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.

Businesses Ignore Deming’s Call for Real Behavioural Insight

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

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

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

The Superficial ‘Pop Psych’ Fixation

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

Human Behaviour Is Central to Everything

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

Ignoring the Science of Human Behaviour

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

The System of Profound Knowledge

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

A True Commitment to Understanding People

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

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

Taking Responsibility for Our Emotions

The Harsh Truth

One of the most transformative realisations I’ve had from years of studying many schools of therapy is that our emotional responses are solely our own responsibility. No matter what someone else says or does, we alone are responsible for how we internalise their words or deeds, and react, emotionally.

This is a difficult pill to swallow, as we’re conditioned from a young age to blame others for “making” us feel certain ways*. If a co-worker is rude or our boss lays into us, it’s easy to mentally check out and go numb – as a self-defense mechanism – feeling angry at them for causing us distress. But the reality is, no one can make us feel any particular way without our permission.

The Source of Our Emotions

Our emotional responses are fuelled by our thought patterns, beliefs, prior experiences, and state of mind in that moment. Someone’s unskillful behaviour can act as a trigger, but we alone control whether we react with anxiety, defensiveness, anger, or remain grounded. This is where the work comes in.

So few people realise this responsibility is theirs, let alone take it to heart. It’s much easier to play the victim and blame others. But true emotional maturity comes from internalising that our emotions originate from within us, not from other people..

Empowerment at Work

In a workplace context, this philosophy is incredibly empowering. If we have a chronically negative or harsh manager or colleague, we get to decide whether their behaviour sends us into an emotional tailspin or if we react with non-judgement and detachment. Not getting hung up on the emotions of the moment allows us to respond skilfully in misunderstandings and avoid escalations.

A co-worker’s words and actions are about them, not about us. Our colleagues’ unconscious behaviours don’t have to dictate our experience. We get to consciously choose our mindset and emotional state in any situation.

The Greatest Gift

This paradigm shift takes practice, but it’s one of the greatest gifts we can give ourselves. No longer feeling like helpless victims to others’ emotional outputs. Owning our emotional adulthood and self-accountability. True inner freedom.

It’s available to anyone, but so few people live it. We can choose to do the work to take radical responsibility for our emotions, no matter what others do. We’ll be rewarded with choice and peace in the face of conflict, instead of being unconscious reactors.

*One root of the Myth of Redemptive Violence

A short story about metacluelessness and the distinction from stupidity.

Hubris in the Corner Office

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

The Cracks Begin to Show

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

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

A Slow-Motion Catastrophe

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

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

A Failed Intervention

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

The Inevitable Conclusion

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

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

The Lesson Learned

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

Self-awareness and an accurate assessment of our own abilities are crucial for personal growth, learning, and effective decision-making. However, certain cognitive biases and deficits can severely impair our self-perception, leading to a distorted view of reality and hindering our potential for improvement. Among these biases, the Dunning-Kruger effect is well-known for describing the phenomenon where individuals with low competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. However, there exists an even more profound and insidious cognitive deficit known as metacluelessness, which presents a greater challenge to self-awareness and personal development.

Metacluelessness is a higher-order phenomenon that goes beyond mere overconfidence or underconfidence in one’s abilities. It is the inability to recognise one’s own lack of understanding or ignorance, a complete absence of insight into the depths of one’s own cluelessness. This deficit can manifest in various aspects of life, from academic pursuits to professional endeavors, and even in personal relationships and decision-making processes.

While the Dunning-Kruger effect is primarily concerned with the inaccurate self-assessment of one’s abilities, metacluelessness represents a deeper level of disconnection from reality. It is the cluelessness about one’s cluelessness, a fundamental lack of awareness that can prevent individuals from recognising their knowledge gaps and seeking out necessary information or education to improve their understanding.

In this post, we will delve into the concept of metacluelessness, explore its relationship with the Dunning-Kruger effect, and examine the potential implications and consequences of this cognitive deficit. Through illustrative examples and a thorough analysis, we aim to shed light on this often-overlooked phenomenon and underscore the importance of cultivating self-awareness and a willingness to challenge one’s own assumptions and biases.

Defining Metacluelessness

Metacluelessness is a higher-order phenomenon that describes a person’s lack of awareness about their own lack of awareness or understanding. It is the inability to recognise one’s own cluelessness or ignorance.

Defining the Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect refers to a cognitive bias in which people tend to inaccurately assess their own competence or knowledge in a particular domain. This bias can manifest in two distinct ways:

1. For those with low ability or expertise, they tend to overestimate their competence or knowledge. They lack the self-awareness to recognise their own incompetence or limitations.
2. For those with high ability or expertise, they may underestimate their competence or knowledge relative to others. They fail to recognise how proficient they are compared to the general population.

In both cases, individuals exhibit a biased self-assessment of their skills or knowledge due to a lack of metacognitive awareness. The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that people are often poorly equipped to accurately evaluate their own abilities, whether overestimating or underestimating them.

Differentiating the Two Concepts

While the Dunning-Kruger effect is primarily about overconfidence and overestimation of one’s abilities, metacluelessness is about the lack of insight into the depth and extent of one’s own ignorance or incompetence.

Illustrative Examples

1. Dunning-Kruger Effect: A person who has never studied physics but believes they have a deep understanding of quantum mechanics is exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect (overestimating their competence).
2. Metacluelessness: A person who not only lacks knowledge about quantum mechanics but also lacks the awareness that they lack this knowledge is experiencing metacluelessness (ignorance about their own ignorance).

Severity and Implications

Metacluelessness is often seen as a more severe and fundamental problem than the Dunning-Kruger effect because it represents a deeper level of self-delusion and disconnection from reality. It can prevent people from recognising their own knowledge gaps and seeking out information or education to improve their understanding.

Both phenomena are related to issues of self-awareness and accurate self-assessment, but metacluelessness is a higher-order cognitive deficit that can exacerbate the effects of the Dunning-Kruger bias and other cognitive biases.

The Danger of Overconfidence

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

Clifford’s Ethics of Belief

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

Metacluelessness as Unethical Delusion

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

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

The Root of Managerial Arrogance

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

Catastrophic Consequences

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

Cultivating True Competence

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

The Best Never Stop Learning

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

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

[Tl;Dr: What if software developers – and other related disciplines – were competent in psychology and human behaviour rather than coding and testing? What would we gain? What would we lose? ]

We live in an era of rapid technological advancement and innovation. Yet so many of our most popular technologies still fall short when it comes to understanding human behavior, motivations, and feelings. What would a software industry more attuned with psychology and social sciences look like? After all, Deming in his System of Profound Knowledge stressed the importance of psychology. Some key reasons why Deming advocated for psychological competence include:

• Motivating employees requires satisfying needs beyond just financial compensation
• Interpersonal friction can cause unproductive teams or turnover
• Lack of psychological safety limits experimentation and learning
• Poor communication causes confusion and mistakes
• Not understanding cognitive biases can lead to poor decisions

Deeper Empathy and Connection

Technology designed with empathy could foster online communities that feel welcoming, supportive, and caring. More intuitive interfaces minimising frustration and confusion would promote trust and understanding between platforms and users. Overall, technology would not only be more usable, but make people feel heard, respected, and cared for.

Products That Help Us Thrive

Rather than empty gaming loops or outrage-inducing algorithms, technology focused on well-being could enhance daily life and growth. From fitness trackers prompting healthier habits to creativity tools designed for flow states to social networks that inspire real-world action, innovation could shift from addiction to empowerment and support.

Customised Experiences

Understanding differences in personalities, demographics, and life experiences would allow for greater personalisation in how tech interacts with and supports each of us. Products and services attuned to the diversity of human behavior deliver nuanced experiences and guidance tuned for each user and context. The result is technology that contributes to our humanity, rather than robbing us of it.

Developers Who Operate Around Compassion

If engineers banded together around compassion and service to others instead of unending growth and career-oriented self-interest, we might see improvements in areas like mental health support, ethical supply chain management, and sustainability. Rather than top-down directives, grassroots working groups of developers aiming to minimise harm and reduce pain points could spread positive change.

While mastery of coding and data remains useful, competence in psychology and the human aspects of life may be key for profound betterment of our lives, and wider society too. A collaborative pivot toward emotional intelligence across the industry will prove immensely worthwhile.

There is often subtle unease or vulnerability when another person identifies and attends to your emotional or practical needs before you ask. Even as they are attending to you, why might you feel strangely rattled or intruded upon by having your underlying feelings anticipated and met in this way?

Expectations

Part of the strangeness seems to be linked to our expectations around emotional autonomy in relationships. It might be because we assume we must self-manage feelings, not burden others unprompted, and disguise any weakness. So when someone sees through our façades and reaches out with support, it can feel jarringly unfamiliar. There is awkwardness adjusting to a new way of relating where masking distress is no longer accepted or expected.

Self-Image

Additionally, admitting needs may endanger our own resourcefulness or positive self-image. To remain strong and unaffected is easier than acknowledging where we genuinely need empathy or assistance. Conceding our emotional gaps confronts us with difficult realities about ourselves. Having someone respond caringly can dredge up shame before that nurturing registers as comfort. It takes time to overcome our reflexive impulse to deny needs that contradict the identities we aspire to.

Psychological Safety

Beneath the discomfort may also lurk trust issues around vulnerability. Emotions expose our innermost selves. Letting someone in to perceive and attend to that sensitive dimension means lowering barriers and giving up some degree of control. Psychologically, it signals dependence on their benevolence versus total self-sufficiency. With support inevitably comes some loss of authority over how we might want to be perceived. Even caring assistance can seem invasive before safety takes root.

While emotional caretaking intends to heal and bond, the path to welcoming nurture over isolation is not always smooth or instant. The vulnerability of relinquishing façades, acknowledging needs, and opening up to help all disrupt our status quo. By naming these sources of weirdness, perhaps the tensions around receiving compassionate support become less of a bewildering hurdle. Gradually, we learn to receive grace and attend to one another’s emotions without threatening inner resolve or identity. The discomfort slowly fades as emotional interdependence replaces sole self-reliance.

Summary

In essence, the discomfort we may feel when someone attends to our emotional needs often stems from unfamiliarity with true interdependence, unwillingness to show vulnerability, and a cultural overemphasis on extreme self-reliance. We expect to conceal any weakness, deny needing support, and handle distress alone without imposing on others. So when another person perceptively senses unvoiced feelings and reaches out to care for our inner experiences, it can feel weirdly intrusive. Even compassionate emotional caretaking jars notions of autonomy and challenges our reflexes to hide perceived flaws or shortcomings behind façade of capability. Yet suppressing needs creates isolation, and makes it so much more likely our needs will go unmet. Perhaps by better understanding the common strangeness behind receiving others’ attention, we can grow into truer communities where attending to one another’s unspoken needs and hopes is simply what love requires.

Organisations, like human beings, have a complex psyche. This collective psyche transcends individual perceptions, emerging from the interactions of members. Just as our minds have conscious and subconscious parts, so too organisations develop collective ways of perceiving, operating and relating that often remain unspoken or unobserved.

Identifying and settling tensions within the organisational psyche can facilitate growth, resilience and better commitment to purpose – the domain of organisational psychotherapy. I work as a consultant to companies, charities, public sector bodies and community groups to evaluate and nurture organisational mental health by helping them surface and reflect on shared consciousness.

Some key questions we explore through Organisational Psychotherapy:

• What visible and invisible narratives shape this organisation’s culture and choices?
• Where might discordant group emotions or motivations cause strain?
• How equitable and inclusive are existing customs and systems? Do they fully utilise organisational diversity?
• How do past shared experiences or traumas continue to affect organisational patterns?

I employ methods including extensive stakeholder interviews, observation of gatherings and operations, surveys, communication pattern analysis and existing research on the organisation.

I then provide perspective on the organisational psyche identified through discovery – covering areas from conflicts between principles and practices to the impact of founder stories on current aims. My observations seek to help organisations consciously evolve their psyche for mutually positive outcomes rather than reacting only to surface performance indicators.

In developing insights into organisational psyche, I incorporate models like Edgar Schein’s levels of organisational culture. This identifies artifacts, espoused beliefs, and shared underlying assumptions that together form the collective mindset. By probing beyond visible structures into deeper assumptions groups hold about themselves and wider reality, organisational psychotherapy can advocate for purposeful evolution rather than being locked in to habitual patterns or beliefs.

Just as personal therapy provides individuals support for self-knowledge and growth, organisational psychotherapy offers this at the collective level. My calling is helping groups access healthy psyches tuned to members’ shared humanity, their collective needs, and the greater social good.

Questioning Workplace Culture

As we explore new ways to improve how organisations function, some suggest looking at the concept of a “collective psyche.” This means recognising shared ways of thinking and acting that develop in work cultures over time.

Do you see evidence that workgroups adopt common outlooks and responses based on past experiences? Have you noticed certain “vibes” or unwritten rules shaping your workplaces? Things like what gets talked about or whose voices carry weight? If so, you may have witnessed signs of the organisational psyche.

My experience shows that often these cultural patterns go unexplored, even as they limit a company’s success or employee happiness. There may be ingrained ways of excluding people or communicating that uphold old biases. Or deep wounds from events such as layoffs that linger silently for years, killing morale and trust.

Unpacking this organisational “baggage” requires openly examining the collective psyche – facilitating honest reflections on workplace culture by those within it. This can uncover why teams act in contradictory or counterproductive ways despite stated values or policies.

While some dispute whether organisations have a “mind” beyond individuals, I frequently see signs that they do develop shared ways of thinking, passed down over the years. These may include unspoken rules about conflict, success measures valued over ethics, or tendencies to privilege certain groups’ ideas.

My message is simply that by talking openly about these cultural patterns as part of improving workplaces, companies have much to gain. There are always more positive, equitable ways for employees to coexist and collaborate. Organisations can choose to commit to ongoing self-reflection and evolution to make this a reality.

So may I invite you to notice group dynamics in your workplace. And consider advocating for culture introspection aimed at growth rather than judgment or blame. There is promise in recognising companies as having complex collective psyches inviting continuous care beyond restructuring initiatives. Perhaps it takes a village* to raise an organisation, too.

Note:

“Perhaps it takes a village to raise an organisation too” – is a play on the phrase “it takes a village to raise a child.” The idea behind that phrase is that no parent can single-handedly provide everything a child needs to mature into a well-adjusted adult. Successful upbringing requires an entire supportive community or “village” of people – parents, teachers, mentors, friends etc. – continually nurturing the child’s development.

Here we extend this metaphor to apply to organisations and workplaces as well. Just as a child needs whole communities of support, so too may organisations require more holistic “villages” iaround them to sustain positive cultural change. Relying solely on the efforts of leaders or executives is unlikely to transform entrenched workplace dynamics on its own.

True shifts in organisational psyche need to involve people at all levels engaging in self-analysis and reflection, speaking up on needed changes, building trust, and continuously evolving interpersonal habits and norms. It can’t and won’t be driven through top-down mandates or policy tweaks. The entire workplace community, including customers, partners etc., can become a village dedicated to positive organisational development, health and maturation over time.

In essence, systemic transformation requires engagement and ownership across an entire “village”. Just as healthy childhood development is a communal process, so too may be nurturing organisational culture. It is ambitious and complex work demanding community-driven change rather than quick fixes. But this holistic, village-focused approach holds real promise for creating more conscious, equitable and purpose-driven workplace cultures.

So in summary, I aim to invite readers towards this more collective understanding of organisational development – recognising it as long-term cultural evolution requiring supportive communities, not temporary quick fixes. The organisational village, so to speak, is instrumental in liberating the organisational psyche to realise its full potential.

Ronald David Laing (1927-1989) was a Scottish psychiatrist known for his unorthodox and radical views on mental illness. Though trained as a psychiatrist, Laing rejected the medical model of mental disorders, arguing instead that psychosis and schizophrenia were understandable responses to an “insane world”.

Views on Mental Illness

Laing’s views on mental illness were heavily influenced by existential philosophy and thinkers like Kierkegaard and Sartre. He rejected the idea that psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia were medical diseases and argued they resulted from difficulties in developing a coherent sense of self in response to invalidating family and social environments.

In his 1960 book The Divided Self, Laing argued that psychotic behavior and experiences made sense as strategies to cope with living in an “insane world” where individuals cannot express their true feelings and spontaneity is suppressed. He argued mental distress resulted from societies that emphasised conformity over creativity and adjustment over authenticity.

Laing criticised psychiatric diagnoses and medications as unethically labeling and controlling people rather than understanding them. He preferred to use talk therapy to try to understand his patients’ perspective and believed schizophrenia could represent a transformative spiritual crisis rather than just a brain disease.

Sanity in an Insane World

Laing’s famous statement that “Insanity is a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world” encapsulated his argument that much of what is defined as mental illness by mainstream psychiatry is actually a understandable response to dysfunctional families and societies.

In his 1967 book The Politics of Experience, Laing wrote: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society…What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.”

Laing believed that focusing on listening to and understanding those labeled mentally ill, rather than automatically treating them as diseased, could transform society’s conception of sanity. Through his psychotherapy practice and writings, he aimed to legitimize the inner experiences of those with psychiatric diagnoses.

Insanity is the Norm

One of Laing’s most radical arguments was that what society considers “normal” is itself a form of insanity or mental illness. In The Politics of Experience, he wrote:

“Our ‘normal’ ‘adjusted’ state is too often the abdication of ecstasy, the betrayal of our true potentialities, many of them so special and so dangerous to the social order.”

Laing believed that modern societal pressures and conformism force individuals to alienate themselves from their true feelings, impulses, and experiences. The result is an inauthentic existence cut off from the spontaneous, creative core of human nature.

He argued that the inner vivid world experienced by those labeled “schizophrenic” or “psychotic” is not qualitatively different than the inner world of “normal” individuals. The so-called psychotic person has simply lost the ability to conceal this inner world from others.

Laing contended that the “normal” person’s concealed inner world was just as chaotic, frightening, and beautiful as that experienced by those diagnosed with mental illness. But it is suppressed to maintain societal approval. In contrast, the “insane” allow their authentic inner selves to manifest outwardly.

By Laing’s definition then, the majority who view themselves as sane or normal are in a state of socially-imposed constraint that alienates them from the depths of human consciousness. The “insane” minority have touched these terrifying and visionary depths that society fears. As Laing wrote, “Madness need not be all breakdown. It may also be break-through.”

Legacy and Impact

Laing’s work challenged mainstream beliefs about mental illness and who has the authority to define sanity. His ideas influenced the anti-psychiatry movement, which argued psychiatric treatments were often more damaging than helpful. Though controversial, Laing’s work encouraged the public to rethink assumptions about mental distress and gained more compassion for those viewed as mentally ill. His legacy lives on in efforts to reform mental health services to be more humane and empowering.

What Happened to the Thrill?

When I first started working with computers, I revelled in the challenges and the opportunities for learning. The sense of accomplishment and the thrill of solving complex problems were genuinely exhilarating.

And to Employee Happiness?

However, my initial enthusiasm took a nosedive when I rubbed up against the corporate world. What caused this transformation? Many argue that the corporate environment has a knack for leaching joy, replacing it with turgid egocentric managers intent on feathering their own nests at everyone else’s expense.

What’s Wrong with Corporate Culture?

In corporates, the methods used to assess and drive performance often benefit these self-serving managers rather than the well-being of the workforce as a whole. Indeed, even the very pursuit of “performance” is a theatre of fiction.

Does Autonomy Matter?

The absence of autonomy in a hierarchical corporate structure further dampens the spirit. Employees lose the joy that comes from freedom and independent decision-making, turning work into a mere series of tasks.

Autonomy often serves as a cornerstone for employee happiness. The freedom to make decisions, solve problems and contribute ideas fosters a sense of ownership and, by extension, joy. But is autonomy a valued principle in the corporate world? Unfortunately, more often than not, the answer is no.

Corporate structures frequently operate within rigid hierarchies where decision-making power is concentrated at the top. Managers assign tasks and set directives, leaving little room for employees to exercise autonomy. This top-down approach not only diminishes individual contributions but also robs employees of the satisfaction derived from autonomous action.

Furthermore, when employees feel that their role is reduced to following orders, engagement plummets. The absence of autonomy turns day-to-day tasks into a checklist to be ticked off rather than a series of meaningful contributions. This lack of freedom directly contradicts the human desire for autonomy, leading to disengagement and, ultimately, a less joyful workplace.

So, does autonomy matter? Unquestionably. Granting employees a degree of autonomy can reignite the sputtering fires of joy and engagement, leading to a more productive and happier workforce. Corporates that recognise the value of autonomy take a significant step towards restoring the joy so often missing from the workplace.

Does Mastery Matter?

Mastery, or the drive to become proficient in a skill or field, can be a significant source of joy for many. But does it hold any water in the corporate setting? Unfortunately, the pursuit of mastery often takes a back seat in corporates, sidelined by short-term goals and immediate deliverables. The emphasis on quick wins and immediate results eclipses the long-term satisfaction that comes from mastering a skill or a domain.

Furthermore, the race for promotions and recognition can dilute the pure joy of mastery. Instead of gaining proficiency for the sheer pleasure of it, skills development turns into a competitive sprint, dictated by performance evaluations and peer comparisons.

So yes, mastery does matter, but it’s often undervalued or even ignored in the corporate world. Recognising the importance of mastery could be a step towards reintroducing joy into the workplace, benefiting not just the employees but also contributing to a more skilled and engaged workforce.

Does Shared Purpose Matter?

Shared purpose can be a potent catalyst for workplace joy. When employees feel they are part of something bigger than themselves, motivation and satisfaction often follow. But how well does this concept fare in the corporate landscape? Generally, not as well as it could or should.

In many corporates, the overarching goal is clear: increase shareholder value. While this aim is valid from a business perspective, it rarely stokes the fires of individual passion or a collective sense of purpose. Employees find themselves working to benefit a distant, often faceless, group of stakeholders rather than contributing to a cause that has personal or societal meaning.

Moreover, when managerial focus is primarily on self-advancement or departmental targets, the notion of a shared purpose becomes fractured. Employees start to feel disconnected from the mission of the organisation, contributing further to the drain of joy and satisfaction.

So, does shared purpose matter? Absolutely. A unified goal not only brings people together but also instills a sense of meaning in daily tasks. To reignite the lost joy, corporates should look beyond mere profits and metrics, weaving a tapestry of shared purpose that each employee can contribute to and feel proud of.

Is Work-Life Balance a Myth?

Promises of work-life balance often remain unfulfilled. With no clear boundaries, employees experience burnout, which contributes to a cycle of joylessness.

The term “work-life balance” is bandied about in corporate circles, regularly cited as a perk or aspiration within companies. But how often is this balance truly achieved? Regrettably, it’s way more espoused than actual in many corporate settings.

In the push for self-aggrandisement and personal wellbeing of executives and senior manager, work demands often spill over into personal time. Employees find themselves tethered to their jobs through smartphones and laptops, blurring the lines between work and life. The upshot is a skewed balance that leans heavily towards work, pushing personal time and activities to the fringes.

This lopsided equation isn’t just detrimental to personal lives; it also drains the joy out of work itself. When employees can’t switch off, the chance for relaxation and rejuvenation dwindles, leading to increased stress and burnout. The absence of real work-life balance adversely affects not just individual well-being but also overall job satisfaction.

So, is work-life balance a myth? In many corporates, unfortunately, yes. But it doesn’t have to be. Companies that genuinely commit to work-life balance as a tangible practice rather than a buzzword can contribute to a more joyful, engaged workforce. Maybe enlightened corporates might choose to stop paying lip service to work-life balance and start making it a lived reality for their employees.

What About Personal Growth?

Corporates typically offer limited scope for personal growth. Focused on role-specific skills, companies overlook the broader aspects of development, reducing the job to a set of mundane activities rather than a platform for holistic growth.

Personal growth is a factor that contributes to an individual’s overall sense of happiness and well-being. However, its role in the corporate setting is often underemphasised, overshadowed by the focus on immediate performance indicators.

Companies frequently provide training and development opportunities, but these are usually confined to vain attempts to moderate behaviours, or on improving skills that directly benefit the organisation. This approach tends to neglect broader aspects of an individual’s personal and professional development. The result is a narrowed scope for growth that pertains solely to the job at hand, leaving little room for the nourishment of other facets like emotional intelligence, leadership qualities, or even hobbies and interests that can enrich lives.

The absence of opportunities for holistic personal growth can lead to stagnation. Employees may find that their roles become monotonous and unfulfilling, devoid of the challenges and learning experiences that bring joy and meaning to work.

So, what about personal growth? It’s crucial but often overlooked in the corporate agenda. A shift towards including personal development as a core part of employee growth can make work more fulfilling and joyous. After all, an individual is more than the sum of their job-related skills, and recognising this can be a step towards creating a more joyful and engaged workforce.

A Pit of Despair

In my own experience, the joy I initially found in computer-related challenges has descended into a pit of despair when involved with corporates. What was once a playground of innovation and problem-solving has for many become a bland, monotonous treadmill of routine. The constant grind, coupled with the absence of creativity and personal growth, transforms work into something far less fulfilling than it could be.

This despair isn’t just a personal anecdote but a sentiment that resonates with many who find themselves caught in the corporate machinery. The mental toll this takes is widely underestimated. Over time, the absence of joy and fulfilment leads to a range of problems, from decreased productivity to more serious issues like burnout and serious mental health concerns.

The “pit of despair” isn’t merely a dramatic term; it’s a reality for many. When a workplace fails to nourish the human aspects that make life worthwhile, it risks creating an environment where despair thrives. Therefore, addressing the factors that contribute to this state is not just an individual necessity but also a corporate imperative.

Can Corporates Change?

It’s not all doom and gloom. With a shift in focus, companies can recalibrate their methods to foster a more human-centric approach, aiming for a win-win scenario where both profits and joy can coexist.

Final Thoughts

Corporates don’t have to be joy-draining monoliths. By reevaluating the way they operate, these institutions can not only better their performance but also enhance the lives of the people who make that performance possible.

What Do Recruiters Know About Psychology?

When it comes to recruitment, the spotlight generally falls on skills, qualifications, and years of experience. But what about understanding human behaviour? Recruiters often talk about culture fit, team cohesion, and emotional intelligence, but how deep does their grasp of psychology go? It’s a mixed bag. A few recruiters invest time in learning behavioural cues and techniques derived from psychological research. Most stick to traditional stuff like CV screening and keyword matching.

What About Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking allows us to understand how individual components within an organisation interact with each other. Does a typical recruiter understand these nuances? Generally, the answer leans towards no. Recruiters often focus on filling a role rather than understanding how that role interacts with other parts of the organisation. This can lead to problematic hires that may fit a job description but disrupt a system.

How Important Are Group Dynamics?

Group dynamics explore how people interact within a group and how the group itself functions as a unit. Understanding this is key to fostering a harmonious work environment. A recruiter who appreciates group dynamics goes beyond placing a candidate based on skill set alone. They’ll look at how a new hire might impact the existing team culture and dynamics. However, recruiters often don’t delve deeply into this topic, as it’s usually considered the purview of internal HR teams or hiring managers (who, BTW, also rarely appreciate this topic).

Can Recruiters Improve?

Recruiters can certainly benefit from a broader understanding of psychology, systems thinking, and group dynamics. While a very few are already there, many could make strides by investing in study that delves into these areas. After all, the aim is to place candidates who don’t just fill a role but also contribute positively to the organisation as a whole.

Conclusion: Room for Growth

While it varies, recruiters generally have room to grow when it comes to understanding psychology, systems thinking, and group dynamics. Adopting a more holistic approach to recruitment can yield benefits for organisations and candidates alike. It’s difficult though, as dwelling on these areas risks alienating their hiring clients.

What is Psychological Safety?

Psychological safety refers to the comfort and confidence employees feel in expressing themselves without fear of negative consequences. It’s a state where workers feel they can voice their concerns, ideas, and feedback openly.

Why Is It So Hard to Implement?

Ironically, the primary obstacle isn’t convincing people of its importance. Most management and employees alike acknowledge the benefits of a psychologically safe environment. The real challenge lies in transforming these acknowledgements into actionable, sustainable company policies and ingrained practices.

Enter Organisational Psychotherapy

This is where organisational psychotherapy proves invaluable. Unlike typical corporate initiatives that may address surface issues, organisational psychotherapy delves into the core attitudes, behaviours, and cultural elements that obstruct the realisation of psychological safety, and other beneficial ideas too.

How Does OP Work?

Organisational psychotherapy helps organisations identify their underlying cultural issues, issues that block the establishment of a psychologically safe environment. After enabling the organisation to surface and reflect on these issues, organisational psychotherapy invites the organisation to tackle them head-on. Methods range from individual counselling to group interventions or even comprehensive organisational talk therapy.

How Is It Different?

Standard corporate initiatives usually involve implementing new policies or reworking existing ones. However, if the underlying issues aren’t addressed, these new policies often fall flat. Organisational psychotherapy invites organisations to focus on root causes – their implicit shared assumptions and beliefs – rather than surface symptoms, offering a more enduring solution.

Ensuring Sustainability

Sustainability is another critical component of organisational psychotherapy. It doesn’t just introduce changes; it helps these changes become embedded in company culture. By addressing the root causes and focusing on methods that provide long-lasting results, it avoids the pitfalls of short-lived corporate initiatives.

Summary

Psychological safety is a “good idea” many companies strive for but few attain. Organisational psychotherapy offers a path to not just achieving this ideal but making it a durable part of a company’s culture. Through tailored methods that get to the heart of the issues, this approach catalyses sustainable organisational changes.

Life can be a labyrinth of responsibilities, expectations, and emotions. Amidst the maze, it’s easy to lose sight of folks’ fundamental unattended-to needs. Or even that people have more wonderful lives when their needs receive attention – from e.g. friends, family, employers and coworkers.

Broaching these questions with a close friend could be your mutual ticket to helping each other have more wonderful and satisfying lives:

1. “What Are The Things – If Any – You’d Like to Have Happen (that aren’t happening yet)?”
   Discussing desires and aspirations that haven’t yet come to fruition can open up new possibilities for growth and satisfaction. It could even illuminate areas where friends, etc., can support each other to make life more wonderful.
2. “What Gives You the Sense That Something Is Missing?”
   This sensation of something being amiss is not uncommon. It’s like a jigsaw puzzle with a missing piece; you can see the overall picture, but in some way it’s incomplete.
3. “What Differences Do You Notice Between Your Current Life and Something Better?”
   Here’s an opportunity for reflection. There’s often a discrepancy between our lived experiences and our ideal lives. Acknowledging this disparity might help in closing the gap.
4. “What Needs Haven’t You Shared Out Loud?”
   We all have those unspoken wishes—perhaps because they seem too foolish or unreachable. Yet, acknowledging these can be the first step toward addressing unmet needs or goals.
5. “What Haven’t You Done Yet?”
   Procrastination, or even just life getting in the way, can keep us from pursuing things we’re passionate about. What’s on your list of ‘somedays’ that you might turn into ‘todays’?
6. “What Makes You Feel Understood or Misunderstood?”
   The emotional nourishment that comes from being understood is a fundamental human need. If it’s missing, that’s something worth exploring further.
7. “What Topics Find You Changing the Subject?”
   Sometimes avoidance is the best indicator of significance. Those undiscussable topics or issues you’re sidestepping? They could be precisely where attention is most needed.
8. “How Do You Feel When You Have to Say No?”
   The difficulty in setting boundaries is often symptomatic of deeper, unattended needs. If you find it challenging to say no, this might be an area worth investigating.
9. “Where in Your Life Do You Feel Like You’re on Autopilot?”
   Routine can offer comfort, but it can also veil unmet needs. If you find areas of your life running on autopilot, it could be a sign to probe deeper.
10. “What Emotions Do You Find Yourself Keeping in Check, or Burying?”
    Society often prescribes what emotions are acceptable, causing us to suppress those that aren’t. These suppressed emotions could point to neglected needs or aspects of oneself.

Discussing these questions may not offer quick fixes, but they can pave the way for deeper and more rewarding connections with others. Of course, this all hinges on genuine concern for the people you’re conversing with. Without empathy and compassion, these conversations are vacuous at best.

Why Don’t We Want Improvement?

Many would argue that improvement is the backbone of success, especially in the context of productivity. However, there’s an odd disconnect: Despite endless seminars, productivity tools and ‘best practice’ guides, it seems as though we’re all not that keen to become productivity powerhouses after all. So why the hesitation?

Do We Resent Working for the Man?

Who benefits from improved productivity? Generally it’s the owners of the business, not the workers. Hardly surprising then that workers (and managers too) have little enthusiasm for breaking their backs just to make rich people richer.

Is Change Too Uncomfortable?

Humans, by nature, find comfort in routine. The thought of overhauling one’s daily life to accommodate productivity ‘hacks’ or new approaches might seem more trouble than it’s worth. Even if these methods promise long-term gain, the short-term pain often serves as a deterrent.

Do We Fear Success?

This may sound paradoxical, but fearing success is not uncommon. A boost in productivity might lead to higher expectations from peers or managers, adding pressure that many feel they don’t need. Moreover, success often comes with its own set of demands, such as increased workload or responsibilities, that not everyone feels equipped to handle.

What’s Wrong with Current Ways of Doing Things?

Let’s draw a distinction between effective and ineffective ways of doing things. In the realm of productivity, not all methods are created equal. The reason many people find themselves resistant to ‘improving productivity’ might be that they’ve been exposed to relatively poor ways of doing things. Quick fixes and one-size-fits-all solutions rarely address the complex, nuanced issues that each individual faces.

Is Productivity Overrated?

Another angle to consider is whether the modern obsession with productivity is actually well-founded. Could it be that the push for constant productivity is both physically and mentally draining, leading us to resist it instinctively? Some argue that the quest for perpetual productivity is not only unrealistic but also unsustainable in the long run.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, the relationship each of us has with productivity is deeply personal and influenced by a myriad of factors, from our upbringing to our work environment. However, it’s worth questioning the mythic narrative that everyone should strive for maximum productivity. Maybe it’s time to shift the focus towards ways of doing things that align with our individual needs and limitations.

Inspired by James Lawther’s recent book “Managed by Morons”

What Defines Productive Behaviour?

James Lawther’s recent book “Managed by Morons” provides sharp insights into organisational behaviours that make or break productivity. Highly productive organisations often display patterns such as open communication, frequent knowledge sharing, and constructive feedback loops. These patterns create a conducive environment for efficiency, adaptability, and consistent growth.

What Leads to Dysfunction?

On the flip side, dysfunctional organisations exhibit signs of poor communication, stifling bureaucracy, and a toxic work culture. These negative behaviour patterns often stem from flawed management practices, including the suppression of employee autonomy, micro-management, and an emphasis on rigid protocols over innovative thinking.

Are There Middle-Ground Patterns?

Yes, some organisations walk the tightrope between being productive and dysfunctional. Such organisations may have sporadic spurts of productivity, followed by phases of stagnation. Identifiable patterns in these organisations might include inconsistent management styles, fluctuating employee morale, and a lack of stable systems or processes.

How to Shift from Dysfunction to Productivity?

Organisational psychotherapy offers a profound approach to transition from dysfunction to productivity. Unlike traditional methods that may only tackle symptoms, organisational psychotherapy aims to address the root causes of the issues plaguing the workplace.

1. Open Dialogue: Initiating open conversations allows for the identification of deeply ingrained patterns and beliefs that are contributing to dysfunction.
2. Safe Space Creation: A non-judgmental and confidential environment enables employees and management to express and discuss concerns and insights that might otherwise remain unspoken and undiscussable.
3. Deep Inquiry: This involves asking thought-provoking questions to stimulate critical thinking, and fostering awareness of underlying issues that demand attention and remediation.
4. Shared Understanding and Action: Once there’s clarity about dysfunctional collective assumptions and beliefs, the organisation can decide on actions to disrupt the dysfunctional patterns and encourage behaviours that enhance productivity.
5. Ongoing Reflection and Adaptation: Organisational psychotherapy is not a one-time event but an ongoing process. Consistently review behavioural patterns and make adjustments to ensure that the shift towards productivity is enduring and effective.

By utilising organisational psychotherapy, you go beyond surface-level fixes to foster a workplace culture that is inherently more adaptive, engaged, and ultimately, more productive.

Final Thoughts

In any organisation, behaviour patterns can indicate the level of productivity or dysfunction. Identifying these patterns early on can save an organisation from a downward spiral or propel it to new heights. It’s crucial to examine these cues critically and, when necessary, take decisive action to instigate change.

Culture isn’t just one aspect of the game, it is the game.

~ Lou Gerstner, former CEO, IBM

And what dictates the culture of any organisation…?

Inspired by James Lawther’s recent book “Managed by Morons”

What Shapes Dysfunctional Organisations?

It’s often the managers who most influence the organisational culture, a culture that’s deeply rooted in collective assumptions and beliefs. But the influence is two-way; these underlying assumptions and beliefs also shape managerial behaviour.

How Do Managers Create Culture?

When you walk into a dysfunctional organisation, one of the first things you’ll notice is the prevailing culture. It may be one of fear, distrust, or apathy. Managers play a significant role in crafting this culture. They set the rules, they define the goals, and they model the behaviour that’s expected from employees.

What’s the Role of Assumptions and Beliefs?

For better or worse, managers aren’t operating in a vacuum. The organisational culture, in many ways, pre-dates them. This culture is shaped by a set of collective assumptions and beliefs that employees share. These can range from “this is a zero-sum game”, through “people cannot be trusted”, to “management doesn’t have our best interests at heart”. These collective beliefs serve as a backdrop against which managerial decisions and actions play out.

Why Do Dictatorships and Businesses Share Traits?

What’s striking is how dysfunctional organisations, whether dictatorships or retail chains, manifest similar behaviours and cultures. Dictatorships often suppress dissent and centralise power, much like how a toxic corporate culture stifles employee feedback and hoards decision-making at the top.

Can Collective Beliefs Be Changed?

Changing a dysfunctional organisation isn’t just about swapping out managers or implementing new policies. You’re fighting against a tide of collective beliefs and assumptions that may have been years in the making. But it’s not impossible. Identifying these beliefs and tackling them head-on can be the first step towards organisational change.

What’s the Takeaway?

Dysfunctional organisations don’t just happen. They’re often the result of managerial behaviour influenced by collective beliefs and assumptions. Recognising this pattern can be the first step toward meaningful change.

People’s behaviour impacts performance far more than any technology, management idea or whiz-bang initiative ever will.

And what governs people’s behaviours…?

Why Choose Pull Over Push?

Pull strategies create environments where employees actively seek out what they need to develop and grow. Unlike push strategies, where management decides what’s important and imposes it, pull lets people align their needs with organisational goals naturally. This fosters better engagement and increased ownership of the learning journey.

Does Pull Enhance Autonomy?

Absolutely. In a pull-based model, organisations empower individuals to take control of their development. When people pull information and resources to themselves, they’re more likely to absorb and apply it. This autonomy is a psychological boost that can lead to a more motivated and agile workforce.

Is Organisational Psychotherapy More Effective Than Training?

Definitely. Many organisations use training programmes to address performance or behavioural issues. However, therapy—especially organisational psychotherapy—addresses the root causes. It’s not about shoddy fixes or one-time solutions.

Can Therapy Lead to Self-Discovery?

The goal of therapy is to foster awareness and introspection, which can often unearth the root causes of organisational issues. Employees and leaders are given the space to explore their collective motivations and behaviours. This reflective process brings about deeper change, as opposed to simply adding a new skill through training.

Why Focus on Whole Organisations?

When it comes to organisational change, zooming out to focus on the whole system offers advantages that focusing on individuals can’t provide. Systemic issues need systemic solutions. (95% of organisational issues are systemic issues).

Does Whole-Organisation Focus Enhance Alignment?

Looking at the organisation as a whole allows people to identify areas where it’s out of sync. By understanding how departments and teams interact, organisations get a better sense of where inefficiencies and conflicts arise. Solutions designed with the entire organisation in mind are more likely to be effective and sustainable.

Final Thoughts

So why pull over push, therapy over training, and a focus on whole organisations? The answer lies in creating a culture of autonomy, digging deep to uncover root causes, and ensuring systemic alignment. These strategies are tailored to the complexities of modern organisations and offer a more sustainable path to improvement.

Who Was Mary Parker Follett?

Mary Parker Follett, a management theorist who lived between 1868 and 1933, made groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of human relations, organisational structure, and conflict resolution. While other luminaries like Frederick Taylor and Max Weber often overshadow her, her work remains an important cornerstone in organisational studies.

What Did Follett Believe?

Follett’s work emphasised the human aspects of management. She promoted concepts like “power-with” rather than “power-over” and touted the significance of “group mind” or collective consciousness. For her, organisations thrived when their members shared power and collectively contributed to solutions. Her ideas laid a strong foundation for understanding the dynamics that occur within a group, a foundation that has influenced the field of organisational psychotherapy.

How Does Follett’s Work Relate to Organisational Psychotherapy?

The core tenets of Follett’s philosophy, such as collective consciousness and the collaborative model of power, overlap significantly with organisational psychotherapy. Both approaches focus on the importance of understanding the deep-seated beliefs, assumptions, and behaviours that form the bedrock of an organisation. Like Follett, organisational psychotherapy also believes in delving into the collective unconscious of an organisation to bring about systemic change.

Why Is the Group Mind Important?

In the language of organisational psychotherapy, Follett’s notion of a “group mind” would translate into the collective unconscious. This is an aggregate of shared assumptions, beliefs, and practices that shape the culture and functioning of an organisation. Recognising and addressing these aspects can significantly influence an organisation’s ability to change, adapt, and grow.

How Did Follett Anticipate Systems Thinking?

Before the term “systems thinking” became mainstream, Mary Parker Follett was already sowing its seeds. Her perception of the organisation as an interconnected web of relationships aligns perfectly with the modern understanding of systems thinking. She recognised that an organisation was not merely a collection of disparate parts but a complex system where every action had a ripple effect. Her focus on collaboration and “group mind” naturally extended to a holistic view of organisational dynamics, underscoring the interdependence of individual and collective actions. It’s clear that her work prefigured key aspects of systems thinking, making her an intellectual precursor to this influential modern discipline. Follett’s early insights offer valuable lessons for organisational psychotherapy, which also employs systems thinking to address the underlying issues affecting an organisation.

What Can We Learn from Follett Today?

Mary Parker Follett’s work, despite being a century old, offers a rich vein of ideas that organisations can tap into for modern problem-solving. For instance, her concept of “integrative conflict resolution” aligns with organisational psychotherapy’s goal to solve systemic issues by surfacing and addressing shared assumptions and beliefs.

The Next Step: An Explicit Invitation

Are you interested in exploring your organisation’s collective unconscious? Delving into your shared assumptions and beliefs? Your next step might be to consult an organisational psychotherapist. This is an explicit invitation to leverage Mary Parker Follett’s timeless wisdom for your organisation’s benefit.

Are Results Guaranteed?

While it’s impractical to guarantee outcomes in organisational change, the synergy between Follett’s philosophy and organisational psychotherapy provides a strong framework for effective transformation. By focusing on the collective aspects that shape behaviour and culture, you’re far more likely to achieve meaningful, lasting change.

Your Move

Mary Parker Follett offers us time-tested wisdom that aligns seamlessly with the objectives of organisational psychotherapy. If you’re looking to explore these ideas further, consulting an organisational psychotherapist might be your next best step. The choice is yours, but this is your invitation to take action.

Summary

Mary Parker Follett may not be as famous as some of her contemporaries, but her work remains profoundly relevant. It resonates strongly with the principles of organisational psychotherapy, offering a holistic approach to organisational development focused on collective consciousness and collaboration. The fusion of Follett’s ideas with organisational psychotherapy provides an enriching path for any organisation willing to explore deeper layers of its culture and operation.