Archive

Paradigm shifts

Making Tomorrow’s Big Balls of Mud Today

What is a Big Ball of Mud?

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

Consequences

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

The Rise of AI-Centric Coding

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

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

Abstraction and Modularisation Paramount

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

Formalised and Explicit Syntax

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

Pattern Recognition Optimisation

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

Reduced Redundancy (DRY)

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

AI-Tailored Documentation

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

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

AI-Generated Code for Machine Consumption

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

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

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

Factors Contributing to Big Balls of Mud

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

Today’s Factors

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

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

Future Factors with AI-Driven Development

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

 

What Are You Missing Out On?

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

For Executives and Senior Managers

Shaping the Organisational Mindset

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

Transcending Limiting Assumptions

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

For Middle Managers

Bridging Misaligned Beliefs

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

Fostering Trust and Psychological Safety

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

For Technical Workers

Unleashing Pioneering Thinking

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

Fostering Knowledge-Sharing

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective Regulation

Within business organisations, the discourse around effective regulation often becomes polarised, oscillating between the extremes of rigid compliance and laissez-faire approaches. Compliance, typically understood as strict adherence to rules and procedures, can foster an environment of micromanagement that stifles innovation. On the other hand, a laissez-faire attitude, characterised by minimal oversight, can lead to chaos, unethical practices, and a lack of accountability.

However, true effective regulation does not reside on this spectrum between micromanagement and laissez-faire. Rather, it represents a fundamentally distinct “third way” – a holistic approach that transcends the limitations of these two extremes, fostering a culture of responsibility, continuous improvement, creativity, and autonomy.

Redefining Regulation as Principled Action

The third way redefines regulation not as a checklist of rules to be blindly followed, but as a commitment to upholding core ethical principles and standards aligned with the organisation’s mission. This paradigm shift requires:

  1. Clearly articulating the organisation’s shared assumptions and beliefs, including its guiding purpose, principles and values.
  2. Engaging employees in embodying these principles through e.g. dialogue.
  3. Revising policies to reinforce the principles, not merely enforce rules.
  4. Nurturing critical thinking over box-ticking compliance.

By empowering individuals to internalize and live these principles, a sense of ownership and genuine accountability is cultivated.

Organizational Psychotherapy: Fostering Shared Responsibility

Central to the third way is a culture where every member is invested in upholding ethical practices and sustainable growth. Organisational psychotherapy can be a powerful tool in nurturing this culture by:

  1. Facilitating open dialogues to surface underlying shared attitudes and beliefs.
  2. Identifying systemic issues impacting trust and accountability.
  3. Developing tailored interventions to address dysfunctional group dynamics.
  4. Providing a safe space for honest feedback and conflict resolution.
  5. Make attending to folks’ needs a central plank.

Through this therapeutic process, organisations can heal dysfunctional patterns, rebuild trust, and instill a genuine sense of shared responsibility that transcends the compliance-laissez-faire dichotomy.

Continuous Learning: An Organisational Ethos

The third way recognises that effective regulation is an ever-evolving process, requiring a steadfast commitment to continuous learning and improvement as an organisational ethos:

  1. Encouraging the continuous development of improved abilities and intelligence, by reframing failures as learning opportunities.
  2. Implementing substantive, regular dialogue on emerging best practices.
  3. Facilitating cross-functional knowledge sharing and mentoring.
  4. Gathering feedback from all the Folks That Matter™ to identify areas for development.

By making attending to folks’ needs a core value, organisations can remain agile, adaptive, and always improving their approach to regulation and governance.

Ethical Leadership and Collaboration

Effective regulation invites exemplars who embody the principles the organisation aims to instill, proselytising ethical conduct through their actions and decisions. Organisations can champion the third way by:

  1. Exemplifying ethical behaviour in all things.
  2. Openly acknowledging mistakes and pivoting course when needed.
  3. Prioritising ethical decision-making in all communication and conduct.
  4. Actively listening and incorporating feedback from across the organisation.
  5. Fostering cross-functional collaboration on key initiatives.

This ethical behaviour, amplified by collaboration, inspires others to genuinely embrace the third way of effective regulation.

Summary

The third way represents a distinct approach that transcends the micromanagement-laissez-faire spectrum, offering a holistic, principled path centered on shared responsibility, continuous learning, and collaborative ethical leadership. By leveraging tools like organisational psychotherapy, mindset shifts, and genuine organisational commitment, businesses can cultivate an environment that upholds ethical conduct, innovation, sustainable growth, and the highest standards of accountability and integrity.

The Seductive Allure of Command-and-Control

Defining Command-and-Control

In the context of business organisations, command-and-control refers to a top-down, highly centralised management approach. It is characterised by strict hierarchies, rigid processes and procedures, and a focus on enforcing compliance through rules and policies set by senior management.

Under a command-and-control model, strategy and decision-making flow vertically downwards, from the top, with managers and executives dictating priorities and objectives that must be executed down the chain of command. Employees have little autonomy or latitude for questioning directives from above.

The Lure of Execution

We all want to get things done effectively and efficiently. As humans, there’s a deep satisfaction in seeing our efforts translated into concrete results. Whether it’s getting that big project shipped, launching a new product, or just ticking items off our personal to-do list, achievement feels good.

However, in many organisations, the primacy placed on “getting things to work” can blind us to deeper systemic forces at play. All too often, the siren song of efficiency and execution drowns out more fundamental questions about whether we’re even working on the right things in the first place (a.k.a. effectiveness).

Institutional Inertia

The truth is, large organisations are complex systems governed as much by unspoken assumptions, ingrained beliefs, and social incentives as any official policy or executive mandate. The very rubrics we use to measure success – be it revenue targets, user growth, or other metrics – emerge from a particular culturally-entrenched worldview.

Within this context, a command-and-control narrative reigns supreme. We optimise for top-down directives, vertical hierarchies, and centralised decision-making. Goals get cascaded down, while accountability and compliance permeate back up the chain. Efficiency and order and managers’ wellbeing are prioritised above all else.

The system effectively hard-wires this command-and-control mentality. Being a “team player” often means deferring to established processes, not rocking the boat, and falling in line with conventional thinking. Those who push back or challenge assumptions are frequently sidelined as “not pragmatic” or “not working towards the same priorities.”

The Costs of Control

Things get done, to be sure. But at what cost? A singular focus on execution often means unquestioningly working towards the wrong objectives in the first place. It breeds an insular, institutionalised mindset that is exquisitely efficient…at preserving the status quo.

Perhaps more importantly, a command-and-control culture discourages the very creativity, critical thinking, and experimentation needed for an organisation to truly adapt and evolve over time. After all, what incentive does anyone have to question the deepest assumptions that underlie day-to-day work when doing so could threaten their standing, compensation, and career prospects?

Catalysing Change

True change requires creating space for fundamentally rethinking and reimagining what an organisation is optimising for in the first place. It means giving voice to diverse perspectives, nurturing a willingness to exploit fleeting opportunities and take calculated risks, and embracing a degree of productive failure.

Dismantling existing systems is hard, uncomfortable work. Doubly so for dismantling entrenched assumptions and beliefs. It inevitably encounters inertia and opposition from those who are vested in maintaining the current order. But simply getting things done is not enough – we must wrestle with whether we’re even pulling the right levers to begin with.

To catalyse genuine innovation and transformation, we might choose to move beyond blind adherence to the siren song of pure execution. We must create the conditions for all voices to be heard, for first principles to be questioned, and for fundamentally new visions and possibilities to emerge. Only then can we achieve meaningful change.

Further Reading

Seddon, J., et al. (2019). Beyond Command and Control. Vanguard Consulting

The Power of Beliefs

The Impact of Ideologies

If you doubt the power of beliefs, just consider the world’s religions and political movements for a moment or two. These ideologies have shaped the course of history, influencing the lives of billions and driving both incredible acts of compassion and unspeakable atrocities. The fervent conviction of their adherents demonstrates the immense impact that belief systems can have on human behaviour and societies as a whole.

Beliefs in the Workplace

And then ask yourself, why would that apply to people’s lives in general, but not to their lives at work?

The truth is, the power of belief permeates every aspect of our existence, including our workplaces. Our assumptions and beliefs about ourselves, our abilities, our colleagues, and our work environment have a profound effect on our performance, motivation, and overall job satisfaction.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Consider the self-fulfilling prophecy: if we believe we are capable of achieving great things, we are more likely to put in the effort and take the risks necessary to make those beliefs a reality. Conversely, if we doubt our abilities or assume that our efforts will be in vain, we may subconsciously sabotage our own success or fail to seize opportunities for growth and advancement.

The Impact of Beliefs on Collaboration

Moreover, our beliefs about our workplace and colleagues can significantly impact our interactions and collaboration. If we assume that our team members are competent, trustworthy, and committed to a shared goal, we are more likely to foster a positive, supportive work environment that encourages innovation and success. On the other hand, if we harbour negative assumptions about our colleagues or the company itself, we may engage in counterproductive behaviours that undermine morale and hinder progress.

Company Culture: A Shared Set of Beliefs

The power of belief in the workplace extends beyond the individual level. Company culture is essentially a shared set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that guide the behaviour and decision-making of an organisation. A strong, positive company culture can inspire employees to go above and beyond, driving innovation, customer satisfaction, and long-term success. Conversely, a toxic or misaligned culture can lead to high turnover, poor performance, and ultimately, business failure.

Deprogramming: Individual Psychotherapy

To harness the power of belief in our professional lives, we must first become aware of our own assumptions and biases. By consciously examining and challenging our beliefs, we can identify areas for personal growth and development. This process of deprogramming can be likened to individual psychotherapy, where one works to unlearn counterproductive beliefs and replace them with healthier, more empowering ones.

Organisational Psychotherapy: Fostering a Positive Culture

At the organisational level, companies can choose to recognise the importance of fostering a strong, positive culture that aligns with the values and goals of the business. This involves communicating a clear vision, leading by example, and encouraging open dialogue and feedback. By actively shaping and nurturing a culture of belief, leaders can create an environment that inspires people to bring their best selves to work every day. In essence, this process of organisational psychotherapy involves identifying and addressing the collective beliefs and assumptions that may be holding the company back, and working to instil a more positive, growth-oriented mindset throughout the organisation*.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the power of belief is not limited to the realm of religion or politics; it is a fundamental driver of human behaviour and success in all areas of life, including our professional endeavours. By recognising and harnessing the power of our assumptions and beliefs, and engaging in both individual deprogramming and organisational psychotherapy, we can unlock our full potential, build stronger teams, and create thriving organisations that make a positive impact on the world.


*Actually, the emergent mindset may be postive, or negative; growth-oriented, degrowth orients, or other. What emerges is realisation of the role of beliefs. The organisation itself gets to own the direction it takes. The involvement of an organisational psychotherapist does not automatically imply culture change “for the better”.  But it does assist organisations in realising more clarity in surfacing and reflecting upon their beliefs. As Gandhi famously said: “I came to the conclusion long ago that all religions were true and that also that all had some error in them, and while I hold by my own religion, I choose to hold other religions as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu; but our innermost prayer should be that a Hindu should become a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, and a Christian a better Christian.”

Probing the Collective Mind: Organisational Psychotherapy

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.

 

Individual Mindsets vs. Collective Mindsets

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

Schein On

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

For Example

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

Organisational Psychotherapy To The Rescue

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

Summary

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

Postscript – Donalla Meadows’ Twelve Points of Leverage

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

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

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

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

The Hidden Hand of Shared Assumptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Profound Connection Between the Technology Business and Organisational Psychotherapy

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

What is Organisational Psychotherapy?

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

Some key issues that organisational psychotherapy addresses include:

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

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

The Role of Technology in Enabling Dysfunction

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

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

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

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

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

Integrating Organisational Psychotherapy into Tech Culture

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

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

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

Bridging the Gap Between the Technical and the Human

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

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

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

AI: The Real Leverage

What’s the True Value of AI?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands as a beacon of progress in our technological landscape. It’s often lauded for its potential to enhance efficiency in various fields, from healthcare to finance. However, focusing solely on its ability to streamline existing practices might lead us to overlook its true potential. The real leverage of AI isn’t just about doing things better; it’s about fundamentally rethinking what we do and why we do it.

Is Efficiency Enough?

AI’s role in improving efficiency is undeniable. By automating tasks, analysing data at unprecedented speeds, and predicting outcomes, AI offers marginal gains in efficiency. But, is this all that AI has to offer? Peter Drucker, a renowned management consultant, once said, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” This profound statement underscores a critical point: Efficiency in itself isn’t the end goal. It’s about being efficient in tasks that truly matter. Drucker called this effectiveness.

How Does AI Shift Our Assumptions?

The transformative power of AI lies in its ability to challenge and change our individual and collective assumptions and beliefs. It can, if uses appropriately, push us to question the status quo, encouraging us to reimagine our approaches and strategies. Instead of simply automating what we’ve always done, AI offers a lens to view problems and solutions from a new perspective. It invites us to think differently about our objectives, our processes, our practices, and the impact of our actions.

Can AI Reshape Collective Beliefs?

One of the most profound impacts of AI is on our collective assumptions and beliefs, and from there to both culture and practices. In organisations and societies, shared assumptions often dictate the way things are done. AI, with its data-driven insights and predictive capabilities, empowers us to surface, reflect upon, and ultimately challenge these collective beliefs. It can enable a culture of questioning and innovation, paving the way for more significant, systemic changes.

What’s the Bigger Picture?

The bigger picture is not just about AI-driven efficiency; it’s about AI-enabled transformation. By leveraging AI, we can redefine our goals, reshape our strategies, and rethink our impact on the world. This transformative approach goes beyond mere efficiency – it’s about making sure we’re effective – efficient in the things that truly add value and meaning to our lives and societies.

In conclusion, while AI’s ability to enhance efficiency is a thing, its real leverage lies in its potential to help us change our assumptions and beliefs. By embracing AI not just as a tool for doing things better but as a catalyst for doing better things, we open ourselves to a world of untapped possibilities and meaningful progress.

Prompts FTW

What questions are you asking your AI to help with surfacing and reflecting on YOUR personal and shared (organisational) assumptions and beliefs? Would you be willing to share these questions here?

Here’s a starter you might like to put to an AI chatbot such as ChatGPT:

“What questions can we ask ourselves to uncover the implicit assumptions and beliefs driving our organisational behaviour?”

Let me know if you need any help with this. I’m always happy to help. Both with prompts (as a long-standing prompt engineer) and with surfacing and reflecting on shared assumptions and beliefs (as an even longer-standing organisational psychotherapist).

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.

The Deming Way to Measuring Software Developer Productivity

Many software folks pay lip service to Bill Deming and his work. Few if any pay any attention to the implications. Let’s break the mould and dive into how the great man himself might look at software developer productivity (a subset of collaborative knowledge worker productivity more generally).

This isn’t just a thought experiment; it’s an invitation to rethink our existing assumptions and beliefs about productivity.

Why Traditional Metrics Don’t Cut It

If Deming could peer over our shoulders, he’d likely be aghast at our fascination with shallow metrics. Lines of code? Bugs fixed? DORA? SPACE? These are mere surface ripples that fail to delve into the depths of what truly constitutes productivity. Deming was a systems thinker, and he’d want us to look at productivity as an outcome of a complex system. It’s influenced by everything from the quality of management practices to the clarity of project goals, and yes, even the standard of the coffee in the break room.

Aside 1

Let’s not get too hung up on staff productivity and the measurement thereof.

Deming’s First Theorem states that:

“Nobody gives a hoot about profits.”

A corollary might be:

“Nobody gives a hoot about software developer productivity.”

Which, drawing on my 50+ years experience in the software business, rings exceedingly true. Despite all the regular hoo-hah about productivity. Cf. Argyris and espoused theory vs theory in action.

Aside 2

While we’ve on the subject of measurment, let’s recognise that measuments will only be valid and useful when specified by and collected by the folks doing the work. I’ve written about this before, for example in my 2012 post “Just Two Questions“.

Aside 3

Let’s remember that the system (the way the work works) accounts for some 95% of an individual’s productivity. Leaving just 5% that’s a consequence of an individual’s talents and efforts. This makes it clear that attempting to measure individual productivity, or even team productivity, is a fool’s errand of the first order.

Here’s the Deming Approach

So, how would the statistician go about this? Hold on to your hats, because we’re diving into an eight-step process that marries statistical rigour with psychology and humanistic care.

1. Understand the System

First things first, get to grips with the holistic view. Understand how a line of code travels from a developer’s brain to the customer. This involves understanding the various elements in the software development lifecycle and how they interact.

2. Define Objectives

Random metrics serve no one. Deming would urge us to link productivity measurements to broader business objectives. What’s the end game? Is it faster delivery, better quality, or increased customer satisfaction?

3. Involve the Team

The people on the ‘shop floor’ have valuable insights. Deming would never neglect the developer’s perspective on productivity. Involving them in defining productivity criteria ensures buy-in and better data accuracy.

4. Data Collection

We’ve got our objectives and our team’s perspective. Now it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on data collection. But this is Deming we’re talking about, so not just any data will do. The focus will be on meaningful metrics that align with the objectives we’ve set.

5. PDSA Cycle

Implementing the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, any changes aimed at boosting productivity would be introduced in small, incremental phases. These phases would be assessed for their effectiveness before either full implementation or going back to the drawing board.

6. Feedback Loops

You’ve made changes; now listen. Feedback from developers, who can offer a real-time response to whether the changes are working, is invaluable.

7. Regular Reviews

Productivity isn’t a static entity. It’s a dynamic component of a system that’s always in flux. Regular reviews help recalibrate the process and ensure it aligns with the ever-changing landscape.

8. Leadership Commitment

Finally, if you think increasing productivity is solely a developer’s job, think again. The leadership team must be as committed to this journey as the developers themselves. It’s a collective journey toward a common goal.

The Long Game

Deming never promised a quick fix. His was a long-term commitment to systemic improvement. But the fruits of such a commitment aren’t just increased productivity. You’re looking at more value for your business and greater satisfaction for both your developers and customers. So, let’s stop paying lip service to Deming and start actually embracing his philosophy. After all, a system is only as good as the assumptions and beliefs that shape it.

The Software Crisis: A 50+ Year Conundrum Waiting for a Paradigm Shift

When the term “Software Crisis” was coined in the late 1960s, the software industry was grappling with issues of complexity, reliability, and maintainability. The rate at which technology was evolving seemed to outpace the ability to efficiently and effectively manage software projects. Yet, half a century later, we still find ourselves confronting the same challenges.

The Persistent Nature of the Crisis

Most industries undergo evolutionary shifts, which often transform the landscape and resolve the challenges of the past. However, the software domain remains an anomaly. Instead of outgrowing its initial issues, we find them compounded by the enormous scale and scope of contemporary software development. Despite more advanced tools and platforms, software bugs, project overruns, and scalability issues remain pertinent.

So, why is the software crisis still with us?

The Inherent Complexity of Software

Software is, in essence, abstract and malleable. Unlike constructing a building or manufacturing a car, where there’s a tangible product, software development involves attending to folks’ needs through weaving intricate patterns of logic. As the Needsscape evolves, it becomes increasingly challenging to untangle and reweave the strands.

Furthermore, software isn’t limited by physical laws. While you can keep adding lines of code, each new line tends to increase complexity in a non-linear fashion.(See also: #NoSoftware)

The Economic Incentives

There’s an underlying economic motive to maintain the status quo. Major software corporations, consultancy agencies, educational establishments, and even management gain from the ongoing software crisis.

  • Software Companies: Continuous updates, patches, and new releases mean ongoing revenue. “Perfect”, bug-free software from the outset would reduce the push for upgrades and extended support.
  • Consultancy Firms: A continuing crisis ensures a constant demand for experts to guide, integrate, and sustain various approaches. (Ever seen consultants hired to obviate the Software Crisis?).
  • Educational Institutions: The ever-evolving landscape necessitates continuous learning, translating to enrollment in courses, certifications, and further studies.
  • Management: The status quo often validates management hierarchies and roles. Shaking up the software development paradigm challenges established management statuses and command & control dynamics, which many in management roles find unsettling. Where’s the leadership??

The Need for a New Paradigm

While we’ve seen enhancements in methods and technologies, they don’t directly tackle the root causes of the software crisis. A paradigm shift is essential, but what should it emphasise?

  • People: Centralide the role of people in the software process. Recognise that while tools and technologies are marginally relevant, it’s people and teams who breathe life into software. We might choose to prioritise their well-being, motivation, and skills.
  • Relationships: Emphasise collaboration and communication. Siloed teams and heroic individuals exacerbate challenges. Cross-functional cooperation and fostering an environment where diverse perspectives converge can lead to better solutions.
  • Collective Assumptions and Beliefs: Challenge and revisit the shared beliefs and assumptions in the organisation. Often, outdated paradigms persist because they go unquestioned. By reassessing and updating these, we can pave the way for innovative approaches.

#Quintessence

The enduring software crisis mirrors the challenges inherent in software development and the economic frameworks that have crystallized around it. While vested interests might resist change, history reminds us that transformation is both inevitable and necessary. When the software industry finally experiences its paradigm shift, it will not only resolve its longstanding crisis but also unleash unprecedented avenues for innovation.

Further Reading

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Quintessence: An Acme for Software Development Organisations. [online] leanpub.com. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub). Available at: https://leanpub.com/quintessence/ [Accessed 18 August 2023].

Needsocracy: A Paradigm Shift from Merit to Need

In an age of ostensible progress and societal evolution, we frequently find ourselves questioning systems that were once held as paragons of fairness. One such system, the meritocracy, is increasingly under scrutiny. Heralded as the gold standard of societal organization, where power and resources are awarded based on individual talent and achievement, meritocracy is now facing a formidable challenger: Needsocracy.

In a rapidly changing world where the definitions of success and progress are constantly evolving, a new concept is slowly emerging from the shadows: Needsocracy. At its core, it challenges our traditional meritocratic systems by positing that positions of power, responsibility, and resources be earned based on needs rather than merit. But what does this really mean, and how might it change the world as we know it?

Understanding Meritocracy

To grasp the implications of Needsocracy, it’s essential to understand its antecedent – Meritocracy. Rooted in the belief that power and resources should be awarded to individuals based on talent, effort, and achievement, Meritocracy has long been hailed as the fairest system of distribution. By prioritizing competence and hard work, it promises a level playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity to rise to the top based on their merit.

The Shortcomings of Meritocracy

While meritocracy has its strengths, it isn’t without its criticisms. Critics argue that:

  1. A Pretense of Equality: Meritocracy peddles the illusion of a level playing field, where success is solely a result of hard work and talent. But, in reality, initial conditions, family background, and sheer luck often play a larger role in individual success than merit.
  2. Perpetuating Privilege: Far from being the ultimate fair system, meritocracy often serves to perpetuate privilege. The well-connected get better opportunities, the rich have access to better education, and thus the cycle continues.
  3. The Relentless Grind: Meritocracy promotes an unhealthy obsession with perpetual achievement. It glorifies overwork, leading to burnout, mental health challenges, and a society where the worth of an individual is reduced to their output.
  4. Overemphasis on Competition: This often leads to societal stress, mental health challenges, and at times, a ruthless pursuit of success at the expense of ethics and interpersonal relationships.
  5. Ignoring the System: Meriticracy, grounded as it is in the merits of the individual, ignores “Deming’s 95:5” – the fact that some 95% of an individual’s contributions are dictated by the system (the way the work works) and only some 5% by the merits of the individual.

Enter Needsocracy

Needsocracy flips the script by arguing that societal roles and resources should be distributed based on the needs of individuals and communities. Here’s what that might look like:

  1. Prioritising Humanity: Instead of an endless race to the top, Needsocracy encourages society to cater to the basic human needs of its members, promoting overall well-being.
  2. True Representation: Under Needsocracy, leadership and responsibility would be entrusted to those who genuinely understand and represent societal needs. No longer would decisions be made by those detached from ground realities.
  3. Resource Allocation: Resources would be allocated to those who need them the most, whether it’s in the form of financial assistance, access to education, or healthcare. The goal is to create a foundation from which everyone can achieve their potential.
  4. Power & Responsibility: In a Needsocratic system, positions of power will be occupied by those who represent the most pressing needs of society. For instance, if a community faces a severe water crisis, leadership positions will be occupied by individuals directly affected by this challenge, ensuring that those with firsthand experience are making the decisions.
  5. Collaborative Over Competitive: By focusing on needs, society will transition from a competitive model to a more collaborative one. The success of one individual would be seen in the context of the well-being of the community.

Benefits of Needsocracy

  1. Inclusive Growth: Needsocracy has the potential to level the playing field and ensure that marginalized communities get a fair share of resources and representation.
  2. Holistic Development: By focusing on needs, we can address systemic challenges and root causes, leading to more sustainable solutions.

Challenges Ahead

The shift from Meritocracy to Needsocracy won’t be easy. Defining ‘need’ objectively, ensuring transparency, and avoiding misuse are just a few challenges. Moreover, balancing individual aspirations with societal needs will be a complex task. Societies already grounded in catering to cummunal needs – like the Chinese – may find the transition easier.

Summary

Let’s question long-held beliefs and systems. Meritocracy, once believed to be the epitome of fairness, now stands exposed with its flaws. Needsocracy offers a compelling alternative, urging us to consider a society that genuinely serves its people rather than creating hollow hierarchies.

Needsocracy offers a fresh perspective on how we might structure societies – and businesses, societies in microcosm – for the betterment of all. While it’s still an emerging concept, its potential to usher in a more inclusive, equitable, and holistic era of development is undeniable. As with all societal shifts, the journey to Needsocracy will require debate, experimentation, and evolution. But as we look to the future, perhaps it’s time to reject merit as the determinant of our worth and place in society.

Applying Auftragstaktik in Software Development: Fostering Fellowship Over Hierarchy

Auftragstaktik, an organisational philosophy originating from the Prussian military in the 19th century, and more recently the USMC, has found resonance in various spheres, from combat planning to corporate management. At its core, Auftragstaktik focuses on the principle of needs-oriented leadership. It’s the idea that leaders should define goals – the “commander’s intent – and provide the necessary resources, but leave the “how” to subordinates, thus enabling those subordinates’ creativity, flexibility, and autonomy.

However, an emerging question is how to apply Auftragstaktik in environments that seek to de-emphasise hierarchical management structures and instead foster a sense of fellowship. Specifically, in the world of software development, the traditional reliance on junior officer analogues such as team leaders, Scrum Masters, senior developers, or middle managers is evolving. There is an increasing push to build a more egalitarian and collaborative culture, which can sometimes appear at odds with the military hierarchy from which Auftragstaktik emerged.

Here’s how we can reconcile these two approaches and effectively apply Auftragstaktik in software development environments that prioritise fellowship over hierarchical roles:

Foster a Culture of Ownership

The beauty of Auftragstaktik is that it promotes a sense of ownership among team members by providing them the freedom to approach work in ways they find most effective. In a fellowship-oriented culture, this sense of ownership becomes even more profound. Fellowship empowers teams to not only implement solutions, but also identify problems, propose assignments, and provide feedback to others. This fosters a sense of mutual respect, collaboration, and shared responsibility that is central to a high-productivity culture.

Value Collective Intelligence

A fellowship-oriented culture values collective intelligence above individual contribution. Similarly, Auftragstaktik can be implemented in a way that emphasises the strength of the collective team. By articulating clear needs to be attended to (cf. the Needsscape) and allowing the team to collaborate on the means to meet these needs, you draw on the diverse skills, experiences, and perspectives within the team. This maximises innovation and problem-solving capabilities.

Encourage Continuous Learning

For Auftragstaktik to work effectively within a fellowship model, an organisation might choose to promote and value continuous learning. Teams may choose to cultivate their ability to assess their strategies, learn from their mistakes, and continuously adapt. This invites the organisation to provide space for reflection, constructive feedback, and iteration.

Promote Transparency and Trust

Trust is the bedrock of Auftragstaktik and a fellowship-oriented culture. The organisation might choose to trust their teams to devise the best strategies, while team members need to trust each other to carry out their respective parts. This trust is cultivated through transparency in communication, objectives, expectations, and feedback.

Equip Your Team

Finally, for teams to take responsibility for the “how,” they need to be adequately equipped with the necessary tools and resources. This includes not only tangible assets, such as software tools, but also intangible ones such as information, knowledge, skills, budgets, and support.

Summary

In conclusion, applying Auftragstaktik in a fellowship-oriented environment requires a slight shift in focus from the traditional approach. Instead of concentrating on hierarchy and rigid roles, the emphasis should be on mutual trust, transparency, and the empowerment of the team. Such an approach would not only harness the power of Auftragstaktik but also foster a culture of camaraderie, collaboration, and collective ownership, which are at the heart of the fellowship model.

Further Reading

For a complete book detailing the convergence of Auftragstaktik and Fellowship (and Aikido, too), look no futher than my awesome book, “Product Aikido“:

Marshall, R. W. (2013). Product Aikido. Retrieved from /wp-content/uploads/2013/04/productaikido041016.pdf

All Managers Are Morons

Whether it’s in the realm of marketing, leadership, or everyday life, we sometimes stumble upon generalisations that, while audacious, serve to make us think deeply about inherent human behaviours and prejudices. One such claim was popularised by Seth Godin in his provocative book title, “All Marketers are Liars”. Borrowing a leaf from his book, let’s explore the argument: All managers are morons. And yes, I’m serious.

Definitions First

Managers: When we speak of managers, we aren’t just talking about middle-management or those who supervise a small team. The term ‘manager’ here covers a broad spectrum, from team leaders to high-level executives. Anyone with responsibility for directing or overseeing the work of others, setting objectives, and ensuring goals are met falls under this definition.

Morons: Rather than referring to the derogatory term rooted in early 20th-century psychology, we’re defining a ‘moron’ as someone with little to zero self-awareness and self-knowledge. It’s a reflection of our inability to introspect, evolve, and comprehend our impact on the world around us.

Argument 1: All People are Morons, All Managers are People. Therefore…

It might be hard to digest, but we’ve all displayed ‘moronic’ behaviour at some point. Each one of us has found ourselves in situations where we’ve lacked self-awareness or understanding about our actions and their repercussions. It’s a part of the human experience.

  1. Cognitive Biases: We humans are wired with a host of cognitive biases that skew our perspective. For instance, the Dunning-Kruger effect makes people believe they’re more skilled than they truly are. This lack of self-awareness can lead to overestimation and underperformance.
  2. The Blind Spot: Everyone knows someone who can’t see their flaws but can easily point out others’. That’s because, inherently, we all have a blind spot when it comes to self-perception. And this is compounded when lack of curiousity perpetuates this blindness.
  3. Emotional Hijacking: Emotions often cloud our judgement. Whether it’s anger, sadness, or immense joy, strong emotions can lead us to act without considering the consequences, a definitive sign of lack of self-awareness.

Argument 2: Following Fads

Managers, being humans, are susceptible to getting lured by the latest trends and fads. Without critical evaluation, they might adopt methods or tools that aren’t beneficial in the long run, just because they’re currently popular.

Argument 3: Ignorance, Compounded by Indolence

A manager’s ignorance, when coupled with laziness, lack of curiosity, or failure to study and ground decisions and actions in proven theory, will have detrimental effects. It can lead to missed opportunities, wrong decisions, and inefficiencies. We might call this “seat-of-pants” management.

Argument 4: Accepting Things at Face Value

Managers, like any other individual, generally take things at face value. Instead of delving deeper, asking probing questions, or experimenting to discover underlying truths, they accept the presented information, leading to potential misconceptions or errors. Cf. William Kingdon Clifford on “The Ethics of Belief”.

Argument 5: Driven by Self-Interest

Self-interest generally overshadows all managers’ decision-making. While it’s natural to have personal ambitions and guard one’s own well-being, it becomes problematic when those interests conflict with the team or company’s greater good.

Argument 6: The Fundamental Attribution Error

This cognitive bias, widely prevalent, involves attributing someone’s actions more to their character than the situation they’re in. For managers, this can result in misjudgements about team members’ intentions or capabilities whilst holding their own decisions and behaviours to an entirely different standard.

All Managers are People

Managers, be it at the basic or executive level, are humans first. Their rank doesn’t exempt them from the human condition. Hence, if all people have moments of being ‘morons’, so do all managers.

Drawing the Analogy: Marketing and Management

Seth Godin’s claim that “All Marketers are Liars” wasn’t intended to insult every marketer. Instead, he explained that stories sell, and marketers are essentially storytellers who might sometimes stretch the truth for a narrative.

Likewise, “All Managers are Morons” isn’t a sweeping statement of their incompetency. It’s an acknowledgment of their humanity and fallibility, a call for introspection and growth.

The Call to Self-Awareness

The goal of this post isn’t to undermine managers – although I have serious issues with the whole idea of management – but to highlight the human tendencies they, like all of us, might exhibit. Recognising these tendencies is the first step to growth. Managers may choose, especially those in influential positions, to understand these inclinations and continuously strive for self-awareness.

In conclusion, while “All Managers are Morons” is designed to provoke thought, its underlying message is clear: it serves as a reminder of our shared human frailties. Managers, at all levels, might choose to be conscious of these pitfalls, striving always for improvement and betterment, whilst maybe considereing alternatives to the whole idea od “management”.

Further Reading

Hamel, Gary. (2011). First, Let’s Fire All The Managers. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers

 

Coaching: The Pointlessness of Working on the Five Percent

In the realms of leadership and management, coaching has often been synonymous with developing individuals, honing skills, and helping others overcome their challenges. However, this understanding of coaching focuses primarily on the individual – the proverbial “5 percent” of the entire organisational system.

Building on the profound teachings of quality management gurus like W. Edwards Deming and Peter Scholtes, we’ll explore a more holistic approach – one that extends beyond mere individual improvement to effect systemic change.

The 95/5 Principle

Deming, a trailblazer in the field of quality management, and Scholtes, a disciple of his methodologies, both advocated for the principle of the 95/5 rule. The rule posits that 95 percent of an organisation’s performance problems are rooted in the system (processes, structures, practices, culture, assumptions and beliefs), not in the people who work within it. This counters the conventional approach of focusing primarily on individual skill enhancement.

As coaches, we often get drawn into the 5 percent, focusing on individual behaviors and attitudes. But what if we shift our attention to the remaining 95 percent, the system itself? This implies that coaching individuals is relatively trivial and unimportant, compared to the potential for significant and lasting change on offer in altering the systemic factors that influence behavior.

Embracing Organisational Psychotherapy

One way of addressing the system instead of solely the individual is through organisational psychotherapy. This field, an amalgamation of systems thinking, organisational development, social dynamics, and psychotherapy, aims to address the collective mindset of an organisation – a.k.a. the Group Mind – rather than focusing on individuals.

Organisational psychotherapy operates under the principle that the shared beliefs and assumptions underpinning an organisation’s culture have a profound influence on its performance. By diagnosing and treating dysfunctional patterns at the organisational and even keiretsu level, it is possible to effect deep-seated transformation.

Imagine an organisation where trust is lacking. Traditional coaching may try to build trust skills at the individual level. Organisational psychotherapy, on the other hand, will explore the systemic issues that contribute to the absence of trust, perhaps uncovering a culture of blame, or a lack of transparency in decision-making processes.

The Organisational Therapist’s Role

Organisational therapy fits perfectly into this new paradigm. An organisational therapist, in true spirit, does not merely impart useful techniques but instead facilitates a cultural shift, making the organisation as a whole more adaptive, responsive, and effective. The focus expands from individual teams to the organisational culture, shared assumptions, beliefs, and structure – the 95 percent.

Organisational therapists delve into the hidden pain points, communication gaps, unasked questions, and cultural challenges within the organisation. It is their role to create a safe environment for learning and growth, fostering a culture of continuous improvement that permeates beyond the individual to the system itself.

By integrating the 95/5 principle with the support of organisational psychotherapy, organisations can effect systemic change that amplifies the effectiveness of the organisation, leading to long-term sustainability and success.

Do-It-Yourself Help

In the sphere of organisational psychotherapy, one resource stands out for its novel perspective and practical insights: the self-help book “Memeology.” This transformative work delves into the intricate dynamics of organisational culture, likening ingrained practices and beliefs to ‘memes’ that propagate within a company. It serves as a valuable guide for those looking to understand and influence these ‘memes’ or cultural elements in their own organisations. “Memeology” provides a holistic approach to recognising systemic issues and addressing them effectively, thereby facilitating a healthier, more productive workplace. The book is a potent tool for organisational therapists, coaches, leaders, and anyone aspiring to invoke systemic change, offering a blend of practical knowledge and actionable strategies to drive organisational transformation.

Summary

In conclusion, coaching is not just about improving the 5 percent, it’s about transforming the 95 percent. As coaches, let us commit to the profound impact we can make by shifting our focus from the individual to the system, creating a nurturing environment for growth, and fostering an Agile culture that drives systemic improvement.

Maximising the Amount of Work Not Done: The Power of Attendants in Tech Teams

The world of technology is evolving rapidly, and to keep pace, we must continually reassess how we approach our work. A concept gaining popularity in tech leadership circles is the idea of “Maximising the Amount of Work Not Done.”

Counterintuitive

While this may sound counterintuitive, it is a strategic move towards efficiency and streamlined operations. The role of the “Attendant” embodies this principle. Let’s delve deeper.

The Attendant’s role is less focused on coding intricacies and more on recognising and satisfying the needs of various stakeholders – customers, fellow team members, other teams within the organisation, senior management, and the organisation as a whole. The attendants’ goal? To find the simplest and most efficient solutions to meet these needs.

In doing so, Attendants embody the principle of maximising the amount of work not done. Here’s how:

  1. Focusing on What Really Matters: In any project, there can be a multitude of potential features, tweaks, and enhancements. However, not all are equally important or add significant value. Attendants prioritise based on the actual needs of stakeholders, focusing efforts only on work that meets genuine needs. This eliminates unnecessary tasks and promotes efficiency.
  2. Streamlining Communication: Miscommunication can lead to rework and delays. Attendants foster clear, effective communication among various parties, ensuring everyone understands the goals and requirements from the start. This reduces the chance of misunderstandings that can lead to unnecessary work and rework.
  3. Advocating for Simplicity: Attendants champion the philosophy that simplest is often best. They seek to develop solutions that meet everyone’s needs effectively without unnecessary complexity. This can drastically reduce development time, cut down on potential bugs, and increase the speed of product delivery.
  4. Preventing Over-Engineering: By maintaining a sharp focus on stakeholders’ needs and the simplest ways to meet them, Attendants help prevent over-engineering— the practice of making a product more complicated and/or feature-rich than necessary. This not only saves time and resources but also results in products that are easier to use and maintain.

Game Changer

Embracing the Attendant’s role and their commitment to maximising the amount of work not done can lead to more efficient, streamlined operations. It brings a focus on delivering value quickly and eliminating tasks that do not directly contribute to meeting stakeholders’ needs. In a rapidly evolving tech landscape, this approach is a game-changer.

Defying Convention: Bertrand Russell’s Radical Notion in ‘In Praise of Idleness’

In a world where a person’s value is often tied to their productivity, Bertrand Russell dared to challenge this notion. What if, instead of racing relentlessly on the hamster wheel of work, we embrace idleness? What if leisure, not labor, holds the key to a fulfilled and balanced life?

Bertrand Russell, the renowned British philosopher, logician, and Nobel laureate, was never one to shy away from controversy or unconventional ideas. In his provocative essay, ‘In Praise of Idleness‘, Russell takes on one of society’s most deeply entrenched beliefs: the intrinsic virtue of hard work. In a radical departure from traditional wisdom, he advocates for a balanced society where leisure and idleness are not shunned but celebrated. Russell, with his genius for incisive thought and elegant prose, presents a potent argument that compels us to re-evaluate our perspectives on work, leisure, and their roles in our lives.

From Leadership to Fellowship: Expanding Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

In the wide realm of organisational psychology, one theory stands out for its distinctive approach to understanding leadership: Fred Fiedler’s contingency theory. This innovative model, proposed by the Austrian-born American psychologist Fred Fiedler, reshaped how we perceive leadership effectiveness and its dependence on both the leader’s style and the situation at hand.

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: An Overview

Fiedler’s groundbreaking work focused on two primary factors: leadership style and situational favorableness. He developed the ‘Least Preferred Co-worker’ (LPC) scale to quantify an individual’s leadership style as either task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Those who score low on the LPC scale tend to prioritise tasks, while high scorers place emphasis on relationships.

Situational favourableness, the second part of the equation, refers to how much a situation allows a leader to control and influence their followers. It considers aspects such as leader-member relations, task structure, and the leader’s positional power.

According to Fiedler, task-oriented leaders excel in situations that are either highly favourable or highly unfavourable, while relationship-oriented leaders do well in moderately favourable situations. This paradigm suggests that there’s no one-size-fits-all leadership style. Instead, it highlights the importance of aligning leadership styles with situational demands to achieve effectiveness.

Generalising and Extending Fiedler’s Theory to Fellowship Models

Fiedler’s model has been instrumental in understanding leadership dynamics within an organisation. But what if we extended this theory beyond the confines of leadership, into other models, such as fellowship? Fellowship refers to the participation and engagement of individuals in a group who may not be in a leadership role but significantly influence the group dynamics. (For example, Tolkien’s Fellowship of the Nine in his book The Lord of the Rings).

Just as leadership style impacts the effectiveness of a leader, we can hypothesise that a fellowship’s approach – let’s term it as ‘fellowship style’ – could have a similar effect. A fellowship could be task-focused, aiming at the objective completion of the group’s tasks, or relationship-focused, prioritising social harmony and interpersonal connections within the group.

Furthermore, the same principles of situational favourableness could be applied. The group’s cohesiveness, the clarity of tasks, and the influence fellows have within the group could dictate the effectiveness of their contributions. A task-focused fellowship might thrive as a highly cohesive group with well-defined tasks, whereas a relationship-focused fellowship might excel in situations where tasks are ambiguous and the group needs to foster better communication and teamwork.

Connecting Leadership and Fellowship: A New Horizon in Organisational Psychology

Fiedler’s contingency theory underscores the reality that effective leadership hinges on the compatibility of a leader’s style with their situation. By applying this to the concept of fellowship, we open new avenues for exploring group dynamics and organisational behavior.

The extension of Fiedler’s theory to encompass fellowship aligns with the evolution of modern workplaces that emphasise collaboration and shared responsibilities over hierarchical leadership. It promotes the idea that everyone, regardless of their position in the organisation, can contribute effectively if they align their approach to the group’s needs.

From this perspective, leadership wanes and fellowship waxes, the latter ever more critical to the success of the organisation. As we continue to explore these dynamics, Fiedler’s contingency theory serves as a solid foundation, reminding us of the significance of situational factors and the need for flexibility in our approach to both leadership and fellowship. The future of organisational success relies not so much on great leaders, but rather on great fellows.