Archive

Business

Universal Incompetence: Navigating Times of Rapid Change

We hear constantly that we live in an era of rapid technological, social, and economic change. With each passing year, new knowledge, innovations and disruptions reshape the world around us in unpredictable ways. In this turbulent environment, it can often feel like no one really knows what they’re doing anymore. Expertise that was highly valued yesterday becomes rapidly obsolete. As a result,the phenomenon of universal incompetence pervades society.

Yet those in leadership positions feel immense pressure to pretend otherwise. Politicians, business executives, middle management, consultants, SMEs, and heads of organisations all desperately try to project an image of competence and preparedness. They spout confident predictions and gloss over their failed responses to emerging crises. No one wants to admit they feel lost and unqualified to lead.

It’s as if we are living in a modern day Emperor’s New Clothes fable. The rapid changes stripping away the competencies of the powerful are evident to all. But no one seems willing to openly state the obvious – the emperor has no clothes. For fear of instability and career suicide, the crowd maintains the illusion of competence at the top.

The great historian of science Thomas Kuhn analysed this phenomenon in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn showed how scientific progress occurs in fits and starts, rather than smoothly over time. Long periods of traditional “normal science” are periodically disrupted by radical innovations that upend existing paradigms. After these paradigm shifts, scientists must scramble to make sense of the new landscape. Even the experts feel like novices, unaware of what knowledge or skills the future may require.

The same pattern applies today outside of science. Technology and social changes are accelerating. Once-useful skills like proficiency with certain assumptions, beliefs and ways of working quickly become irrelevant. Jobs that seemed stable for decades can be automated virtually overnight. Almost no one can keep up with the pace of change or accurately predict what abilities and competencies will be valued next.

This situation leaves individuals, organisations, and society itself feeling lost and directionless. Leaders quietly wonder if they have the right talents and ideas to guide their organisations through turmoil. Educators struggle to prepare students for a future that remains unseen. Citizens feel their democratic institutions have become inadequate and irrelevant for the challenges ahead.

To navigate these rapids of change, we can choose, above all, to embrace humility. The pace of transformation is simply too great for anyone to imagine they have all the answers. Rather than vainly seeking competence, we might choose to strive for openness, flexibility and growth. This mindset will allow us to experiment with new ideas and abandon failed ones quickly as we learn, and as circumstances evolve.

Although the loss of stability is disorienting, it also contains the seeds of opportunity. While incompetence reigns, possibilities abound to craft novel solutions and chart new courses. Our admitted ignorance frees us from old constraints and categories. With a sense of creative curiosity, we can view this time as one of exploration and invention rather than collapse.

The winds of change are blowing fiercely. None of us can hope to grasp them fully. But if we face the future with humility and courage, we may yet build a world where rapid progress need not mean perpetual confusion and turmoil. Even in strange seas, humanity, attending to folks’ needs, and steady hands can show the way.

You Don’t Need Me to Tell You that Software Development is Still in the Dark Ages

Let’s face it – despite all the advances in technology and engineering, software development (and it’s big sister, Product Development) often still feels like it’s stuck in the dark ages. We’ve all experienced the frustration of bloated, buggy, overly complex applications. Software projects that take five times as long and cost three times as much as anticipated. Monolithic legacy codebases that no one fully understands and everyone is afraid to touch.

Common Failings

The root causes of these issues stem from the common failings in our assumptions about how software should be designed, built, and managed. Developers are forced to rely on primitive beliefs, tools and processes that feel ancient compared to what’s possible today. We cling to habits and methods that should have been discarded long ago.

Do we really need to keep building everything from scratch, gluing together frameworks and duct-taping components with code? Why do basic changes still require major rewrites instead of flexible configuration? Can we only measure velocity by lines of code produced, when we know that says nothing about business value delivered?

Ways Forward

There are brighter ways forward. Emerging technologies like #NoSoftware, low-code platforms, AI-assisted development, infrastructure-as-code, and more can provide the building blocks for fully modern practices. Approaches like Quintessence, FlowChain, Product Aikido, Organisational Psychotherapy and the Antimatter Transformation Model help teams incrementally deliver immediate value, not just write code.

Real Change

But real change requires looking beyond the tools. It means evolving development cultures and processes that have calcified into dogma. Challenging shared assumptions and beliefs baked into how organisations plan, organiise, fund and incentivise work. Rethinking what it means to be a great business, and building diverse, empowered teams.

The reality is software delivers immense impact on lives and business today. It deserves to be created with care, craft and state-of-the-art techniques – not left languishing in the dark ages. The solutions are out there, if we’re bold enough to cast off antiquated ways.

Astounding Potential

You and I know the status quo isn’t working. It will take all of us pushing for change to bring work into the 21st century. The potential waiting to be unlocked is astounding. Here’s to no longer building the future with the assumptions and beliefs of the past.

Rethinking the Rat Race

What’s Happening to the Rats?

The rat race, a metaphor for the relentless pursuit of more in a competitive world, is undergoing a transformation. People are increasingly stepping back, questioning the very foundations of this race. It’s not just about quitting; it’s about rethinking what constitutes a meaningful life. But what’s driving this shift?

The Rise of ‘Laying Flat’

The Tang Ping, or ‘Laying Flat’ movement, represents a growing resistance against societal pressures and the traditional narrative of success. Originating in China, this philosophy advocates for a simpler life, less focused on materialistic gains and more on personal well-being. It’s a bold statement in a world obsessed with constant achievement. But is this a universal solution, or does it only apply to certain segments of society?

Bertrand Russell’s Leisure Vision

Bertrand Russell’s essay, ‘In Praise of Idleness’, echoes similar sentiments from a bygone era. Russell proposed a society where work is not the be-all and end-all of existence. He envisioned a world where people have more leisure time to engage in creative and fulfilling activities. This isn’t about promoting inactivity; it’s about redefining the role of work in our lives.

Buckminster Fuller’s Futuristic Insight

Richard Buckminster Fuller, a visionary thinker, adds another layer to this discussion. He famously stated, “We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living.” Fuller believed in the potential of technology and design to provide more with less, freeing humans from the drudgery of labour-intensive jobs. He envisaged a future where people could focus on exploring their intellectual and creative capacities, unburdened by the traditional demands of earning a living.

Are We Redefining Success?

These perspectives converge on a critical question: Are we on the brink of redefining success? The traditional markers – wealth, position, possessions – are in decline. There’s a growing appreciation for personal time, experiences, and personal growth. But can this shift penetrate deeply into our societal fabric, or is it a fleeting trend?

In sum, as the traditional rat race sees a decline in willing participants, we might choose to consider what this means for our future. Are we moving towards a society that embraces Fuller’s vision, where technology liberates us from labourious work? Or are these philosophies merely a fillip for a privileged few? Is this debate relevant in shaping a future that balances work, life, and personal fulfillment?

What is Work?

Yes, Work is Toxic.But what do we mean by “work”. And how often do folks discuss the subject, and surface their individual and collective assumptions and beliefs on why we work? And the alternatives?

Is Work a Necessary Part of Human Existence?

Work, a common trope in human existence, addresses a variety of needs, each distinct and significant in its own right. This exploration unveils six different needs that work fulfils, highlighting the diverse motivations and purposes behind why people work.

Meeting Economic Needs: Is It Just About Money?

At its most fundamental, work is a means to meet economic needs. It’s the traditional view of working for a wage or salary, primarily aimed at earning enough to support oneself and one’s family. This need for financial security and stability is perhaps the most widely acknowledged reason for working.

Fulfilling Creative Desires: More Than Just a Job?

Work also serves as a conduit for creative fulfilment. Here, work is an avenue for artistic expression, innovation, and creation. Whether it’s in the arts, design, or technological innovation, this aspect of work caters to the intrinsic human need for creativity and self-expression.

Serving Social Needs: A Tool for Connection?

Another critical need addressed by work is social. This includes the desire for social interaction, community involvement, or fulfilling a civic duty. Roles in public service, volunteering, or participating in community projects meet our innate need for social engagement and contributing to the greater good.

Promoting Personal Growth: Just Self-Improvement?

Work also plays a pivotal role in personal growth and development. This encompasses acquiring new skills, knowledge, and experiences for personal and professional advancement. Whether through formal education, on-the-job training, or self-led learning, work can be a journey towards self-actualisation.

Ensuring Survival: The Basic Necessity?

At its most basic level, work is about survival. This fundamental aspect involves jobs or tasks essential for maintaining life’s necessities. It’s a primal form of work that underlines the essential role of labour in sustaining life and wellbeing.

Seeking Status: A Symbol of Success?

Lastly, work often addresses the need for status and recognition. In many societies, one’s job or career is not just a means of earning a living but also a key indicator of social status. High-status jobs or careers are often sought for the prestige and respect they confer, reflecting a societal value placed on certain types of work. This need for status through work can drive ambition, influence career choices, and shape one’s identity.

Conclusions

In conclusion, work serves a multitude of needs, from the practical to the psychological. work is a ubiquitous yet multifaceted concept, perceived and valued differently across individuals and groups. While some view it as a means for economic stability, others see it as a channel for creative expression, social engagement, personal growth, survival, or as a parading of status. The profound diversity in these interpretations often goes unnoticed, even among close colleagues, loved ones, team members, and family. This lack of awareness about the varying perspectives on work can lead to profound impacts, both positive and negative.

On the positive side, these different interpretations can enrich workplace dynamics, fostering a diverse and inclusive environment where multiple viewpoints and motivations are valued. It allows for a broader range of ideas and solutions, driven by the varied needs and experiences that each individual brings to the table.

However, the negative impacts are equally significant. Misunderstandings and conflicts can arise when there’s a lack of recognition of these differing perspectives. For example, a person driven by status might struggle to understand a colleague motivated by creative fulfilment, leading to potential clashes in priorities and work styles. Similarly, in personal relationships, differing views on the purpose of work can lead to tension and miscommunication.

The key lies in acknowledging and respecting these diverse interpretations of work. By understanding that work can mean different things to different people, we can foster a more empathetic and inclusive approach, both in professional settings and in our personal lives. This awareness can bridge gaps, build stronger relationships, and create a more harmonious and productive environment for everyone involved.

Work is such a fundamental concept, and yet so rarely considered or discussed.

Postscript

Buckminster Fuller, a renowned 20th-century inventor, designer, and futurist, had a unique perspective on work and its necessity in society. One of his most famous quotes on the subject is:

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist.”

Fuller’s viewpoint reflects his belief in using technology and intelligent design to reduce the need for laborious work. He advocated for a society where technological advancements and efficient use of resources could provide for all, reducing the necessity for everyone to engage in traditional forms of employment to “earn a living.” Fuller’s ideas were ahead of his time, aligning with contemporary discussions about automation, universal basic income, and redefining the role of work in society.

Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher, mathematician, and Nobel laureate, shared his thoughts on work in his 1932 essay, “In Praise of Idleness.” Russell challenged the conventional view of work, advocating for a reduction in work hours and emphasising the importance of leisure.

One of his notable quotes from the essay is:

“The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich.”

In this essay, Russell argues that much work is unnecessary and that modern society could sustain itself with considerably less effort if labour and resources were managed more wisely. He believed that reducing work hours would lead to a happier, more fulfilled society, where individuals would have more time for leisure activities, cultivating their interests, attending to folks’ needs, and engaging in personal development.

Russell’s perspective was revolutionary for his time, questioning the then-prevailing work ethic that equated long hours of labour with virtue and success. His ideas contribute to ongoing discussions about work-life balance, the value of leisure, and the role of work in human life.

Albert Einstein, renowned for his contributions to physics, also shared his thoughts on work and its role in human life. One of his notable quotes regarding work is:

“Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.”

While this quote doesn’t address work directly, it reflects Einstein’s broader philosophical perspective, suggesting that our beliefs shape our realities, including our attitudes towards work and our professional endeavours.

Einstein also expressed views on the purpose and nature of work in various letters and writings. He believed that work should be more than a means of survival; it should contribute to the well-being of humanity and be a source of satisfaction and joy. He often emphasised the importance of creativity, curiosity, and intellectual pursuit in one’s work, rather than mere monetary gain or social status.

His life and work demonstrate his belief in the value of intellectual curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, rather than for practical or financial reasons. Einstein’s approach to work aligns with the idea that personal fulfillment and contributing to the greater good are key components of meaningful work.

Henry David Thoreau: Thoreau, an American naturalist and philosopher, is known for his book “Walden,” where he reflects on simpler living in natural surroundings. He questioned the relentless pursuit of work and material success, advocating for a life that prioritises simplicity, nature, and self-sufficiency.

Oscar Wilde, the renowned Irish playwright, poet, and author, known for his wit and flamboyant style, had his own unique perspective on work. While Wilde did not extensively philosophise about work, his views on work, often expressed through his sharp wit and satirical style, provide an interesting insight.

One of his famous quotes regarding work is:

“Work is the curse of the drinking classes.”

This quip is a typical example of Wilde’s penchant for turning societal norms on their head, using humour and irony. The phrase is a playful inversion of the more common saying that “drink is the curse of the working classes,” which implies that alcoholism is a significant problem among the working poor. Wilde flips this, suggesting humourously that work interferes with the leisurely pursuits (like drinking) of the average person.

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”.

Snowflakes

What Makes Someone a Snowflake?

The term “snowflake” often implies that someone is overly sensitive, quick to take offence, and unable to handle criticism. We usually say no two snowflakes are alike to emphasise their uniqueness, and likewise, each “snowflake person” has their own particular sensitivities and triggers. However, the shared trait among all snowflake people seems to be a resistance to owning their emotional responses.

Is Sensitivity Always a Weakness?

Sensitivity isn’t inherently a negative quality. In fact, it can lead to deep empathy and understanding. Problems arise when this sensitivity morphs into defensiveness, making it difficult for the individual to accept constructive criticism or face difficult truths.

Why Don’t Snowflakes Take Responsibility?

One could argue that the failure to take responsibility for one’s emotions is a defence mechanism. Snowflake people often externalise the source of their discomfort, laying the blame on external factors or other people. This relieves them of the need to introspect or change.

How Can Snowflake People Change?

It’s important to clarify that the term “snowflake” is often used pejoratively and can be unhelpful in fostering meaningful dialogue. But if you identify with these traits and wish to change, consider adopting methods that encourage emotional intelligence and self-awareness. Techniques such as mindfulness, cognitive behavioural therapy, and assertiveness training can go a long way.

How to Cope With Snowflakes?

Drawing a parallel between snowflake people and psychopaths might seem extreme at first glance. Psychopaths are often characterised by a lack of empathy, remorse, and guilt, which is a far cry from the heightened sensitivities of a snowflake person. However, the idea here isn’t to equate the two but to discuss the notion of distancing oneself as a coping strategy.

When dealing with psychopaths, conventional wisdom suggests that the best course of action is to distance oneself, as their behavioural traits often make healthy relationships impossible. Is the same true for snowflake people?

The answer largely depends on the severity of the emotional avoidance and how it affects you. In less severe cases, adopting specific communication methods can improve the relationship. But if someone’s refusal to take responsibility for their emotions is toxic to your mental health, creating distance may indeed be the best option.

Remember, labelling someone as a snowflake or a psychopath comes with its own set of risks, including perpetuating stereotypes and stigmas. The aim should always be understanding and, if possible, rehabilitation—except in extreme cases where distancing oneself becomes necessary for one’s emotional well-being.

The key takeaway is this: While the traits of snowflake people and psychopaths are vastly different, the method of creating emotional distance could be a common coping strategy, but only when efforts to address the issues have proven unfruitful.

Do Snowflakes Frequently Ghost Their Friends?

Ghosting—cutting off all communication without explanation—is a phenomenon often associated with the realm of romantic relationships. However, it can also happen between friends, and it appears to be a common tactic among snowflake people.

Ghosting could be viewed as an extreme form of avoiding responsibility for one’s emotions and actions. Instead of addressing the issue that caused emotional discomfort, the person who ghosts simply removes themselves from the situation entirely. This act often leaves the other party in a state of confusion, hurt, loss, or anger, having to deal with a sudden communication vacuum.

For snowflake people, ghosting might seem like the easiest way to avoid confronting uncomfortable emotions or having difficult conversations. They may rationalise their actions by blaming the other party, believing they had no choice but to make an abrupt exit for the sake of their emotional well-being.

But is ghosting an effective method for handling emotional complexity? In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, it erodes trust and makes it difficult for the person doing the ghosting to form any meaningful relationships.

To put it bluntly, ghosting doesn’t solve the underlying issue; it merely buries it. If you find that you’re prone to ghosting others or know someone who is, consider methods for improving emotional intelligence and communication skills as a healthier alternative.

In summary, while ghosting may be a common trait among snowflake people, it serves as a Band-Aid solution that prevents authentic emotional growth and relationship building. It’s another manifestation of a failure to take responsibility for one’s emotional responses and actions.

What’s at Stake?

If snowflake people continue to avoid taking responsibility for their emotional responses, they’re not only doing themselves a disservice but also creating a culture that shies away from candid conversations and meaningful interactions. At the same time, it’s crucial not to use the label as an excuse to dismiss or belittle people’s feelings.

In summary, while each snowflake person may have unique characteristics, their common failure to take responsibility for their emotions is a limiting factor. Adopting methods to increase emotional intelligence can be a step towards change, fostering a culture that values both sensitivity and accountability.

How Does Ghosting Affect Workplace Relationships and Culture?

Ghosting isn’t confined to personal relationships; it has seeped into professional settings too. Employees ghosting employers, coworkers ghosting each other, and even employers ghosting potential hires are not uncommon scenarios. When snowflake traits manifest in the workplace, the implications can be damaging on multiple fronts.

From a work relationship perspective, ghosting and snowflakery undermines the very fabric of teamwork and collaboration. When an individual stops communicating without explanation, it creates a vacuum that others might choose to scramble to fill. Workloads become uneven, and team members may become hesitant to rely on each other. The lack of closure leaves colleagues feeling uneasy, fostering a sense of instability.

Culturally, ghosting sets a dangerous precedent. If one person gets away with it, others may feel emboldened to do the same. Over time, this can contribute to a toxic work environment where accountability is minimal, and avoidance becomes the norm. This cultural shift can make it difficult to cultivate a cohesive and effective set of team relationships, which, in turn, impacts productivity and job satisfaction.

Companies might choose to adopt ways to counteract snowflakery and ghosting and the emotional avoidance they signify. Clear communication protocols, emotional intelligence training, and robust feedback systems can serve as practical steps in building a culture where emotional ownership becomes more widespread.

In a nutshell, snowflakery has corrosive effects on workplace relationships and culture, significantly more so when perpetuated by individuals prone to ghosting others. Implementing ways to enhance communication and emotional maturity can help mitigate these damaging tendencies.

Footnote

In my own experience, I’ve observed numerous software and other types of teams where both snowflake tendencies and ghosting have been widespread. These behaviours have severely compromised the efficacy of these teams and have even jeopardised projects. This personal observation underscores the importance of tackling the issues discussed in this post, not just in theory but as a practical necessity in today’s workplaces.

Coaching: Anti-Systemic by Nature

What is Systemic Thinking?

Systemic thinking is about seeing the whole picture, the interactions, and the interdependencies within a system. In the business context, this means considering how different teams, processes, assets, and strategies all interact to produce the outcomes we observe.

What Constitutes Coaching?

Coaching, by contrast, is a more individualistic approach. It focuses on personal development, one-on-one relationships, and specific skills. The end goal is often the betterment of the individual, whether that’s a manager wanting to improve leadership abilities or an employee trying to enhance a particular skill set.

Why is Coaching Anti-Systemic?

Coaching tends to zero in on the individual, and by doing so, it inevitably takes attention away from the system. When we look at problems or opportunities for improvement from a purely coaching perspective, we’re neglecting how those individual actions or improvements scale to the wider system. In many cases, coaching may even create unintended systemic consequences. For example, coaching an individual to be a more effective team leader might inadvertently increase dependency on that individual, creating fragility in the system as a whole.

Can Coaching and Systemic Thinking Coexist?

Yes, but it’s complicated. While coaching can be part of a broader systemic strategy, it most often isn’t. This is largely because the methods employed in coaching—individual assessments, focused training, and personal feedback—don’t align with a systemic approach that requires a different set of tools: systems mapping, cause-and-effect analysis, and holistic problem-solving, to name a few.

Final Thoughts

Coaching is essentially anti-systemic because it focuses on individual elements rather than the interconnectedness of parts. It tends to create localised improvements but overlooks and even destabilises the broader system. This isn’t to say coaching doesn’t have value; it does, particularly for personal development. But when considering organisational effectiveness and resilience, “working on the 5%” (i.e. on the capabilities of individuals) seems like a fool’s errand.

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.

Why Isn’t Management Working?

Management, often viewed as the backbone of an organisation, faces its own set of challenges. Despite the numerous management models that promise streamlined operations and workplace efficiency, something isn’t quite right. Surprisingly, the dissatisfaction emanates not just from the employees but significantly from the managers themselves.

What’s Causing the Discontent?

Various factors contribute to the malfunction of traditional management approaches. One significant factor is the constant need for control, which limits everyone’s creativity and self-expression. Then there’s the stress and burnout stemming from never-ending deadlines and performance evaluations. It’s not just the team that’s under pressure; the manager feels the heat just as much, maybe even more so.

Are Traditional Approaches Outdated?

Traditional management methods rely on hierarchical models that do not align with today’s rapidly evolving business landscape. These models leave little room for flexibility and adaptation. While they might have worked in a different era, they fail to cater to contemporary workplace dynamics that value collaboration, knowledge work, and open communication.

How Does the Management Paradigm Affect Mental Health?

Mental health concerns are no longer a peripheral issue. When management methods focus solely on performance, they fail to consider the psychological well-being of the individuals involved, including the managers themselves. Anxiety, stress, and a lack of work-life balance become the unintended byproducts of such methods.

Is There a Solution?

Rather than adhering to management, ever more ineffective, organisations might choose to explore alternative ways of directing, coordinating and resourcing the work. These could include flat organisational structures, self-organising teams, fellowship, and even organisational psychotherapy – to tackle inherent workplace issues at their core. These approaches place people over metrics, and folks’ needs over numbers, thereby leading to a more humane working environment.

Is Change Really Possible?

Change often mets with resistance, especially when it threatens conventions and long-standing practices. However, the increasing awareness of the limitations of conventional management is a signal that change isn’t just needed; it’s inevitable. As more organisations shift their focus from stability, conformance and costs, to overall well-being, we may finally see that management isn’t working, and this has been so for a long time now.

Summary

In sum, for organisations to rightshift towards be true effectiveness, it invites a profound reevaluation of the role of management. The shift will be towards more flexible, people-oriented approaches that don’t sacrifice human well-being for the sake of efficiency, stability and conformance. Only then can we hope for a work environment where both the employees and the (ex)managers both thrive together.

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

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.

Corporates Suck: A Personal Take

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.

Why Does Telling Fail?

What’s Wrong with Directives?

We often think that conveying information directly is the most effective way to communicate. However, psychology tells us it’s not that straightforward. When we instruct someone, we unknowingly activate psychological mechanisms that can, in fact, make the message less impactful or even counterproductive.

Why Do People Resist?

Human beings have a strong psychological need for autonomy. When we’re told what to do, we may perceive their freedom as being threatened, leading to an automatic response of resistance. This phenomenon is known as psychological reactance. Instead of facilitating change or fostering understanding, the act of telling can often make us dig in our heels.

Does Age Matter?

Contrary to popular belief, reactance isn’t limited to rebellious teenagers. Adults are equally prone to resist when they feel that their autonomy is being compromised. In the workplace, for example, managers who rely solely on directives find their teams less engaged and less productive.

Can Telling Be Ineffective?

Not only can telling lead to resistance, but it can also be a flawed method for conveying complex ideas or nuanced perspectives. Simplifying intricate issues into directives often results in misunderstanding, as it strips the topic of its necessary context.

What Happens to Learning?

When someone is told what to do or think, they’re less likely to engage in deep cognitive processes necessary for true understanding. The lack of critical thought and internalisation means that any change is likely to be superficial and temporary.

What Are the Alternatives?

Clearly, the traditional methods of telling or instructing have their limitations. So, what approaches can we employ instead?

Is Active Engagement the Key?

Encouraging people to participate in discussions allows them to feel a sense of ownership over their decisions. Active engagement not only satisfies the need for autonomy but also fosters a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. Caution: How often have we been encouraged to participate in a discussion only to find it mere “engagement theatre”?

How About Empathy?

Understanding the emotional states and perspectives of others can facilitate more effective communication. Empathic approaches may include asking questions to explore someone’s needa and views or using reflective empathic listening to show that you understand their point of view.

A New Way Forward

Telling doesn’t work as effectively as we’d like because it often triggers psychological resistance and fails to convey necessary context. To communicate more effectively, consider using methods that promote active engagement and empathy. These alternative approaches respect the psychological needs of the individual and are likely to lead to more meaningful understanding and change.

How Will AI Shape Office Dynamics?

What’s Truly Happening in Our Offices?

Many workplaces are entangled in a web of complexities, often driven by politics, power dynamics, and individual ambitions rather than motherhood-and-applie-pie ideals like trust or shared goals. Given this landscape, AI doesn’t just enter as a neutral tool; it has the capacity to significantly influence these existing dynamics.

Is AI a Participant or a Bystander?

As AI infiltrates more and more aspects of work, its role is anything but passive. Transparency in how AI is implemented and utilised matters. A transparent approach helps to build trust by making it clear how AI influences decisions, from hiring to performance evaluations. This can prevent the perception of AI as an omnipresent ‘big brother’.

Can AI Ameliorate Workplace Bias?

AI systems have the power to either reinforce or alleviate existing biases, depending on how they’re applied and what data they’re fed. To avoid perpetuating stereotypes or inequalities, regular audits of these systems can help identify any skewed algorithms or biased data sets. Implementing corrective measures ensures fairer outcomes.

How Do We Strike the Balance in Communication?

AI tools can risk making interactions among team members more transactional and less personal. A balanced approach might involve utilising AI for mundane tasks like scheduling or data sorting, while preserving human interactions for tasks requiring emotional intelligence and nuanced discussion. This dual approach aims to enhance productivity without sacrificing the quality of interpersonal relationships.

Where Are the Ethical Boundaries?

AI raises fresh ethical questions around data privacy and employee surveillance. These aren’t just technical issues but deeply human concerns that can affect trust and morale. Establishing a clear ethical framework for AI usage can go a long way in reassuring employees that their data won’t be misused and that AI tools are in place to assist rather than monitor them.

Will AI Reshape Office Hierarchies?

As AI gains the capability for data-driven assessments, the entire concept of hierarchical structure in workplaces could face a radical change. If we move away from promotions and role assignments and instead focus on team dynamics and systems contributions as captured by AI analytics, a more egalitarian environment could emerge. This shift disrupts established power dynamics and allows for a culture based on collective contributions rather than individual titles.

What’s the Inescapable Impact?

The influence of AI on the existing dynamics of the workplace is inevitable and multifaceted. It’s not just about technological changes but shifts in culture, ethics, and interpersonal relations. By consciously addressing these aspects, an organisation can guide the impact of AI towards creating a more transparent, equitable, and effective workplace that truly begging to address the needs of all the Folks That Matter™.

Stubborn Managers: Why Unexamined Experience Is Wasted

Are Senior Managers Learning?

It’s not a revelation to say that senior managers have extensive experience and a wealth of evidence at their disposal. But what’s worrying is when this reservoir remains untapped for genuine behavioural change. The failure to reflect on and integrate experiences into action is one of the major pitfalls in today’s business landscape.

What’s the Point of Experience?

Experience isn’t merely a notch on a belt or a line on a CV. It’s a treasure trove of lessons waiting to be dissected, understood and applied. Senior managers often claim years of experience as a merit badge. Yet, many fail to critically assess what those years have taught them and how they’ve adapted. Experience without reflection is like a book left unread on a shelf.

Where Does Evidence Fit In?

Evidence comes from data, case studies, peer reviews, and more. It’s the backbone for any well-informed decision. Senior managers usually have the privilege of having a team to gather and present evidence to them. However, merely acknowledging this evidence isn’t enough. One needs to understand its implications, question its limitations, and act upon its suggestions. Ignoring to do so results in a squandered opportunity for improvement and growth.

Why Don’t Behaviours Change?

Change is uncomfortable; that’s no secret. However, the discomfort of change is often less detrimental than the comfort of stagnation. Senior managers may feel that their years in the industry justify their assumptions and beliefs, thus rendering them unchangeable. This rigidity not only stifles their own growth but also sets a harmful example for the entire organisation.

How to Make Reflection Effective?

  1. Schedule It: Reflective practice shouldn’t be sporadic or whimsical. Set a specific time each week or month to examine experiences and what needs to change.
  2. Involve Others: A different perspective can be invaluable. Peer reviews, 360-degree feedback, or even just a chat with a team member can provide insights that you might not have considered. Organisational therapists are skilled in this role.
  3. Action Plan: Turn reflections into concrete steps. Create an action plan that includes timelines and milestones to ensure that you’re not just thinking about change but actually implementing it.

What’s the Bottom Line?

In an age where being adaptive is more important than ever, failing to reflect on and integrate experience and evidence into changed behaviours is not just a personal failing. It’s an organisational risk. Senior managers, it’s time to tap into your wealth of experience and evidence, reflect on them and personally adopt the necessary changes. Your team, your stakeholders, and your future self will thank you.

The Challenge of Psychological Safety

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.

The Future-Proof Investment

Why Choose Organisational Psychotherapy?

You’re facing challenges within your organisation—perhaps in team dynamics, communication, or overall culture. It’s tempting to look for quick fixes like workshops or team-building events. But for a lasting impact, consider an avenue often overlooked: organisational psychotherapy. This isn’t just another line item in the budget; it’s a premium investment into the future of your organisation.

What’s the ROI?

When we talk about return on investment, the first thing that comes to mind are numbers, metrics, and KPIs. But how do you measure:

  • The morale of your employees.
  • The match (or mismatch) between collective assumptions and beliefs and “success”.
  • The harmony within your teams?

Organisational psychotherapy dives deep into the psychological and emotional aspects of your work environment. The ROI here is a more cohesive, more motivated organisation that contributes to productivity, innovation, and better financial performance.

Does It Suit All Types of Organisations?

Regardless of your industry or size, the issues that organisational psychotherapy tackles are universal. Whether you’re a tech startup grappling with rapid scaling or a long-standing manufacturing firm facing generational shifts in the workforce, the principles apply. Psychotherapists trained in organisational behaviour are adept at tailoring their methods to suit your specific needs.

What Are the Steps Involved?

Investing in organisational psychotherapy isn’t an overnight fix; it’s a journey. Here’s a simplified breakdown of the repeating OP cycle:

  1. Assessment: Surfacing and reflection on existing assumptions and beliefs.
  2. Dialogue: Open conversations within and across all levels of the organisation.
  3. Implementation: Applying therapeutic methods to enact change.
  4. Review: Assess the impact and make necessary adjustments.

It’s not about a one-size-fits-all solution but rather a tailored and continually adjusting strategy using proven methods to bring about desired changes.

How to Get Started?

Choosing the right psychotherapist for your organisation is crucial. Look for practitioners with a track record in organisational settings. Often they will offer initial consultations to assess fit both ways.

Your investment in organisational psychotherapy goes beyond just finance—it’s an investment of time and openness from everyone in the organisation. But the long-term benefits far outweigh the costs, making it a premium investment for your organisation’s future.

Summary

In an environment that’s increasingly volatile and competitive, organisations can’t afford to overlook the shared assumptions and beliefs that drive the culture, behaviours and performance of the organisation. Organisational psychotherapy doesn’t put a bandage on your problems; it delves into the root causes and offers lasting solutions. So, when planning for the future, this is one investment you’ll want to seriously consider.

Actionable Insights

This blog, since its inception (2009), has been all about actionable insights. This post explains the why of it.

Why Actionable Insights?

The term “actionable insights” often surfaces as a beacon of utility. For readers, actionable insights offer more than just information; they serve as a roadmap for effecting meaningful change. But why focus an entire blog on them? Here’s a look at the raison d’être behind such a decision.

What Are Actionable Insights?

Before delving into the importance of actionable insights, let’s clarify what they actually are. Actionable insights are specific, achievable recommendations based on data or research. Unlike generic advice or broad conclusions, these insights pinpoint precise steps that individuals or organisations can take to attend to a need, improve a situation or solve a problem.

How Do Actionable Insights Differ from Data?

Data alone can be overwhelming and, without context, sometimes useless. While having an abundance of data can offer numerous possibilities for analysis, it doesn’t inherently tell you what to do next. Actionable insights distil data into straightforward steps, turning indecipherable numbers or observations into blueprints for action.

Why Are They Important in Organisational Settings?

The difference between organisations that thrive and those that stagnate often comes down to their ability to make informed decisions quickly. Actionable insights serve as a compass for these decisions, providing a clear path forward based on a sound understanding of the situation at hand. The scope for guessing or going by gut feeling is significantly reduced when you have accurate, actionable insights guiding your way.

Are Actionable Insights Just a Buzz Phrase?

Some may argue that “actionable insights” has become a buzzword, stripped of its original meaning due to overuse. While the term has certainly gained popularity, its importance can’t be discounted. The ability to act on valuable information remains a cornerstone of success, whether in business, health, or personal development. Therefore, the focus of this blog will remain on providing insights that are directly applicable.

How Do We Source These Insights?

The methods for deriving actionable insights vary depending on the context. In most cases, they involve a mix of long experience, data analysis, expert research, and real-world testing. This blog aims to use rigorous research and evidence-based and experience-based practices to offer the most reliable insights.

The Bottom Line: Why This Blog?

This blog commits to offering actionable insights because they arm you with the information needed to make positive changes. Whether it’s enhancing your organisation’s performance, improving your wellbeing, or enriching your personal life, actionable insights offer the most direct route to achieving your goals. So, stick around and prepare to act, not just read.

The Catch-22 of Productivity

What Fuels Top-Performing Software Companies?

The secret sauce of top-performing software companies often lies in their willingness to explore and implement ideas that fall outside the mainstream. Unlike many companies that stick to orthodoxy and status quo practices, these high-performers embrace the works of thinkers like Deming, Ackoff, Buckminster Fuller, Goldratt, Drucker, Seddon, and Trybus. They find value in methods and theories that many businesses either don’t know about or choose to ignore. This approach fosters a culture of continuous improvement and innovative problem-solving, setting them apart from their competitors.

Why Aren’t These Ideas More Widely Adopted?

There’s a paradox here: The ideas from these thought leaders are available, and their effectiveness has been demonstrated, yet few companies make the leap to implement them. This is usually not due to a lack of resources or information but stems from organisational inertia compounded by ignorance. Companies often feel safer sticking to conventional methods, even when evidence suggests that non-mainstream ideas could lead to significant improvements. This risk-averse mentality can create a barrier to adopting transformative approaches.

How Do Beliefs Impact Productivity?

The collective mindset or shared beliefs within an organisation can serve as either a catalyst or an obstacle to productivity. In high-performing software companies, you’ll often find a culture that not only welcomes but also thrives on unconventional wisdom. This creates a fertile ground for out-of-the-box methods to take root and flourish, driving the company forward in ways that more conventional organisations can’t easily replicate. If you’re curious, my recent book “Quintessence” catalogues and maps over seventy of the unorthodox memes of these top-performing companies.

Can We Simply Adopt Another Company’s Methods?

Transplanting methods from one company to another might seem like a straightforward way to boost productivity. However, those methods were developed within a unique ecosystem, shaped by specific challenges, goals, and culture. Attempting to graft them onto an organisation with differing assumptions and beliefs leads to misalignment, cognitive dissonance, resistance from team members, and even failure of the adopted methods to deliver the expected benefits. “Agile” is a classic example in this regard.

Has Benchmarking Any Value Here?

Many companies rely on industry-standard metrics to gauge their performance, but this approach has its limitations, particularly when comparing against top-performers who use unconventional approaches and thus metrics. These high-performers often evaluate success based on measures specifically tailored to their methods and organisational beliefs. This makes traditional benchmarking ineffective and even misleading when trying to measure up to these high-performing companies.

How Do You Close the Productivity Gap?

If you’re looking to close the productivity gap, tweaking existing methods won’t be sufficient. What’s required is a fundamental shift in organisational beliefs and assumptions that pave the way for consideration and implementation of radical, unorthodox ideas. Companies that are willing to examine their own culture critically, and to challenge the industry status quo, stand a much better chance of making significant strides in productivity.

What’s the Cost of Inaction?

Ignoring the widening gap between your company and high-performers comes at a steep price. As these leading companies continue to innovate and improve, companies that stick to conventional methods risk stagnation. In a worst-case scenario, they become increasingly irrelevant in their industry, losing out on both market share and talent to more forward-thinking competitors.

Anticipating Folks’ Needs

What is Proactive Attention?

When it comes to attending to folks’ needs, there’s a lot more than just responding to requests or fixing issues as they arise. The best organisations don’t wait for things to go wrong; they actively work on understanding the needs of the Folks That Matter™ well in advance. That’s what we call proactive attention to needs.

What is the Antimatter Principle?

The Antimatter Principle goes beyond simple problem-solving; it focuses on making meaningful connections with others by attending to their needs. Proactively adhering to this principle means looking ahead to prevent issues from even occurring.

How Does Boyd’s OODA Loop Fit In?

The concept of getting inside your customers’ OODA loop can be a game-changer here. The OODA loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—is a framework that describes the decision-making process. By stepping into your customers’ decision-making cycles, you gain insights into their needs even before they’ve fully realised them themselves.

Why Anticipate Needs?

The importance of anticipating needs isn’t just about averting crises; it also sets the stage for better relationships, trust, and eventually, loyalty. A proactive approach signals to your stakeholders that you’re committed, engaged, and focused on their success, not just your own.

Practical Steps for Anticipation

So how do you go about it? You can begin by listening deeply, not just to what people are saying but also to what’s left unsaid. Collect data that provides insights into behaviour patterns, pain points, and preferences. Combine this with active engagement to fine-tune your understanding of what really matters to the people involved.

Results of Being Proactive

Organisations that are effective in anticipating needs find themselves ahead of the curve. They’re able to provide solutions before a problem becomes a crisis, foster positive relationships, and maintain a competitive edge.

Summary: Beyond Reactivity

In summary, being reactively agile isn’t enough in today’s competitive environment. Foreknowledge of who constitues the set of all the Folks That Matter™ and anticipating their needs allows you to make smarter decisions, foster loyalty, and build lasting relationships. So start paying proactive attention to needs; it’s a change that’s worth the effort.