained independence in 1947 after decades of Gandhian civil resistance. In America, landmark civil rights legislation was passed prohibiting racial discrimination.

Through sustained truth and love, Gandhi and King’s seminal campaigns proved domination systems perpetuate themselves by making violence seem routine, necessary and even honourable. And that nonviolent change is not only possible, but a moral obligation.

Do you see how this makes the world a violent place, and so also for organisations?

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.

Pronouncing “Quintessence”

January 27, 2024
Article, Business, Improvement, Language, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Productivity, Quintessence, Software development
Leave a comment

Pronouncing “Quintessence”

If you’ve come across the word “quintessence” while reading English texts, you may have wondered about the correct pronunciation and actual meaning of this rather unusual word. As a non-native speaker, the pronunciation can seem tricky at first. Read on for a quick guide on how to say “quintessence” properly and what this interesting word signifies.

Breaking Down the Pronunciation

Quintessence is pronounced “kwin-tess-uhns” in British English. Let’s look at each syllable:

“Quin”: The “qu” sounds like a hard “c” or “k”, as in words like “queen” or “quick”. Say the “kwin” syllable.

“Tes”: This syllable rhymes with words like “test” or “best”. Say “tess”.

“Ence”: Here the “e” becomes a schwa sound – the neutral “uh”. Think words like “enhance”, and say the schwa “uh” sound.

Put together, the full pronunciation is: kwin-tess-uhns. The stress is on the second syllable, “tess”. Say the word a few times out loud, stressing that middle portion, to get comfortable with the pronunciation.

Alternatively, you might choose to pronounce it “quint” + essence”.

The Meaning of Quintessence

So now that you know how to say it properly in your best spoken English accent, what does “quintessence” actually mean? Quintessence signifies the purest, most perfect or concentrated essence of something. For example, you could describe a breathtaking landscape as “the quintessence of natural beauty”. Or for an organisation that has everything sorted, all its ducks lined up, and firing on all cylinders, we might choose to call that a “Quintessential organisation”.

Etymology

The word originates from medieval philosophy, derived from the Latin “quinta essentia”, meaning the “fifth essence“. This referred to what was thought to be the pure substance making up heavenly bodies, beyond the four basic earthly elements of fire, water, air and earth.

In Modern Physics

In modern physics, “quintessence” refers to a hypothetical form of dark energy postulated to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Based on astronomical observations, scientists have determined that some unknown form of energy, termed “dark energy,” makes up about 68% of all the energy in the observable universe. This mysterious dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe to speed up over time. To explain this phenomenon, physicists have proposed that quintessence – an extremely light and slowly-varying scalar field – may account for the observed behavior of dark energy and the accelerating cosmic expansion. Quintessence would have negative pressure, offsetting normal attractive gravity and driving galaxies apart at an ever-faster rate. If confirmed, the quintessence scalar field would be the “fifth element” driving cosmology, alongside ordinary and dark matter. Though still unproven, quintessence remains a leading contender for explaining one of the biggest mysteries in modern physics and astronomy. Further experiments and astrophysical observations may shed more light on this proposed fifth essence permeating the universe.

Summary

So next time you come across this unique word, you’ll know the proper English pronunciation and understand its meaning related to a pure, perfect embodiment of something. With your new knowledge, use “quintessence” to impress your English friends and teachers!

Further Reading

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Quintessence – An acme for software development organisations. https://leanpub.com/quintessence

The Hidden Hand of Shared Assumptions

January 24, 2024
Article, Business, Culture change, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence
Leave a comment

The Hidden Hand of Shared Assumptions

Behind many business failures and underperformance lies a common root cause – the unseen influence of collective assumptions and beliefs (and Cf. Rightshifting). Across organisations and even entire industries, leadership often clusters around shared perspectives, biases, and mental models. Over time, these become entrenched as accepted wisdom rarely challenged or revisited. This phenomenon profoundly shapes decision-making, typically outside conscious awareness. And flawed underlying assumptions can lead organisations astray, even unto the graveyard.

A prime example is the financial crisis. The model of endless housing price growth and low-risk securitized assets became so ingrained across banks that it created systemic fragility. The possibility of declines or instability was dismissed out of hand. Groupthink prevailed and warning signs were ignored. Until the flawed assumptions catastrophically collided with reality.

Every sector holds similar tales. In automotive, the assumption of an enduring petrol car dominance slowed electric investments. In medical science, the belief that ulcers resulted from stress delayed recognition of bacterial drivers. The corporate world is littered with shifting paradigms disrupting those clinging to outdated assumptions.

Why does this happen? Humans are sensitive to social signals and prefer perspectives validated by their peer group. This shapes unconscious biases and mental models. And perceived wisdom calcifies even where contrary evidence emerges. We must therefore consciously re-evaluate the collective assumptions within which we operate.

This is particularly crucial given rapid technological and social change. Assumptions rooted in fading reality misguide strategy. Herein lies opportunity for those recognising seismic shifts early. And grave risks for those dismissing disruptive forces based on yesterday’s truths. Separating enduring assumptions from emerging realities is key.

So let us examine just four detrimental assumptions embedded across businesses:

  • The concept of management is treated as an inherent good when in fact it can severely hamper organisations. Managers micromanaging and scrutinising employees’ every move often harms efficiency, stifles innovation, and breeds resentment amongst staff. The relentless oversight creates a tense working environment where workers have no autonomy or control. The reams of paperwork and interminable meetings generated by managers frequently add little value. Clearly, the assumption that more managers and more top-down control is always better fails to acknowledge the reality and the downsides.
  • The notion of concentrated leadership seems ill-founded. Centralising decision-making and strategy in a narrow elite risks disempowering the wider workforce. When employees cannot influence choices impacting their work, motivation and dedication suffers. Likewise, executives profiting lavishly from company successes while workers gain only stagnant wages breeds discord and weakens productivity down the chain. The contributions of a chief executive on a £10 million salary rarely outweighs that of a thousand dedicated employees. Concentrated power often produces conflict and fragility rather than thriving organisations.
  • The belief that exhaustive software testing is imperative leads projects astray. Developers waste huge sums of time and effort running code through endless minor variations with diminishing returns. There is little value testing every trivial feature adjustment to death. And users grow frustrated with delays and restrictions as programmers obsess over comprehensive testing. Pursuing flawless software typically proves counterproductive as no system is ever perfect – the goal should be usable products that can be iteratively improved.
  • The assumption that employees should be worked to exhaustion is clearly unsound. People do not enjoy unsustainable workloads and unreasonable deadlines. Pushing human resources to the brink often backfires rather than driving engagement and satisfaction. There are better ways to attract and retain talent than by running staff into the ground. And tired, overwhelmed personnel tend to see plunges in output and quality. Straining human endurance typically fuels turnover rather than powering success.

Many more detrimental assumptions can be found detailed in my book “Quintessence“.

The lesson is clear – we might choose to constantly surface and reflect upon ingrained assumptions before they lead us off a cliff. Momentum can quietly build behind outdated modes of thought right until environmental shifts expose systemic brittleness. As markets transform, so too must the underlying mindsets guiding business decisions.

Every Organisation Rules Out a Host of Beneficial Choices

January 24, 2024
Article, Business, Culture change, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence
Leave a comment

Every Organisation Rules Out a Host of Beneficial Choices

Every organisation rules out choices that would markedly improve their bottom line  – due to entrenched assumptions.

All organisations have deeply rooted beliefs and assumptions that influence their decision making, often without people even realising it. These unquestioned ways of thinking can lead organisations to dismiss ideas, policies and practices that could significantly benefit them.

Many proven best choices around areas like compensation, flexibility, hierarchy, remote work, and sustainability get ruled out quickly in most corporate cultures. Not because the ideas lack merit, but because they don’t align with legacy notions of how business should operate. The prevailing managerial ideology acts as mental blinders, narrowing the overview of what’s possible.

For example, decades of belief in the primacy of shareholder value has prevented many companies from prioritising sustainability, even when a greener approach would bolster the bottom line. The assumption that purpose erodes profits still permeates boardroom thinking.

Similarly, the standard 9 to 5 office-dependent schedule gets virtually no pushback in some contexts due to deep-seated assumptions about productivity and supervision needs. Even when the growth of knowledge work makes location and set hours irrelevant. Assumptions lead organisations to miss a host of opportunities.

Key is bringing awareness to the unexamined collective beliefs that close organisations off to progress and performance-enhancing innovations. Progress depends on leaders willing to question legacy orthodoxies that no longer serve. A company’s entrenched perspectives ultimately impact hard business metrics. Routinely reexamining operating paradigms is essential to ensuring beliefs enable rather than obstruct impact and financial returns.

Organisational psychotherpy makes this possible in a low-risk fashion.

The next breakthrough idea could be waiting, if only long-held assumptions would get out of the way.

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!

What’s Your System Improvement Index?

January 21, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Improvement, Metrics, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, Systems thinking
Leave a comment

What’s Your System Improvement Index?

Most systems operate under some sort of performance metric – service uptime, number of users, needs met, revenue growth, new feature deployment, incident resolution time…that sort of thing.

Whether they’re set by management, agreed upon by the Folks That Matter™, or simply targets for continuous improvement, metrics exist.

Sometimes, they’re overtly stated – written down in strategy documents or OKRs.

And other times they’re not formalised in this way.

Don’t mistake the absence of documented goals to mean non-existence of those goals (see also: Your Real Job)..

You might think your system has no performance metrics because nothing is in writing or has ever been formally discussed – but all you have is no clear agreement as to what your system’s performance metrics are.

Whether you’re a founder, product manager, engineer or other contributor, your system can do one of two things – meet expectations or disappoint. The absence of clear, agreed, preferably documented performance metrics merely means you don’t know when the system is underperforming.

If your system lacks clearly defined metrics, stop here – the key takeaway is to discuss and agree metrics and targets, even if just on your own team – so you know when the system is failing to hit the mark.

For most mature systems and products, it’s around this time of year teams analyse performance against goals – 15% improvement in latency, 11% increase in conversion, 7% bump in NPS…that sort of thing.

My question is this:

“To meet your system’s goals, how much do your collective assumptions and beliefs need to improve?”

It’s a difficult question without an obvious answer – 0%? In line with the target metrics? Double digit percentage gains across the board?

I don’t know the answer, and you may not either – but we’d likely both agree your organisation’s mindset and culture can always evolve.

Tools like organisational psychotherapy can help reveal limiting assumptions and facilitate shifts in collective beliefs.

So let me ask plainly:

“To meet your goals this year, how much do you need your organisation’s culture to develop?”

Pinning down an exact number isn’t straightforward, but it certainly isn’t zero.

One suggestion to quantify this:

Conduct regular culture and maturity assessments, and use the year-on-year improvement as an indicative ‘System Improvement Index’ benchmark for collective thinking shifts.

Of course, you may already do this, in which case view it as validation you’re tracking evolutions in organisational worldview.

If not, there are many good culture evaluation frameworks out there. Use one aligned to your organisation’s design and purpose. We have one we can share too – just ask!

Let me close by asking once more:

To meet next year’s targets, how much do your collective assumptions and beliefs need to improve? What’s your system’s ‘Improvement Index’?

The Assumptions Underpinning Business Beliefs

January 12, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Culture change, Improvement, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence
Leave a comment

The Assumptions Underpinning Business Beliefs

“Have you ever asked yourself, what are the deepest principles upon which my management beliefs are based? Probably not. Few executives, in my experience, have given much thought to the foundational principles that underlie their views on how to organise and manage. In that sense, they are as unaware of their managerial DNA as they are of their biological DNA.”

~ Prof Gary Hamel

Professor Gary Hamel’s insight points to a common blind spot – the assumptions upon which we build our businesses rarely get examined. We take our beliefs for granted rather than questioning where they came from or evaluating their current relevance. Over time, unquestioned principles shape our strategic decisions, workplace culture and collective potential – and thus effectiveness – without our awareness.

Organisational psychotherapy offers one route to excavating the hidden shared assumptions that become ingrained in a company’s DNA. Through techniques like group reflection and dialogue sessions, teams can gradually bring unspoken belief systems to the surface. Often these are “stories we live by” – the narrative frames determining priorities, norms, success measures and more. Shining light allows us to reconsider if these beliefs still serve the organisation or if they hinder.

Just as individual leaders have inner beliefs steering their choices, so too do groups and organisations. The shared assumptions get passed down over years through habits, policies, legends and corporate mantras. They solidify into the “way things are done around here” until nobody bothers asking why anymore (if they ever did). And yet today’s business realities may require questioning everything we take for granted about how to operate, adapt and succeed.

I invite leaders to view organisational psychotherapy as an opportunity to unearth the stories we live by. Let’s open up today’s prevailing assumptions to inspection in the cold light of day. Do they still nourish the collective potential or constrain it? This work of examining our beliefs benefits from neutral, experienced facilitation rather than internal politics. Thereby we can evolve the organisational DNA to better thrive in tomorrow’s complex business ecosystems.

The principles we build our organisations upon end up building our organisational lives. What beliefs inform your company’s inner DNA right now? And are you willing to question their ongoing relevance with courage?

Summarised: The Profound Connection Between the Technology Business and Organisational Psychotherapy

January 9, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Summary
Leave a comment

Summarised: The Profound Connection Between the Technology Business and Organisational Psychotherapy

This is a brief summary of the post “The Profound Connection Between the Technology Business and Organisational Psychotherapy“. Do let me know if seeing more summaries of my posts would be helpful to you. And if so, which ones?

Summary

The post argues that a focus on human needs and psychotherapy is critical for optimising workplaces, more so than advanced technologies.

New technology cannot resolve underlying human challenges like poor leadership, bias, and mental health struggles. In fact, technology without care for people can worsen these issues.

Organisations benefit from frameworks like organisational psychotherapy to examine and improve human social patterns, diversity, communication norms and other people-centered factors.

Beneficial application of technology supports, rather than diminishes, human potential. Companies migh choose to ensure a psychologically healthy culture and focus on uplifting the human spirit before technological ambitions.

Ultimately, the post calls for centering the human element over technology innovations. It contends that understanding people unlocks true organisational excellence, not technology by itself.

The Profound Connection Between the Technology Business and Organisational Psychotherapy

January 9, 2024
Article, Culture change, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence
Leave a comment

The Profound Connection Between the Technology Business and Organisational Psychotherapy

The breakneck growth of the technology industry has centered on building ever-faster, smarter, and more efficient tools and systems. Yet, as explored in depth in books like Quintessence and Memeology, there is a growing recognition that advanced technology alone cannot solve all human challenges, especially within the workplace. The human element remains critical. It is at the intersection of technology and organisational psychotherapy where profound opportunities arise.

What is Organisational Psychotherapy?

Organisational psychotherapy is an emerging field examining shared assumptions and beliefs within group settings, especially workplaces. As explained in my book “Quintessence“, it identifies issues like toxic team dynamics, ineffective leadership structures, and overall dysfunctional organisational cultures that prevent human potential from flourishing. The overarching goal is to enable organisations to surface and reflect on their dysfunctional patterns.

Some key issues that organisational psychotherapy addresses include:

  • Unspoken hierarchies stifling diversity of thought
  • Exclusion and gatekeeping harming innovation
  • Lack of psychological safety preventing collaboration
  • Poor leadership disempowering teams
  • Communication breakdowns sowing distrust
  • Excessive bureaucracy killing agility
  • Toxic or abusive management traumatizing employees
  • Perverse incentives rewarding unethical behavior
  • Workplace discrimination and bias
  • Employee burnout and poor mental health

While individual therapy focuses on helping individuals, organisational psychotherapy zooms out to understand group and system dynamics in the workplace. It provides a framework for understanding precisely why certain organisations struggle to thrive, even when they have access to the most advanced technology.

The Role of Technology in Enabling Dysfunction

Today’s most ambitious technology companies aim to build platforms and algorithms that enhance productivity, spur innovation, and seamlessly connect teams. However, technology also has a shadow side, especially when designed and deployed without care.

As dissected in Memeology, tools meant to improve efficiency can lead to e.g. rigid bureaucracy. Use of messaging apps can foster miscommunication and conflict. Social media algorithms can enable the rapid spread of misinformation and extremism amongst groups. AI-driven management systems can demoralise human workers and treat them as expendable cogs in a machine.

In essence, technology lacks self-awareness about potential downsides. When combined with unhealthy group dynamics in an organisation, it can worsen performance instead of improving it. There are countless examples of advanced technology being implemented in counterproductive ways:

  • Remote work tools leading to always-on expectations and burnout
  • Enterprise messaging apps used to harass marginalised employees
  • Productivity tracking tools sowing distrust between managers and teams
  • AI-driven hiring algorithms entrenching bias and discrimination
  • Social media misused to attack and silence diverse voices
  • Surveillance technology undermining privacy and autonomy

Without an understanding of organisational dynamics, technology can unintentionally become a burden rather than a boon to human potential and cooperation. This underscores the need for a complementary lens like organisational psychotherapy.

Integrating Organisational Psychotherapy into Tech Culture

Several forward-thinking technology companies are now working to integrate organisational psychotherapy into their products, teams, and company cultures. They recognise that the best teams, and therefor products, are those that understand innate human strengths and weaknesses and seek to bring out the best in people.

For example, collaboration platform designers are exploring how interface details affect unspoken hierarchies, exclusion, and groupthink within online teams. Instead of optimising purely for efficiency, the goal is to encourage diverse voices, psychological safety, and healthy group norms. (See also: Conway’s Law).

Leading companies are also examining their own cultures through an organisational psychotherapy lens as detailed in Quintessence. This includes focusing on diversity and inclusion initiatives, workplace mental health policies, healthy communication norms, and compassionate leadership principles. It also means decentralising authority, allowing time for reflection, and seeing value in failure as opportunities for growth. The goal is to create thriving environments, not mere productivity factories.

Bridging the Gap Between the Technical and the Human

Ultimately, organisational psychotherapy and technology work best when united, bridging the gap between the technical and the intimately human. Just as medicine combines an understanding of physiology with ethics and the human spirit, technology moves in a positive direction when informed and supported by psychotherapy.

The engineers and programmers building the latest algorithms, platforms, and machine learning systems would benefit immensely from integrating human-centered design principles (for example: Emotioneering). And organisational psychotherapists helping companies create healthier dynamics and leadership structures might choose to embrace sophisticated tools to augment their impact.

When technology and organisational psychotherapy come together in this way, they have the potential to profoundly empower teams, heal dysfunctional organisations, transform organisational cultures for the better, and unlock new levels of human potential, especially within the CKW workplace. The future belongs to solutions that successfully bridge the technical and the humane. Both Quintessence and Memeology point toward this brighter destination. But we still have much work to do as an industry to fully integrate technological advances with psychological wellbeing and bring out the best in each other.

Russell L. Ackoff: Pioneer of Systems Thinking and Optimist in Human Potential

December 29, 2023
Article, Organisational effectiveness, Systems thinking
3 Comments

Russell L. Ackoff: Pioneer of Systems Thinking and Optimist in Human Potential

Russell L. Ackoff (1919-2009) was a prominent American organisational theorist, professor, and philosopher who helped pioneer the field of systems thinking. He advocated systemic, participative, and humanistic approaches to organisations and society.

Pioneering Systems Thinker

Ackoff was a professor at the Wharton School of Business for over 30 years and became one of the leading voices in systems theory. He focused on viewing organisations and problems as complex systems rather than isolated parts. Some of his major contributions include:

  • Developing the concept of systems thinking and the shift towards holism rather than reductionism
  • Co-founding the systems theory field and the systems view of organisations
  • Creating “interactive planning” for participative organisational design
  • Applying systems thinking to social issues like crime, education, and poverty
  • Authoring definitive works on systems concepts like emergence, viability, hierarchy, and purposeful systems
  • Bringing systems ideas to wider audiences in accessible books and lectures

Ackoff promoted a systemic worldview that revolutionised how businesses, societies, and people could be understood and how they should be organised.

A Humanistic Systems Worldview

While pioneering complex systems ideas, Ackoff remained focused on human potential and dignity. He criticised mechanistic views of humanity predominant in management theory and advocated for applying systems thinking to empower individuals. Some of his key humanistic beliefs included:

  • Seeing people as purposeful agents capable of self-actualisation, not just as reactive parts.
  • Believing human potential is largely unrealised in modern society.
  • Blaming systemic issues, not people, for social problems and inadequacies.
  • Arguing people should be treated as ends, not means-towards-imposed-goals.
  • Advocating redesigning systems to allow self-determination, and realise creativity.
  • Criticising reductionist views of people that ignore consciousness and choices.
  • Promoting participative, democratic systems where people determine their own goals.

Ackoff wanted to promote freedom, ethics, and human flourishing through his systems worldview. He exemplified using systems thinking to empower, not dehumanise.

Legacy and Impact

Ackoff left behind profound and lasting impacts on systems theory, organisational development, and the application of systems ideas for positive change. His humanistic belief in human potential shone through his rigorous systems concepts. Ackoff successfully integrated the analytical and the humane. His systemic yet optimistic views of people and organisations continue to elevate discussions of how to understand and improve society.

Workshy Culture: A Top-Down Issue

November 28, 2023
Article, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Quality, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Workshy Culture: A Top-Down Issue

What Is Workshyness?

Workshyness is not just laziness; it’s a pattern where employees consistently do only what’s necessary to avoid dismissal. Only when we begin to understand this behaviourcan we start to address it effectively. Unlike “quiet quitting”, where employees fulfil their job requirements but don’t go beyond, workshyness involves not even meeting basic job expectations.

Example: The Workshy Employment Advisors

In an employment support office, where the staff’s mandate is to assist the unemployed in their job search, a covert workshy culture is evident through the actions of an advisor named Emily. Emily’s role involves providing personalised career advice, assisting with job applications, and conducting mock interviews. However, her engagement with these tasks is superficial.

Emily’s Covert Workshyness

Emily pretends to review CVs and cover letters, giving the impression of thoroughness while actually offering only superficial and hand-wavy feedback. Her client meetings are conducted with a professional demeanor, but her guidance is often generic, lacking in depth, and fails to address the specific needs and challenges of each individual. She fulfills her duties on the surface, but her involvement falls well short of genuinely empowering her clients in their job hunt.

Subtle Influence on Team and Management’s Lack of Insight

Other staff members, noticing Emily’s approach of maintaining appearances without delivering substantive support, begin to adopt a similar method. They keep up a façade of engagement but shy away from providing the in-depth assistance that clients truly need. This shift is not overt, making it more challenging to detect and address.

Helen, the office manager, perceives the team as functioning well, failing to recognize the lack of depth in their engagement. Without delving into the quality of service being provided, she inadvertently allows this minimalist work culture to continue.

Impact on Service Quality

This covert form of workshyness significantly undermines the quality of service. Clients receive assistance that appears adequate on the surface but lacks the tailored, proactive support essential for effective job seeking. The office, maintaining an exterior of efficiency, falls short of its fundamental mission to empower the unemployed with substantial support. This subtle workshy culture, marked by a lack of genuine engagement from both advisors and management, subtly but significantly diminishes the organisation’s impact and its ability to make a meaningful difference in the lives of its clients.

How Do Managers Contribute?

Management plays a significant role in fostering a workshy culture. Many managers themselves display workshy tendencies, and thus inadvertently set a standard for their employees to follow. This trickle-down effect can create an entire organisational culture that normalises minimal effort. Moreover, as at least part of the managers’ role is to call out workshyness and work on tackling it, when they themselves are workshy their reports have free rein to persist in their avoidance of work.

What Happens When Leaders Are Workshy?

Leadership workshyness is particularly problematic. It’s not always apparent, as their positions often mask their lack of engagement. However, their minimal input and disengagement can severely impact organisational culture and performance. It creates a cycle where workshyness is both a cause and a symptom of a deeper organisational issue.

Why Address Workshyness?

Ignoring workshyness leads to a decline in overall organisational health. It affects productivity, team dynamics, and employee morale. Addressing it isn’t just about improving numbers; it’s about sustaining a healthy, thriving organisational culture.

Strategies for Change

Organisations can choose to actively combat workshyness. This involves rethinking leadership roles, ensuring managers are actively engaged and setting the right example. Companies can also choose to create environments where effort and engagement are expected and valued at all levels. It’s not enough to simply identify workshyness; organisations must actively work to build cultures where it cannot thrive.

In conclusion, workshyness is a systemic issue that often stems from the top. By acknowledging and addressing the role of management in perpetuating this culture, organisations can take significant steps towards fostering a more engaged and productive workforce.

Partisanship

November 1, 2023
Actionable Insights, Agile, Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Business, Culture change, Lamentation, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy
Leave a comment

Partisanship

Does Taking Sides Help?

Supporting Agile is like supporting Hamas, or Israel, or the Palestinians, or Ukraine, or Russia, or the USA, or China, or…

This opening might shock you, but it’s an intentional jolt to invite reflection on how we often automatically pick sides. I’ve spent years criticising Agile, but recent world events have helped my see the folly of this. In the Middle East and elsewhere, any sane person would support PEACE. (Of course, sanity seems in direly short supply, presently). Similarly we might choose to aim for better meeting folks’ NEEDS in organisational practices. Instead of partisan stances, why not focus on what really matters: achieving results that speak to the needs of everyone involved?

Why Do We Rush to Choose Sides?

Choosing a side can feel satisfying. It simplifies complex issues and gives us a team to root for. However, partisanship often blinds us to the nuances that exist in any conflict or approach. Whether it’s in international relations or ways of working, like Agile, blind allegiance and partisanship never results in beneficial outcomes.

What’s the Cost of Partisanship?

The cost is steep. Partisan views stifle creativity and close us off from alternative solutions. We become invested in the success of our chosen side or approach, disregarding other approaches that offer better results. Specifically, pro-agile or anti-agile now seems to me to be highly partisan, and a similar folly. I propose we get off the taking sides bandwagon and move towards attending to folks’ fundamental needs.

What Outcomes Do Folks Need?

Instead of wallowing in partisan mire, let’s focus on folks’ needs. These can vary, but generally include:

  • Products and services that best* meet folks’ needs.
  • A workplace environment, ways of working, and organisational culture that best* meet folks’ needs.
  • [Further suggestions invited]

Each approach, including Agile, has its merits and drawbacks when it comes to these outcomes. By taking a needs-based stance, we can adopt a blend of approaches tailored to specific needs, rather than attempting to shoehorn everything into a one-size-fits-all approach.

How Do We Move Forward?

To move away from partisanship, we might choose to:

  1. Identify whose needs matter, and what those needs might be.
  2. Surface and reflect on shared assumptions and beliefs.
  3. Acknowledge our biases.
  4. Educate ourselves on different approaches.
  5. Align on desired outcomes.

This isn’t just applicable to Agile; it’s a principle we can apply universally. Whether it’s picking a side in a conflict or choosing principles and practices for organisational improvement, we might choose to free ourselves from the limitations of partisanship.

Final Thoughts

Partisanship is a tempting trap, offering the illusion of simplicity in a complex world. But it’s a trap that often leads us away from the outcomes folks need. By acknowledging this, we can pave a more effective, less divisive path forward, whether we’re discussing international relations, social change, or the best* approaches for organisational success.

*Here, may I suggest that “best” means “meets all the needs of all the folks that matter”.

The System’s Unseen Value

October 31, 2023
Article, Business, Culture change, Financial, Improvement, Investment, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence
Leave a comment

The System’s Unseen Value

What is Goodwill?

Goodwill refers to the intangible assets that make a business valuable beyond its tangible assets like equipment, patents, people, or inventory. It includes elements such as brand reputation, market position/share, company culture, and customer relationships. Goodwill matters because it influences the market’s perception of a business’s worth, often adding significantly to its valuation.

Does the System Matter?

While financial experts readily acknowledge the importance of goodwill, the “way the work works” (a.k.a. “the system”) almost never gets its due attention. But just as goodwill contributes to a company’s valuation, the way the work works can significantly affect an organisation’s effectiveness, costs, profitability, and employee satisfaction.

Why Overlook The Way the Work Works?

Goodwill gets its importance primarily because it appears on a balance sheet and contributes to a company’s market valuation. The way the work works doesn’t have such a direct presence in financial reporting, making it easier to overlook. This lack of visibility largely renders it irrelevant. In fact, the way the work works often acts as an intangible asset that can yield long-term benefits. Or as a boat anchor that produces significant dysbenefits.

How to Measure the Way the Work Works?

While it’s challenging to quantify the value of effective work methods, metrics like productivity, quality, employee retention, and customer satisfaction can serve as indicators. Businesses might choose to identify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that align with their objectives to assess this aspect accurately. Assuming that the way the work works is even on businesses’ radar at all.

Can Intangibles Translate to Tangibles?

The way the work works can absolutely translate into tangible results, similar to goodwill. Effective work methods can lead to higher productivity, better quality of output, staff morale, and increased customer satisfaction—all of which, in turn, improve a company’s financial performance.

Is It Time to Take Action?

The onus lies on business leaders to recognise the importance of the way the work works and implement strategies for its improvement. Companies that take this aspect seriously will find themselves better equipped to meet challenges and seize opportunities in the market.

In a nutshell, the way the work works may not feature on a balance sheet, but its impact on business success is undeniable. By understanding and optimising the way the work works, organisations can enhance an intangible asset that has long-lasting, tangible benefits.

Questioning Management

October 21, 2023
Article, Business, Culture change, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy
Leave a comment

Questioning Management

What Do We Think We Know?

Let’s get to the point: We’re talking about management. Yeah, the way bosses tell you what to do and you do it, or else. I’ve got a question: Why do we think this is the only way, or even the best way, to get things done?

Why Do We Follow the Rules?

We’ve got these big structures in place, right? Boss at the top, managers in the middle, employees at the bottom. Now, it’s not that we shouldn’t have rules or structure. But why this structure? Did anyone ever stop to think if this pyramid is helping or hindering?

Are There Other Ways?

Now, let’s imagine we look for other methods. Not just because they’re new or trendy, but because we want to know if they work better. Stuff like teamwork, collaboration—where everyone’s on the same page, and decisions aren’t just coming from the top down. The important thing is to look at the evidence. Test it out. And for heaven’s sake, don’t just stick with something because that’s how it’s always been done!

How Do We Change Minds?

Okay, so you’ve found that these new methods are working better. How do you get the bosses to listen? Invite them to go see for themselves (a.k.a. normative learning). Just showing them your data isn;t going to get it done. Joing in creating experiments, and let them see the results first hand. Change is hard, but self-gathered evidence is hard to argue with.

What’s Next?

Hey, questioning how we manage things is bound to make some folks uncomfortable. But if we’re going to keep up with the times, we’ve got to be willing to ask tough questions. The goal here isn’t to topple the pyramid but to build something better—something that works for everyone, not just the people at the top.

So, what are we waiting for? Let’s start questioning, testing, and improving. After all, that’s how we learn, isn’t it?

The Evil of Judgement

October 21, 2023
Article, Business, Culture change, Dialogue, Empathy, Organisational effectiveness
Leave a comment

The Evil of Judgement

What Makes Judgement Inherently Evil?

Judgement of individuals can be corrosive to both individual well-being and community cohesion. It’s not just the act but the underlying psychology that makes judgement inherently evil. When we judge, we inherently place ourselves in a position of moral or intellectual superiority. This not only alienates others but also fosters a culture of division, intolerance, and hierarchy.

How Does Judgement Affect Our Interactions?

At its core, judgement distorts the dynamics of any relationship. It can transform a civil discourse into a battleground of egos. People often hesitate to show their true selves, out of fear of judgement. This creates a breeding ground for dishonesty, suppression of feelings, and ultimately, emotional disconnect.

Is Judgement Truly Unavoidable?

Many argue that judgement is a natural part of human cognition. While it’s true that our brains are wired to make quick assessments for survival, this doesn’t justify the social and emotional cost of judging others. Even though it may seem like an inevitable part of human interaction, it’s crucial to question its necessity, impact and consequences.

What Are the Consequences?

The consequences of judgement extend far beyond demotivation and hurt feelings. At an organisational level, judgement can suppress creativity and innovation. When employees fear being judged, they are less likely to take risks or propose new ideas. This not only stifles personal growth but also impedes organisational progress.

The Whole Rotten Edifice of Hierarchical Business Is Founded on Judgement?

In the business world, especially in hierarchical organisations, judgement often serves as the bedrock. But what does that mean for the corporate culture and, ultimately, for innovation and growth?

Hierarchy in business is often perpetuated through judgement. Employees are evaluated, ranked, and placed into various roles based on assessments that are frequently subjective. This system not only enforces a rigid structure but also cultivates an environment where judgement is not just accepted but expected.

In such a setting, employees often find themselves confined to their designated roles and rankings. The fear of negative judgement discourages them from stepping out of their boxes to innovate or take risks. After all, a misstep could lead to harsh critique and, in extreme cases, job loss.

Moreover, this culture of judgement disrupts trust and open communication among team members. People become less inclined to share ideas or express concerns, creating an atmosphere where issues become undiscussable and are swept under the rug rather than addressed. This can lead to long-term problems that are much harder to solve.

The most concerning aspect is that judgement in hierarchical organisations often extends beyond performance to personal characteristics, appearances, or even lifestyle choices, exacerbating division and resentment among staff.

So, when we peel back the layers, we see that the hierarchical structure of business isn’t just facilitated by judgement but is fundamentally founded on it. The question then becomes, can a system built on such shaky and potentially damaging grounds truly be effective in the long run?

Can We Choose a Different Approach?

Choosing a non-judgemental approach doesn’t mean ignoring mistakes or accepting poor behaviour. It means adopting a stance of understanding and empathy. Rather than focusing on criticism, we can focus on constructive dialogue. This paves the way for more meaningful connections and lays the groundwork for a more compassionate organisation.

Concluding Thoughts: Are We Ready to Let Go?

The concept that judgement is inherently evil may be a hard pill to swallow for many. But if we acknowledge the potential harm it causes, both on a personal and societal level, we can begin to seek alternatives. The challenge lies in the conscious unlearning of judgemental habits and the cultivation of a more accepting and open perspective. Are we ready to let go? The answer to that question might very well shape the future of our interpersonal relationships, business organisations, and societal norms.