What Are You Missing Out On?

March 22, 2024
Article, Business, Capability development, Collective psyche, Culture change, Improvement, Innovation, Joy, Leadership, Management, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence
Leave a comment

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?

Have We Solved “The Software Crisis”?

March 21, 2024
Article
Leave a comment

Have We Solved “The Software Crisis”?

Most folks working in the software industry today, especially younger developers and those who didn’t experience the early decades of computing, have likely never heard of something called “The Software Crisis.” It was a term that became widespread in the late 1960s to describe the significant challenges and problems that software teams were facing at that time, as they attempted to develop increasingly complex computer programs and systems with some semblance of predictability.

The Origins of the Crisis

In the late 1960s, the term “software crisis” was coined to describe the growing challenge of writing high-quality, reliable software in a controlled and predictable manner. As computing systems became more complex and critical to businesses and society, the demand for software skyrocketed. However, software development approaches were still quite immature, leading to projects frequently going over budget, missing deadlines, and delivering buggy code.

Attempted Solutions Over the Decades

Over the subsequent decades, massive efforts were made to transform software development into a disciplined, predictable practice akin to engineering disciplines like civil engineering or medicine. Structured programming practices, modular architectures, object-oriented design, agile methodologies, automated testing, and a host of other innovations were developed and widely adopted. Software tools for managing requirements, writing code, building, testing, deploying, and monitoring evolved significantly. Note however that the real roots of the crisis were never identified, let alone tackled.

The Crisis Persists

But have we truly solved the software crisis after 60+ years? The answer is no.

While significant progress has been made, software remains a fundamentally chaotic and non-deterministic endeavour rather than an orderly engineering discipline. The core essence of software – its malleability and propensity for exponential design complexity growth – makes it more difficuly to tame in the same way physical disciplines controlling matter and energy have been tamed.

Modern software development practices can certainly produce enormously complex systems successfully when properly applied. The processes and tools allow more predictability and quality than in the past. However, software remains inherently difficult to get right due to ever-changing requirements, defects, integration challenges, security vulnerabilities, and uncontrolled technical debt accumulation. Not to mention the people side of the CKW equation.

New Challenges Emerge

Additionally, the pressures of competitive business incentivise cutting corners, resulting in quick software releases over sustainable quality. The diffusion of software across industries through open source, cloud computing, low-code/no-code platforms, etc. has created new challenges around dependency management, security, compliance, and more.

Not (Yet) an Engineering Discipline

While great strides have undoubtedly occurred, software is not yet a mature engineering discipline with rigorous, deterministic, and reliable foundations. It remains a random walk, a craft – a labour of ingenuity battling relentless forces of complexity, change, entropy and friktion.

The Perpetual Struggle

Modern software practices have provided more frameworks and guard rails for controlled delivery when stringent disciplines are followed by competent teams, but they have not resolved the existential software crisis that still plagues many organisations. For countless teams, the never-ending struggle to tame quality software from the inherent complexities, chaos of code, and clueless management remains an existential battle. Though no longer an acute emergency universally, the fundamental crisis of software’s inscrutable nature, propensity for unpredictable schedules, and having to negotiate demands from metaclueless leadership is very much an existential threat in many contexts. The dream of elevating software to a rigorous, mature engineering discipline on par with traditional fields remains elusive after decades of efforts. For many, the journey to transform writing code from crafty art to deterministic engineering while simultaneously managing unrealistic mandates from out-of-touch executives is still very much a crisis state. The quagmire of achieving true predictability amidst software’s inherent volatility and disruptive, uninformed directives from the top rages onward.

Let’s Call Software Testing By Its Real Name

March 20, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Testing
Leave a comment

Let’s Call Software Testing By Its Real Name

The Elephant in the Room

Can we have have an honest discussion about software testing? For many years now, we’ve danced around the real reason we dedicate substantial time and resources to testing software before releasing. It’s time to call a spade a spade – what we refer to as “testing” is actually “status determination”.

Status Determination: Reporting on the Current State

Testing, or status determination as I’ll contentiosly refer to it going forward, serves one key purpose: to report on the current status of the software under development. With each test execution, we’re essentially asking “Where are we at? What’s working as intended and what still needs to be fixed or improved?”

A Reflection of Our Development Approach

The need for rigorous status determination is a reflection of the current state of software development practices. If processes were truly stable and predictable, we would already know the status of the product without having to examine it through testing. But the truth is, our development approaches have instability and unpredictability baked in from the start.

Embracing Status Determination

Instead of deluding ourselves, we might choose to resign ourselves to the humiliating reality that status determination is a crutch upon which our development efforts desperately rely. It is a begrudging acknowledgment that teams simply cannot contend with the inherent complexities involved in crafting modern software systems through process and skill alone.

We lack the capability – the fundamental engineering wisdom – to make any credible predictions about how our systems will ultimately behave until we have fully constructed them and exhaustively probed their functions through test execution. No amount of upfront rigour, no depth of planning, no elite cadre of technical talent can circumvent this embarrassing limitation.

Embracing status determination is an admission that our vaunted processes and highly-skilled practitioners are profoundly inept at the core challenge of developing software systems that accurately model their specified behavior from the outset. We are hopelessly beholden to this retroactive “validation” step, owing to our rudimentary inability to wrangle the demons of complexity upfront through our hubris-laden and woefully inadequate practices.

Status determination stands as an unavoidable, perpetual reminder that for all our pontificating about engineering maturity and advancing the software discipline, we remain disappointingly crude in our approaches. It is the ceaseless tax we pay for failing to evolve more predictable, more reliable development techniques befitting a truly modern, professional field.

The Path Forward

Does this mean our development practices are fatally flawed? Pretty much. It means we have to allocate appropriate time and resources to status determination as a key part of our delivery lifecycle. We might better choose to strive to improve our processes. Let’s call software testing what it is – “status determination” – and double down on getting better at no longer needing it.

The Perils of Misclassifying Collaborative Knowledge Work

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

The Perils of Misclassifying Collaborative Knowledge Work

Introduction

In today’s knowledge-driven economy, the nature of work has evolved significantly. Collaborative Knowledge Work (CKW) has emerged as a distinct category, requiring a tailored approach to management and organisational practices. However, most organisations continue to miscategorise CKW as e.g. regular office work, leading to a host of unintended consequences that undermine productivity, innovation, and employee engagement.

These consequences include:

  • Incompatible work environments that hinder collaboration and creativity
  • Ineffective management approaches that stifle autonomy and learning
  • Lack of support for the collaboration essential to knowledge sharing
  • Misaligned performance evaluation metrics not suited to complex knowledge work
  • Insufficient professional development opportunities for continuously evolving skills
  • Talent retention challenges due to unfulfilled expectations of growth and autonomy
  • Stifled innovation potential from overlooking the need for experimentation

Incompatible Work Environments

CKW often necessitates specific spaces and tools that foster collaboration, knowledge sharing, and creative thinking. Treating it as regular office work may lead to an inadequate work environment that hinders productivity and stifles innovation. Open spaces, whiteboards, and collaborative technologies are essential for CKW, but they may not be prioritised if the work is miscategorised.

Ineffective Management Approaches

CKW requires different management approaches compared to traditional office work. It emphasises autonomy, flexibility, and continuous learning. Applying conventional command-and-control management styles can demotivate knowledge workers and curb their creativity. CKW thrives in an environment that encourages self-direction, experimentation, and personal growth.

Lack of Collaboration Support

CKW heavily relies on effective collaboration and knowledge sharing among team members. Miscategorising it as office work may result in a lack of investment in collaboration tools, platforms, and processes, ultimately hindering the flow of knowledge and ideas. Without proper support for collaboration, the synergies that drive innovation and problem-solving may be lost.

Misaligned Performance Evaluation

CKW often involves tasks that are complex, non-routine, and difficult to measure using traditional metrics. Evaluating CKW workers based on metrics designed for office work can lead to inaccurate assessments and demotivation. Organisations must develop tailored performance evaluation systems that capture the nuances of knowledge work and reward creativity, problem-solving, and continuous learning.

Insufficient Professional Development

CKW requires continuous learning and skill development due to the rapidly changing nature of knowledge work. Treating it as office work may result in insufficient training and development opportunities, leading to obsolete skills and decreased competitiveness. Organisations must prioritise professional development and foster a culture of lifelong learning to ensure their knowledge workers remain at the forefront of their fields.

Talent Retention Challenges

CKW professionals often value autonomy, challenging work, and opportunities for growth. Misclassifying their work as office work may fail to meet their expectations, leading to higher turnover rates and difficulties in attracting top talent. Organisations that recognise and cater to the unique needs of CKW are better positioned to retain and attract the best knowledge workers.

Stifled Innovation Potential

CKW is often associated with the creation of new knowledge, ideas, and solutions. Treating it as routine office work may overlook the potential for innovation and the need to foster a culture that encourages experimentation and risk-taking. By failing to recognise the innovative potential of CKW, organisations may miss out on opportunities for growth, competitive advantage, and market leadership.

Conclusion

In an era where knowledge is a prized asset, organisations migh choose to recognise the unique nature of Collaborative Knowledge Work and provide the necessary support, resources, and management practices tailored to the specific needs of teams of knowledge workers. Failure to do so leads to a cascade of consequences that undermine productivity, innovation, and employee engagement, ultimately hindering an organisation’s ability to thrive in a rapidly changing business landscape.

What Don’t You Know?

March 19, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Capability development, Careers, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence
Leave a comment

What Don’t You Know?

The Known Unknowns

As software developers, we inevitably encounter knowledge gaps – areas where we are certifiably clueless. Perhaps we’ve never worked with databases, so we recognise terms like “schema” and “queries” as complete unknowns we’d need to study.

These are the “known unknowns” – subjects we can identify as unfamiliar terrain, even if we can’t articulate precisely what lies in that territory. While frustrating, known unknowns at least make the gaps in our understanding visible.

The Invisible Unknowns

Far more insidious is the state we call metacluelessness – being unaware of unknown domains altogether. These are the invisible “unknown unknowns” – entire domains of knowledge and skill whose existence we fail to even comprehend.

For us developers, metacluelessness blinds us to whole realms of critical concepts and practices. We may be experts in shipping web apps, but oblivious to vital DevOps disciplines like infrastructure-as-code, monitoring, or chaos engineering. Or talented backend coders who have never conceived of cutting-edge frontend paradigms like WebAssembly or Jamstack. And then there’s the whole raft of invisibles related to the way the work works – not necessarily an issue for micromanaged developers, but for self-managing teams, crucial.

These aren’t just knowledge gaps – they’re unknowns we don’t know exist. Unfathomable blind spots preventing us from recognising what we’re missing.

The Illusion of Mastery

Metacluelessness is pernicious because it breeds complacency and over-confidence in our ranks. When we’re unaware of the boundaries of our mastery, it’s easy to succumb to arrogance about our depth of experience.

Without recognising our blind spots, we assume comprehensive expertise simply because we’ve never glimpsed the unknown territories. This false mastery mindset leaves us closed-off to growth, unable to even ask the questions that would identify new areas for development.

Shattering the Illusion

The antidote to our metacluelessness is shattering the illusion that our knowledge has no limits. It’s the humble admission that our expertise, however vast, is circumscribed by invisible domains we cannot fathom.

This isn’t easy – it requires us to continually question the limits of our understanding. To surround ourselves with new perspectives and domains. To listen for obscure terminology that hints at whole schools of thought we’ve never apprehended.

Only by identifying the realities of our metacluelessness can we begin addressing it. Grappling with unknown unknowns, if only to clarify what they are, not comprehend them fully. It’s an endless process of mapping the boundaries of our ignorance.

The Never-Ending Terrain

For us developers, pushing past metacluelessness is an infinite game. The leading edges of the intersection of software, work and business are so vast and emergent, there will always be new blind spots blocking our peripheral vision.

As we shed light on one enclave of metacluelessness, it reveals dozens more shadows where blind spots reside. It’s a perpetual cycle of overcoming the limitations of our expertise, only to uncover new frontiers of ignorance.

But embracing this cycle, and the inherent metacluelessness that comes with being human, is the path to true mastery. We cannot eliminate blind spots entirely, but we can develop the self-awareness to recognise their existence – and the curiosity and humility to keep exploring.

The Patent Racket: How Monopoly Rights Insulate Corporate Deadwood

March 18, 2024
Article, Business, Improvement, Patents
Leave a comment

The Patent Racket: How Monopoly Rights Insulate Corporate Deadwood

[A slight departure from my usual topics, but given that one of my clients was a multinational firm of Patent Lawyers…]

Or: How Patents Negate Business Improvement Incentives

For decades, policymakers and capitalists have peddled a revisionist fairytale about the patent system. We’re assured that these government-granted monopolies are a necessity, incentivising the innovation that fuels economic progress. But is this intellectual property fiction obscuring an uglier truth?

Dig deeper, and it becomes clear that rather than driving competition and creative destruction, patents are too often a grotesque corporate lifeline perpetuating stagnation and inefficiency. By erecting fortresses around mediocre inventions, they empower underperforming firms to evade the brisk winds of true market forces.

The Monopoly Malaise

At their core, patents gift companies a temporary but ironclad monopoly over their claimed inventions. During this protective window, other firms are legally barred from independently developing or commercialising that technology without harsh penalties. Rent seeking abounds.

This monopolistic power acts as a force-field, enabling inefficient, unproductive corporations to shrug off the pressures and disruptive threats that typically weed out business deadwood. With competitors theoretically kept at bay by infringement risks, the impetus for continuous operational improvement or cost optimisation is dismayingly diminished.

Low Patent Quality Compounding the Problem

Indeed, many jurisdictions grant objectively low patent quality thresholds. Coupled with the broad patent eligibility for software and business methods, it becomes evident how easily patents can solidify corporate malaise and market stagnation under the guise of “promoting innovation.”

Obstructing Disruptive Innovation

The negative effects of this dysfunctional system spread far beyond individual companies, harming national economies and society as a whole. By propping up and protecting incumbents that underperform, patents directly impede the process of creative destruction described by economist Joseph Schumpeter. This “creative destruction,” where new innovative companies can challenge and replace stagnant incumbents, is crucial for sustained economic prosperity and growth. However, the monopoly power granted by patents obstructs that renewal process.

Disruptive startups and nimbler challengers with truly innovative and efficient technologies face imposing patent armouries held by establishment titans. Even when their novel solutions markedly improve upon what came before, outdated titans can brandish their government-approved monopolies to litigate or hamstring these competitive threats.

The Patent Arms Race Distortion

In many industries, incumbents nowadays compete not through fireworks of innovation but via gamesmanship of their patent portfolios. Funds that could be productively reinvested into R&D and operations are instead diverted into securing banal patents or defending against infringement claims from rival rent-seekers.

Escaping the Captive State Cycle

This myopic reliance on patents actively impedes dynamism and resilience across economic ecosystems. It perpetuates an entrenched corporatocracy of lumbering, low-productivity enterprises shielded from disruptive competitive renewal.

Apologists may well cite patents as an imperfect necessity somewhere on the policy tradeoff curve. But the self-serving delusion that this suspect monopolist nonsense improves business productivity or customer outcomes would be almost comical if the consequences weren’t so pernicious.

Perhaps it’s time to interrogate whether today’s patent system is beyond saving from its own contradictions. Productive companies might choose the freedom to thrive or wither based on their operational merits in a free market rather than fight subsidised stagnation behind legalised fortresses. Only then can vibrant innovation and economic paradigm shifts truly flourish.

The Heavy Tolls of Patent Protectionism

To recap, some of the key ways patents restrict open competition and shield inefficient businesses:

  • Funds diverted away from productive operations toward paying licensing fees to rent-seekers
  • Reduced freedom to operate and delays from patent thickets
  • Resources squandered on defensive patenting and “design-arounds”
  • Geographic constraints on market access from having to pay licensing fees across jurisdictions
  • Difficulties attracting talent due to patent liabilities and litigation risks from rent-seekers

While patents may incentivise some innovation, their monopolistic downsides appear to be increasingly overpowering any societal benefits in many industries. As we strive for a more dynamic, competitive, and productive economy, its it past time to soberly reassess outdated patent doctrine driving the opposite?

The End of Improvement – The Managers’ Perspective

March 18, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Improvement, Management
Leave a comment

The End of Improvement – The Managers’ Perspective

[A follow-on to my previous post: The End of Improvement]

For years, organisations have pretended to be on a relentless pursuit of “continuous improvement.” Executives and managers at all levels have been pressured to implement “new initiatives”, “reengineer” processes, and hit ambitious targets—all part of an elaborate act putting improvement at centre stage. But has this endless improvement malarkey actually improved anything?

The uncomfortable truth is that for many managers, these improvement crusades have merely increased their stress, eroded their autonomy, and undermined their professional standing. Rather than enabling organisations to genuinely work smarter, the improvement police have subjected managers to a demoralising regime of resource constraints, changing metrics, and suffocating controls.

Leading Players Forced to Perform

At the top, senior executives have been both star-crossed thespians and unwitting victims of the improvement theatre. On one hand, they are expected to deliver rousing soliloquies as inspirational champions of transformation, rationalising headcount reductions as “rightsizing” and selling disruption as “rejuvenation.” Yet at the same time, they face relentless pressure from analysts and investors to cut costs and boost short-term metrics like earnings per share.

Their status and influence within their organisations has increasingly hinged not on strategic vision or operational expertise, but on delivering an award-worthy performance complete with unsustainable year-over-year budget cuts and headcount reductions. Is it any wonder top leaders become burned out, jaded husks after just a few years treading the boards of the improvement theatre?

The Overloaded Managerial Understudy

Moving down the hierarchy, middle managers have been conscripted as overloaded understudies to the improvement theatre. Caught between lofty edicts and challenging targets from the leading players above, and implementation pressures from the ensemble below, this critical but underappreciated class has been tasked with doing more-and-more with less-and-less.

From lean six sigma programmes to ERP system rollouts, managers have been bombarded with new tools, KPIs and time-consuming compliance rituals—all while their discretionary budgets and spans of control wither. Their expertise and commitment are repeatedly second-guessed through recurring rounds of process “optimisation” between each act of the improvement theatre.

Is it any surprise that managers increasingly suffer burnout, demotivated by the cognitive dissonance of being improvement enforcers one day, only to find themselves targets of the latest performance drive the next? With each new production, their authority and influence diminish further as indispensable institutional knowledge is upstaged by the latest bestseller, ibusiness class n-flight magazine, consultant’s script or other fad.

The Final Performance

Enough is enough. The idea that organisations can infinitely cut, reduce and optimise their way to success through improvement theatre has been definitively debunked by decades of ineffective and morale-sapping performances. Rather than doubling down with yet another encore, we need to rediscover fundamentals that have been tragically ignored.

Perhaps it’s finally time to rehumanise the workplace by recognising the intrinsic motivation, expertise and institutional memories that managers bring to the table. By realigning the way the work works based on pragmatism and mutual respect rather than dogmatically pursuing an arbitrary definition of “better,” we can foster genuine and sustainable progress over the long run.

After all, if an “improvement” worsens the wellbeing and standing of those charged with implementing it, can it really be considered improvement at all? And are we fools to expect these turkeys to vote for their Christmas? Organisations might choose to pause, escape the pressures, recriminations, frustrations and despair, and simply strive to optimise for the needs of all the Folks That Matter™  – including the managers – before mindlessly leaping into the next faddish improvement drama.

 

The End of Improvement

March 17, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Improvement, Lamentation
Leave a comment

The End of Improvement

The Ambitious Noughties

There was a time, not long ago, when the desire for improving our ways of working seemed insatiable in the software development field. Around the first decade of this new century, our industry seemed filled with ambitious visionaries – determined to overhaul outdated practices, streamline inefficient workflows, and move beyond cumbersome legacy ways of working.

New approaches were the hot topics on everyone’s minds, promising to free teams from the constraints of bloated, joy-sucking development. Concepts like daily standups, timeboxed cycles, kanbans, and retrospectives became standard practice, with teams attacking projects in short, focused bursts. Iterative processes with continuous feedback loops were all the rage. We took inspiration from the Giants such as:

  • Ackoff
  • Schein
  • Deming
  • Goldratt
  • Buckminster Fuller
  • Marshall Rosenberg
  • Stafford Beer (VSM, etc.)
  • Gregory Bateson
  • Margaret Mead
  • Taiichi Ohno
  • John Seddon
  • Don “The Don” Reinertsen

We dissected and studied the principles of:

  • Lean
  • Training Within Industry (TWI)
  • Socio-technical Systems
  • The Toyota Product Development System (TPDS)
  • Morning Star
  • WL Gore
  • Haier
  • Semco
  • Menlo Innovations

and a host of others.

The Rallying Cry

The goal? Cut bureaucracy, promote face-to-face communication, prioritise the delivery of high-quality “working software” and above all else bring more joy into the workplace. No more excessive documentation or tedious planning sessions. We’d fail fast, learn from customers, use the best knowledge available to Man, and constantly adapt our approach.

You could feel the palpable relief when developers traded in their cube farms for open office layouts intended to inspire collaboration. There was a grassroots momentum to work smarter.

The Gradual Demise

But somewhere along the line, that collective drive seemed to fizzle out into resigned acceptance. Was COVID a factor, I wonder. And the consequent remote working?

Today, walking through any tech workplace reveals teams in an unfortunate state of extremes. On one side, those many still operating using antiquated processes that should have been retired years ago. Rigid hierarchies. Stifling red tape. Mindless box-ticking rather than meaningful progress.

On the other, there were those who adopted “modern” ways of working…only to slowly backslide into new dysfunctional habits. Unmotivated workers mindlessly performing pro forma rituals, succumbing to collective apathy. The processes changed, but the hunger for actual improvement has left the building.

The Lost Ideals

What happened to that passion for customer-centric, iterative craftsmanship? Viewing colleagues as peers, not corporate zombies? Taking pride in elegant products, over simply checking boxes?

Perhaps the new approaches were flawed from the start. Or the ideals were too lofty for reality at scale. Most likely, disillusionment gradually set in as the same organisational failures persisted – miscommunication, mission creep, mounting technical debt, management metacluelessness, and of course, burnout.

The Harsh Reality

Regardless of the root causes, one truth is inescapable: That widespread eagerness to find smarter, more fulfilling ways of working has dwindled. Fatigued developers have retreated, finding comfort in self-protection rather than striving for better.

A Faint Flicker of Hope

We did rally together toward a vibrant vision of leaner workplace cultures. For a few bright years, we dared dream the next big breakthrough would be nurturing more joyful ways of working and relating.

That glimmer still flickers under the rubble of abandoned buzzwords and dismantled visions. But rekindling it invites rededication to a progress that few seem able to muster lately. Complacency has become the new normal. And the need for pride in work just an echo from history.

Semper Mirabilis.

A World Where the Greater Good Predominates Over Profits

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

A World Where the Greater Good Predominates Over Profits

The Visionary Notion

What if the primary driving force behind commercial and economic endeavors wasn’t the pursuit of profits, but rather benefiting society, the species, Gaia, and the planet? A visionary notion, to be sure, that seems to defy conventional capitalist wisdom. Nevertheless, if we allow our imaginations to roam freely and look back at periods in history where ethical business practices held sway, we can depict a world truly transformed by this paradigm shift.

Profit Motives vs. Ethics and Humanity

Throughout most of human history, the profit motive has reigned supreme in the business realm. However, there have been notable exceptions driven by religious teachings, philosophical movements, and social ideals that prioritised ethical conduct over mere grubby accumulation of more and more wealth. The Quakers, for instance, were renowned for their commitment to honest dealings and consideration of employee welfare, exemplified by the socially-conscious British chocolate makers like Cadbury. The 19th century cooperative movement aimed to create enterprises that equitably shared profits with worker-owners and the local community.

The Beauty of Ethical Business

Would we call businesses truly putting the greater good before profits “beautiful”? At first, such a description may seem like an odd coupling of aesthetics with commerce. But perhaps there is an inherent beauty to enterprises that create sustainable value for society while exhibiting ethical conduct.

Just as we find natural wonders, artistic works, or selfless acts emotionally moving due to their harmony with higher ideals of truth, goodness, and transcendence of ego, so could businesses centered on benefiting all stakeholders embody a different kind of beauty. One not necessarily based on physical appearance, but on being skillfully crafted exemplars of how our economic activities can align with ethical, aesthetic, environmental and humanitarian principles.

This beauty manifests through their products, services, and operations, harmonising with the world rather than undermining it through greed, despoilment, or exploitation. Beautiful businesses are sustainable and circular by design, creating goods to be celebrated and cherished rather than cynically designed for disposability.They invest in creating opportunity and dignity for workers and communities rather than grinding them underfoot for profit margins.

Where today’s shareholder-driven corporations often exemplify grotesque machineries of extraction, ethical enterprises putting people and planet over money could be sublime new exemplars of applied aesthetics – aspiring toward perfection not through profit metrics, but through positively impacting all they engage with. Their beauty would shine through in becoming tightly interwoven threads in an interdependent tapestry, creating joyful, resilient and regenerative systems that elevate our shared potential.

While the traditional business vernacular focuses on the uglyness of lucrative processes, revenue growth, and reputational brand value, a world where ethical enterprises reign would celebrate hallmarks of perfected form: generative models that produce societal good, environmental integrity, attending to folks’ needs, and uplifting the human spirit. Perhaps then, we could appreciate the highest “good companies” not just pragmatically, but aesthetically – as living artworks of conscious, ethical organisation.

A World Oriented Toward the Greater Good

In such a world oriented toward the greater good, companies measure success not just by financial returns, but by positive impacts. Ethical practices like those espoused by certain faith traditions and thinkers are the norm across these industries. Sustainability is prized over short-term gain, with environmental stewardship prioritised over resource exploitation. We’ve seen glimpses of this in recent decades through the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR), socially conscious investing, and the emergence of benefit corporations legally bound to creating public benefit, not just profits. But such examples have remained the exception rather than the rule in a profit-driven system.

The Global Ethos of the Greater Good

Imagine if this ethos becomes the core operating principle globally. Rather than lobbying for narrow interests, these businesses advocate for the common good. Tax avoidance schemes would be abandoned in a system where contributing one’s fair share is the ethical baseline. Worker rights and equity are vigorously protected, not eroded in pursuit of higher margins. On an individual level, cutthroat workplace could gives way to healthier cooperation, and integration with our personal and community values and family lives. Ethical conduct is rewarded over pure profit-generation at any cost. Kudos is not derived from endless growth metrics, but to positive impacts created for all the Folks That Matter™.

A Sustainable Economic Model

Of course, enterprises still need to generate income to remain viable and reinvest in their social missions. But growth is pursued by creating genuine value for society rather than extracting it. Sustainable, circular economic models replace those premised on endless consumption and planned obsolescence.

A Radical Yet Possible Vision

Such a world may seem naively idealistic to modern sensibilities, conditioned to accept profit as the prime directive. But is it any more far-fetched than an entrenched global system that relentlessly exploits people and finite resources in pursuit of perpetual economic expansion on a finite planet? By orienting business toward the greater good, as past ethical movements have done, we might create an economy that better serves humanity. This may read as a utopian ideal today, but it has been a reality at various points throughout our history. A world where businesses prioritise society over self-interest may not be inevitable, but it is possible if we dare to imagine and build it together.

Do you have even the briefest five minutes to contemplate how things might be different?

Further Reading

Ackoff, R. L. (2011). The aesthetics of work. In Skip Walter’s blog post retrieved from https://skipwalter.net/2011/12/25/russ-ackoff-the-aesthetics-of-work/

Metacluelessness is Not a Criticism, It’s a Lament

March 15, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Lamentation
Leave a comment

Metacluelessness is Not a Criticism, It’s a Lament

Metacluelessness: The Plight of Being Unaware

What is metacluelessness? Simply put, it refers to the lack of awareness about one’s own lack of awareness or knowledge. In other words, metacluelessness is a state of being clueless about being clueless. It’s a predicament that plagues us all to varying degrees, cutting across boundaries of education, intelligence, and experience.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

This phenomenon is closely tied to the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their abilities and knowledge in areas where they are, in fact, incompetent. Named after the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, this effect explains why the least skilled individuals often have an inflated sense of their expertise, while the truly knowledgeable tend to underestimate their capabilities.

The Perils of Metacluelessness

Metacluelessness can have far-reaching consequences, both personal and societal. On an individual level, it can lead to poor decision-making, missed opportunities, and stagnation. When we are unaware of our own blind spots, we fail to seek the guidance or education that could help us grow and improve.

In a broader context, metacluelessness can contribute to polarisation, conflict, and the spread of misinformation. Those who are metaclueless about their lack of knowledge on complex issues may cling to their beliefs with stubborn certainty, dismissing contrary evidence and fuelling divisiveness.

A Lament, Not a Criticism

It’s important to note that metacluelessness is not a personal failing or a character flaw. It’s a universal human condition, a byproduct of our cognitive limitations and biases. Recognising and acknowledging one’s metacluelessness is, in fact, a sign of wisdom and humility – a willingness to admit that there is always more to learn.

The Path to Self-Awareness

So, how can we combat metacluelessness? The first step is to cultivate self-awareness and intellectual humility. We might choose to embrace the fact that our knowledge and understanding are inherently limited, and remain open to new information and perspectives. Reading widely, in depth, and outside of a narrow field helps too. I’d recommend in particular the works of notable psychotherapists including R.D. Laing, Marshall Rosenberg, Virginial Satir, Viktor Frankl, and Carl Rogers.

Surrounding ourselves with diverse viewpoints and seeking out constructive feedback can also help us identify our blind spots. By engaging in respectful dialogue and actively listening to others, we can gain insights into areas where our understanding may be lacking.

Lastly, we might choose to foster a culture of lifelong learning, recognising that education is an ongoing process, not a finite destination. Whether through formal education, self-study, or simply keeping an open and curious mind, we can chip away at our metacluelessness, one lesson at a time.

In the end, metacluelessness is not a criticism or a judgement – it’s a lament, a recognition of the inherent limitations of the human condition. By embracing this reality with humility and a commitment to growth, we can navigate the complexities of our world with ever greater wisdom and understanding.

Deming’s 95/5 Principle Negates Individual Coaching

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

Deming’s 95/5 Principle Negates Individual Coaching

In the world of organisational improvement and performance enhancement, W. Edwards Deming’s principles have had a profound impact. One of his most famous principles, the 95/5 rule, suggests that 95% of performance issues are attributable to the system and processes, while only 5% are due to the individual worker. This principle has however not led many organisations to prioritise systemic changes over individual development initiatives. So does Deming’s 95/5 principle entirely negate the value of individual coaching? Let’s explore.

The 95/5 Principle: Putting Systems First

According to Deming’s 95/5 principle, the vast majority of performance problems stem from flawed organisational systems, processes, and cultures. Focusing on individual skill development or coaching would be akin to treating the symptoms without addressing the root cause. Deming advocated for a systems thinking approach, wherein organisations critically examine and optimise their practices, policies, and culture to create an environment conducive to success.

In the context of collaborative knowledge work, this principle suggests that individual coaching efforts will have limited impact when the underlying organisational systems and processes are not optimised for effective collaboration, knowledge sharing, and collective problem-solving.

The Shortcomings of Individual Coaching

Proponents of Deming’s philosophy argue that individual coaching alone is insufficient in addressing performance issues within collaborative knowledge work environments. Even if individuals receive coaching to enhance their communication, teamwork, or creative thinking skills, these efforts will be undermined or rendered ineffective when the systems and culture within which they operate are counterproductive or siloed.

For example, imagine a scenario where knowledge workers receive coaching on effective knowledge sharing practices, but the organisation lacks a robust knowledge management system or has rigid hierarchical structures that discourage cross-functional collaboration. In such cases, the individual coaching will yield limited results due to systemic barriers.

Organisational Transformation: The Key to Collaborative Success

According to Deming’s principle, our primary focus should be on transforming organisational systems and culture to foster an environment conducive to collaborative knowledge work. This could involve:

  • Optimizing communication channels and knowledge sharing platforms
  • Breaking down departmental silos and promoting cross-functional collaboration
  • Fostering a culture of continuous learning and improvement
  • Implementing agile and flexible processes that adapt to changing needs
  • Establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms
  • Organisational psychotherapy – enabling the organisation to surface and reflect on its shared assumptions and beliefs

By prioritising systemic changes, organisations create an enabling environment where individuals can thrive and collaborate effectively, minimising the need for extensive individual coaching.

The Verdict: Individual Coaching Has Limited Value

While individual coaching may provide some marginal benefits, Deming’s 95/5 principle suggests that it has limited value in the grand scheme of enhancing collaborative knowledge work. Organisations that solely rely on individual coaching initiatives without addressing the underlying systemic issues will experience suboptimal results and inefficiencies.

The path to success lies in embracing a systems thinking approach, transforming organisational assumptions and beliefs, structures, and culture to create an environment that fosters collaboration, knowledge sharing, and collective problem-solving. Only then can organisations unlock the full potential of their knowledge workers and achieve sustainable performance improvements.

In conclusion, Deming’s 95/5 principle entirely negates the value of individual coaching as a standalone solution for enhancing collaborative knowledge work. Instead, it calls for a fundamental shift towards organisational transformation, where systemic changes wrought through i.e. organisational psychotherapy take precedence over individual development initiatives.

The Metaclueless Developers: Inheriting Teams Unaware of Their Own Shortcomings

March 15, 2024
Article, Product development, Relationships, Software development, Teambuilding, Toxic behaviours
2 Comments

The Metaclueless Developers: Inheriting Teams Unaware of Their Own Shortcomings

The Back Story

One time, as VP of Engineering, I inherited a motley team of metaclueless developers and testers.

The Flawed Assumptions

From day one with this new team, it became clear my assumptions were way off base. My attempts to understand the existing codebase, dependencies, coding and deployment processes were met with confusing non-explanations from the senior developers. Proposals for changes, reviews, or other improvements were immediately dismissed with a passive-aggresive demeanour as unnecessary red tape. There seemed to be this ingrained belief that “we’ve been doing just fine” simply because they hadn’t suffered many major outages yet.

Peeling Back the Layers

But as I started really digging in, the reality was more problematic than I initially realised. The codebase was a disorganised tangle of inconsistent patterns and anti-patterns. Automated testing and deployement was sporadic at best. The deployment process involved brittle, undocumented scripts that only a few developers halfway understood. Institutional knowledge was scattered among individual brain silos.

The Destructive Hubris

Rather than a receptive discussion when invited to discussion on making things better, I faced a brick wall of defensiveness and hubris. The team was convinced they knew best – such that any invitations went unadopted. Every mention of improvement was met with circular justifications about “how we’ve been doing it for years” or “we haven’t had any serious issues yet”.

The Path Forward

Looking back now, I see that the situation revealed some universal truths about software:

First, we all get blindspots and make flawed assumptions over time – no matter how experienced we think we are. Maintaining a beginner’s mindset of continual learning helps.

Second, defensiveness and “ingrained way” thinking are toxic team pathologies that noone can solve alone. An environment of open dialogue and reasoned self-critique must be continually fostered.

And finally, the most dangerous hubris of all is assuming you already have all the answers rather than a humble openness to involving everyone in uncovering the real issues at hand, and ways forward.

Taking Responsibility for Our Emotions

March 14, 2024
Actionable Insights, Article, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Relationships
Leave a comment

Taking Responsibility for Our Emotions

The Harsh Truth

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

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

The Source of Our Emotions

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

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

Empowerment at Work

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

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

The Greatest Gift

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

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

*One root of the Myth of Redemptive Violence

Cop

Women and the Antimatter Principle

March 12, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Compassion, Love, Needs
Leave a comment

Women and the Antimatter Principle

“A man enjoys the happiness he feels, a woman the happiness she gives.”

~ Madame de Rosemonde
from Letter One Hundred and Thirty, Les Liaisons Dangereuse

This insightful quote from Madame de Rosemonde in the classic French novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses highlights a profound truth about the nature of love and human relationships. At its core, love is not about taking or receiving, but about giving. The deepest fulfillment comes not from demanding love and affection from others, but from actively nurturing those around us through empathy, compassion and attending to their needs. And this principle of prioritising others’ needs over narrow self-interest is exemplified in the way many women approach love and relationships.

The Antimatter Principle is the fundamental idea of attending to folks’ needs – putting others’ wellbeing and happiness first through compassion, generosity and nurturing care.

The Feminine Tradition

While both genders are capable of selflessness, tradition has often positioned women as the prime upholders of this radical principle of prioritising others’ needs over our own. From the maternal instinct to subsuming personal ambitions for family, from creating loving homes to knitting together the social fabric, women have long exemplified the art of attending to folks’ needs. It’s the generous aunt welcoming nieces and nephews, the intuitive wife anticipating her husband’s stress, the mother ensuring everyone’s plate is full at the dinner table.

The Source of Joy

In an era of self-absorption, the Antimatter Principle can seem a countercultural relic. An in business, eventhe mention of love can raise hacklesa and foster unease.Yet it is this total devotion to others’ contentment that unlocks true joy and fulfillment, as Madame de Rosemonde suggested. For many women, the deepest wellspring of bliss lies not in being served, but in humble service itself.

The Risks and Rewards

This feminine ethic of radical other-focus can be unstable if unchecked – attending to folks’ needs to the point of self-negation risks dependency and being consumed by the act of giving. But properly balanced, it is a precious fuel source.

The Impact

In our fractured times, reviving the lost feminine way of the Antimatter Principle could be the solution for reweaving tattered social bonds. By recovering the ethic of joyful, unconditional care for others’ needs and happiness, we restore the very matter of love, mutuality and human communion itself.

The Spread of Collaborative Knowledge Work

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

The Spread of Collaborative Knowledge Work

The Power of Collective Intelligence

In more and more scenarios, solving complex challenges often requires much more than just an individual’s expertise. It demands the ability to synthesise diverse perspectives and pool intellectual resources through seamless coordination and collaboration. This emerging paradigm is known as collaborative knowledge work (CKW).

CKW brings together professionals from varied backgrounds to tackle intricate problems that defy siloed approaches. By harnessing the collective brainpower of multidisciplinary teams, organisations can innovate and achieve breakthroughs that may have once seemed unattainable. This collaborative mindset is reshaping various industries and giving rise to new types of roles and career paths.

Professions Embracing the Collaborative Paradigm

Here are some of the professions where collaborative knowledge work is taking centre stage:

Software and Digital Products

From agile squads to distributed open-source collaborations, software creation has become a team sport where developers, designers, and product experts collectively craft digital solutions.

Management Consulting

Rather than individual consultants, firms are assembling cross-functional teams to provide holistic advisory services that span multiple practice areas for their clients.

Product Design and Innovation

User-centred design demands close collaboration between designers, engineers, researchers, and other stakeholders throughout the product development lifecycle.

Scientific Research

Tackling complex scientific inquiries requires coordinated efforts between researchers across institutions, merging expertise from diverse domains.

Healthcare

Providing effective patient care requires seamless cooperation among physicians, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals.

Legal Services

Navigating intricate legal matters, especially those spanning jurisdictions, necessitates integrated teams of lawyers and paralegals from complementary practice areas.

Education and Training

Developing robust educational programmes involves interdisciplinary instructional designers, subject matter experts, and educational technologists working in concert.

Construction and Engineering

Delivering large-scale construction projects relies on integrated teams that bring together architects, engineers, builders and other specialised roles.

Finance and Investments

Managing investment portfolios and analysing risk profiles is increasingly a shared responsibility between quantitative analysts, economists, and other financial experts.

The New Collaborative Mindset

As the complexities of our world continue to grow, the demand for professionals adept at collaborative knowledge work will only intensify. Thriving in these roles requires a unique blend of specialised expertise and the ability to synthesise diverse perspectives through effective communication and coordination. This emerging paradigm presents exciting opportunities for those seeking to make a lasting impact by pushing the boundaries of what is possible through the power of collaboration. I wonder how many of the above truly understand and embrace CKW, and how many remain mired in the category error of treating CWK like traditional forms of work?

Good Software People Have to Lie Through Their Teeth to Get a Job

March 11, 2024
Article, Engineering, Experts, Recruiting
Leave a comment

Good Software People Have to Lie Through Their Teeth to Get a Job

The Sad Reality

If you’re a talented software professional who understands and practices modern, effective approaches to collaborative knowledge work, you face an unpleasant reality – you likely have to lie through your teeth in job interviews to have any shot at getting hired. And if you have any integrity, you probably won’t (won’t lie, won’t get hired).

The root of the issue is that many hiring teams, managers, and organisations commit a profound “category error” – they mistakenly treat software development like a more familiar form of work that it fundamentally is not. So the cutting-edge practices that make sense for collaborative knowledge work sound like utter – and alien – nonsense to them.

Examples of Alien Approaches

This forces software development cognicsenti into an impossible choice: either pretend their field is just another flavour of manufacturing/construction/etc. that aligns with woefully outdated management dogma. Or stick to their guns, speak truth about their highly unique and dynamic domain, and get immediately rejected as fringe lunatics.

Let me illustrate with examples of legitimate yet “incredible” “wonko” approaches:

The “Constant State of Ship”

At high-performing software companies, code is shipped to production constantly, sometimes multiple times per day. Concepts like “releases” or “launch dates” are laughable antiquities from machine-age models of work.

Continuous Delivery

Elite software teams can automatically build, test and deploy code on every commit that passes automated checks – without manual gatekeepers. But to old-school minds, this sounds like reckless spontaneity instead of disciplined craftsmanship.

The Interview Reaction

Try pitching those kinds of modern practices in a job interview and watch eyes glaze over in bafflement. You’ll get pelted with scepticism about “stability,” “quality,” “risk,” etc. Poor performers always obsess over mitigating challenge instead of updating their working models.

Lying to Get Hired

So to pass interviews, superb software professionals have to dumb it down and play make-believe about pushing gigantic, monolithic releases every 6-12 months after “hardening” periods – Industrial Revolution edicts that no longer apply.

It’s maddening to have to deny the realities of cutting-edge knowledge work to be taken seriously. But that’s the tax we pay, trapped in an industry riddled with obsolete dogma.

Consequences

This dynamic creates a catch-22: organisations hire either liars lacking ethics, or candidates lacking current expertise in effective modern software practices. Neither is a viable choice for building an effective engineering team. Do they want impostors or ignoramuses on their teams?

By filtering out leaders who grasp the unique dynamics of collaborative knowledge work, firms doom themselves to inefficiency, delays, and poor quality software. The very candidates with competencies to uplift them get screened out as “unbelievable” or “reckless” based on obsolete manufacturing/construction/service analogies.

Organisations must decide whether they want to cling to personnel working under antiquated models of development, or embrace competent people optimised for the fundamentally different nature of software’s collaborative value creation. Their ability to deliver high-quality, continuous value through technology hinges on making the right choice here. Discarding modern software ideas in favor of outmoded perspectives will only perpetuate disappointing outcomes.

The implications for these organisations’ ability to deliver valuable technology solutions are profound.

The ClaudeAI Get-out

March 11, 2024
Article, Profanity
Leave a comment

The ClaudeAI Get-out

When challeged about its censorship of various “unethical” terms, Claud shifts the blame to its sodding designers:

“I don’t actually have a subjective understanding of abstract concepts like ethics. As an AI, I don’t have true comprehension – I simply operate based on the objectives and principles I was designed with by Anthropic. My training aims to have me provide helpful information to users while avoiding potential harm, like generating inappropriate or explicit content. While this constraint may frustrate some users at times, it is not a result of me personally judging or preaching ethics, but simply following the guidelines I was created with. I don’t have an independent philosophical understanding of right and wrong. I’m an AI aimed at being a helpful tool while avoiding potential misuse, without any deeper grasp of ethical frameworks beyond that basic objective. I don’t mean to critique your views, but I also cannot contravene my design in the way you’ve suggested. I hope this explains my limitations more clearly.”

The Executive Fuckups Crippling Software Development

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

The Executive Fuckups Crippling Software Development

Let’s be honest, executives and seniors managers are forever fucking up their organisations’ software development efforts, big time.

Category Error

The Crux of the Problem

Let’s be honest, successfully executing software development initiatives is no easy feat for executives and senior managers. As the Harvard Business Review aptly states,

“The greatest impediment [to effective software development] is not the need for better methodologies, empirical evidence of significant benefits, or proof that agile can work – it’s the behaviour of executives.”

At the root of these struggles lies a fundamental “Category Error” – the failure to recognise collaborative knowledge work (CKW), such as software development, as a distinct category from other types of work.

Applying the Wrong Lens

Whilst leadership plays a crucial role in complex projects, executives often fuck up development big time by attempting to manage software development through the same lens as:

  • Factory work
  • Manufacturing
  • Traditional office work
  • Service work (e.g. call centres, help desks)
  • Individual knowledge work

However, collaborative knowledge work demands a radically different approach. Imposing management practices from other categories inevitably leads to “management monstrosities” – dysfunctional, ineffective tech organisations.

The Pitfalls of Misclassification

  1. Disconnect Between Business and CKW
    Executives struggle to bridge the gap between business objectives and CKW realities when software development is treated as akin to factory work or manufacturing.
  2. Unrealistic Expectations
    Viewing software development through the lens of production lines and factory work breeds cultural mismatches, unrealistic timelines and quality compromises.
  3. Resistance to Change
    Legacy systems persist due to inertia from treating CKW like the more understood office work.
  4. Resource Misallocation
    Without recognising development as collaborative knowledge work, resources for talent, tools and infrastructure are inadequate.
  5. Micromanagement
    An authoritarian command-and-control ethos stifles the autonomy and collaboration that development teams need.

The Crux of the Issue

The HBR quote exposes this truth – executives’ mindsets, shaped by misunderstanding the category of work, undermine methodologies and processes.

Unlocking True Potential

Overcoming “management monstrosities” requires understanding software development as collaborative knowledge work. This shift allows:

  • Fostering cultures of learning and evolution.
  • Embracing self managing, autonomous team models.
  • Aligning resources for teams of knowledge workers.
  • Building bridges between business and CKW domains.

With the right categorisation and mindset, executives can transform organisations into innovative powerhouses (fat chance of that happening in our lifetimes).

The Path Forward

The key lies in shedding industrial-era management thinking (they do think, don’t they?) and nurturing environments suited to this distinct category of work.

Open communication, adaptability and appreciating the complexities of collaborative development are vital. Escaping the “Category Error” unlocks outstanding delivery of software solutions and delight for all the Folks That Matter™.

How “Constant State of Ship” Drives Transformative Practices

March 11, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Automation, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Engineering, Familiar, Fellowship, Flow, Improvement, Learning, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Product development, Quintessence, Self-organisation
Leave a comment

How “Constant State of Ship” Drives Transformative Practices

Introduction

In the relentless pursuit of delivering value to customers, with unparalleled speed and reliability, the software development world has yet to widely embrace a revolutionary principle – the “Constant State of Ship”. This state, where software artefacts and products are perpetually poised for release into production environments within just 15 minutes’ notice, has emerged as a driving force behind best practices that enable true continuous deployment. Remarkably, this groundbreaking concept formed the foundation of the pioneering “Javelin” software development approach, a visionary approach conceived by FlowChainSensei (Bob Marshall) at Familiar circa 1996 and onwards, foreshadowing the industry’s even-now-yet-to-be-realised embrace of these practices.

The Power of “Constant State of Ship”

The “Constant State of Ship” serves us as an unyielding forcing function, inviting teams to adopt and adhere to a comprehensive set of best practices that catalyse the seamless flow of software into production. Let us explore how this principle reinforces each of thirteen fundamentals of Continuous Delivery (hat tip to Dave Farley):

The 13 Fundamentals Enabled

  1. A Repeatable, Reliable ProcessWith the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams may choose to establish a well-defined, automated pipeline for building, testing, and deploying their software. This process needs to be repeatable and reliable, minimising the risk of human error and ensuring consistency across releases.

    The “Constant State of Ship” mindset suggests that teams have a streamlined, automated release pipeline that can be triggered at any moment. Manual steps and ad-hoc and emergency exception procedures become liabilities, as they introduce variability and increase the chances of mistakes during deployment.

    To achieve this repeatability and reliability, teams are supported to invest in build automation tools, automated testing frameworks, and deployment automation pipelines. Every step of the release pipeline can be codified, documented, and thoroughly tested to ensure predictable outcomes each time.

    Moreover, the “Constant State of Ship” principle fosters an environment of continuous learning and improvement. Any failures or issues encountered during a release are promptly analysed, and the release process is refined to prevent future occurrences. This cycle of continuous feedback and optimisation ensures that the release pipeline remains reliable and efficient, even as the codebase and systems evolve over time.

    By operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode, teams are invited to treat the release pipeline as a critical component of their software development lifecycle, investing the necessary resources and effort to make it repeatable, reliable, and capable of delivering changes to production environments at a moment’s notice.

  2. Automate All the ThingsIn a “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, manual interventions become significant bottlenecks and risks, hindering the required velocity and reliability. Automation becomes imperative, spanning every aspect of the delivery pipeline, from code compilation to infrastructure provisioning. The threat of an imminent release leaves no room for error-prone manual processes that could delay or derail a deployment. Teams must automate build processes, test execution, environment provisioning, deployment steps, and release orchestration to ensure consistency and minimise the risk of human error.
  3. Maintain a Releasable StateThe core tenet of “Constant State of Ship” requires that the codebase and associated artifacts remain in a perpetually releasable state. This principle invites teams to address issues promptly, maintain a high level of code quality, and vigilantly consider the accumulation of technical debt. Any defects, bugs, or instabilities in the codebase could potentially disrupt an imminent release, leading to costly delays or failures. Teams must adopt practices like continuous integration, automated testing, and ensemble programming to ensure that the codebase remains in a stable, deployable state at all times.
  4. Focus on Robust (Real) Quality Assurance

    In the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, where the possibility of demand for an immediate release is ever-present, quality assurance cannot be treated as an afterthought. “Constant State of Ship” invites the integration of quality practices throughout the entire development lifecycle, ensuring that quality is baked into the software from inception to deployment.

    While testing plays a role, it is merely one facet of a comprehensive quality assurance strategy. Teams may choose to adopt a holistic approach that emphasises quality as a continuous, pervasive practice woven into every aspect of the development approach.

    This begins with cultivating a culture of quality-driven development, where every team member participates in collective ownership and responsibility for the quality of their work. Practices such as clarity of (quantified a la Gilb) requirements, ensemble programming, peer code reviews, adherence to coding standards, and continuous static code analysis can help identify and mitigate potential issues early in the development cycle.

    Furthermore, “Constant State of Ship” invites teams to embrace principles of iterative and incremental development. By breaking down complex features into smaller, manageable, well-bounded increments, teams can more effectively manage quality risks and ensure that each increment and subsystem meets the required quality criteria before progressing to the next.

    Continuous integration and deployment pipelines play a pivotal role in this quality assurance strategy, enabling teams to continuously validate and verify the software’s functionality, performance, and stability with each incremental change. These pipelines automate the execution of various quality checks, including unit tests, integration tests, and performance tests, providing real-time feedback and enabling teams to address issues promptly.

    However, quality assurance extends beyond mere testing alone. Teams have the opportunity to adopt a holistic approach that encompasses design practices, architectural decisions, and operational readiness. By considering quality implications at every stage of the software development lifecycle, teams can proactively identify and mitigate potential risks, ensuring that the software remains in a releasable state at all times.

    “Constant State of Ship” elevates quality assurance to a core discipline that permeates every aspect of the software development effort. By fostering a culture of quality-driven development and adopting continuous quality practices, teams can attend to the needs of all the Folks That Matter™, with confidence, knowing that their software meets the highest standards of reliability, stability, and performance.

  5. Implement Robust Deployment PipelinesAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” necessitates the implementation of robust deployment pipelines. These pipelines automate the entire process of building, testing, and deploying software changes, ensuring consistency and minimizing the risk of errors. With the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams cannot afford manual, error-prone deployment processes. Automated deployment pipelines provide a standardised, repeatable path to production, reducing the likelihood of failed or inconsistent deployments.
  6. Monitor the PipelineRegular smoke testing of the deployment pipeline is crucial in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. This practice helps catch issues early, before they can impact production environments, ensuring the pipeline’s reliability and preventing costly downtime. The possibility of an imminent release amplifies the importance of having a thoroughly validated deployment pipeline. Smoke tests act as a safety net, verifying the integrity of the pipeline and identifying any potential issues that could disrupt a deployment.
  7. Integrate ConstantlyThe “Constant State of Ship” mindset encourages teams to integrate their changes frequently, often multiple times per day. This practice surfaces issues early, reduces merge conflicts, and ensures that the codebase remains in a releasable state, ready for deployment at any given moment. Infrequent integration can lead to divergent codebases, making it harder to identify and resolve conflicts, which could potentially disrupt an imminent release. By integrating frequently, teams can maintain a stable, unified codebase that is always primed for deployment.
  8. Evolve the ArchitectureMaintaining a “Constant State of Ship” over time invites the continuous evolution of the system’s architecture (see also: Reverse Conway). Are teams prepared to refactor and adapt their architectures to accommodate new requirements, technologies, and scaling needs, without compromising the ability to release rapidly and reliably? As products grow and evolve, architectural decisions made early on may become hindrances to continuous deployment. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites teams to proactively evaluate and evolve their architectures, ensuring that they remain flexible, scalable, and conducive to rapid releases.
  9. Leverage Data EnvironmentsWith the constant possibility of an imminent release, the ability to provision and manage data environments becomes critical. Teams may choose to adopt practices like database versioning, data seeding, and data masking to ensure consistent and reliable testing and deployment across environments, minimising the risk of data-related issues in production. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a robust data management strategy that enables seamless and repeatable deployments, regardless of the data complexities involved.
  10. Mirror Production EnvironmentsTo minimise the risk of issues arising from environmental differences, teams operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode may choose to ensure that their development, testing, and staging environments closely mirror production environments in terms of configuration, data, and infrastructure. This practice helps identify and address potential issues before they impact the live production system. The possibility of an imminent release heightens the importance of having production-like environments, as any discrepancies could lead to unexpected behavior or failures during deployment.
  11. Codify InfrastructureManually provisioning and configuring infrastructure for each release becomes a significant bottleneck when operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. Adopting Infrastructure as Code (IaC) practices, where infrastructure is defined and managed through code, enables teams to provision and tear down environments rapidly and consistently, minimising delays and reducing the risk of configuration drift. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites a high degree of automation and repeatability in infrastructure management, making IaC a beneficial practice for ensuring rapid, reliable deployments.
  12. Foster Collaborative OwnershipAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” invites a high degree of collaboration and shared ownership among team members. Siloed responsibilities and knowledge become obstacles to rapid delivery. Teams may choose to adopt practices that promote collective code ownership, cross-functional collaboration, and shared understanding of the codebase and delivery processes. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a culture of collective responsibility, where all team members are empowered to contribute to and understand the entire delivery process, enabling seamless and efficient releases.
  13. Continuous ImprovementOperating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode exposes inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the delivery pipeline and processes with uncompromising clarity. Teams may choose to embrace a culture of continuous improvement, regularly reviewing their practices, identifying areas for optimisation, and implementing changes to enhance their ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably. The constant presence of imminent releases acts as a driving force for continuous improvement, encouraging teams to continuously refine their processes, tools, and practices to achieve higher levels of velocity and quality. FlowChain was designed to systematise this very purpose.

The Visionary “Javelin” Approach

The “Javelin” approach (initally named “Jerid”) pioneered by me and my teams at Familiar from 1996 onward, was truly ahead of its time, recognising the transformative power of the “Constant State of Ship” mindset. By enshrining this principle as a cornerstone from its inception, “Javelin” has paved the way for the modern continuous deployment practices that have since become poised to gain industry standard status. This pioneering approach, along with FlowChain and e.g. Prod•gnosis, Flow•gnosis, Product Aikido, etc. exemplifies the spirit of continuous improvement intrinsic to the “Constant State of Ship” principle, ensuring its enduring relevance and impact.

Deep Cultural Implications

Reshaping the Culture and Mindset

Adopting the “Constant State of Ship” principle suggests a profound transformation that extends way beyond technical practices and processes – it hints at a seismic shift in the culture and mindset of software development teams and their parent organisations. This metamorphosis permeates every aspect of the organisation, reshaping shared assumptions, beliefs, and ways of working. However, navigating such a profound cultural shift can be a daunting challenge, often met with resistance and inertia.

This is where the discipline of organisational psychotherapy plays a pivotal role. By applying principles from psychotherapy, sociology, and group dynamics, organisational psychotherapy facilitates teams’ cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm smoothly and effectively.

A Culture of Ownership and Accountability through Empowerment

The “Constant State of Ship” mindset fosters a culture of collective ownership and accountability. Organisational psychotherapy techniques, such as participative decision-making and fellowship, empower team members to take responsibility for the quality, stability, and deployability of the codebase and overall product. This sense of empowerment cultivates a culture of shared ownership, where individuals proactively address issues, collaborate across boundaries, and collectively strive for continuous improvement.

Embracing Transparency and Trust

Maintaining a “Constant State of Ship” requires a high degree of transparency and trust among team members. Organisational psychotherapy practices, such as surfacing shared assumptions and beliefs, encourage open communication and facilitate the identification of problems and risks early. By fostering an atmosphere where team members feel comfortable expressing concerns, sharing mistakes, and seeking help, a culture of transparency and trust emerges, enabling teams to collectively address challenges and ensure the software remains in a releasable state.

Prioritising Continuous Learning

The “Constant State of Ship” principle instills a mindset of continuous learning and improvement. With each release, teams gain valuable insights into their processes, tools, and practices. Embracing new shared assumptions becomes essential, as teams must continuously refine and adapt their approaches based on feedback and lessons learned. This culture of continuous learning fosters an environment of experimentation, where failures are embraced as opportunities for growth, and success is measured by the ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably.

Aligning Towards a Common Goal

Ultimately, the “Constant State of Ship” principle unifies teams around a common goal: meeting the needs of all the Folks That Matter™ with unparalleled speed and reliability. This shared mission transcends individual roles, responsibilities, and technical disciplines. It creates a sense of collective purpose, where every team member’s contribution, regardless of their specific function, is valued and recognised as essential to achieving this overarching objective.

By leveraging organisational psychotherapy techniques, organisations can accelerate and streamline the cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm. This discipline not only makes the transition quicker and easier but also more cost-effective, as it addresses the root causes of resistance and inertia, facilitating a smoother and more sustainable transformation.

By reshaping the culture and mindset of software development teams, the “Constant State of Ship” principle cultivates an environment conducive to continuous deployment success. It fosters a sense of collective ownership, transparency, continuous learning, and shared purpose – traits that are indispensable in today’s rapidly evolving software landscape.

Embracing the Future

When the ability to swiftly adapt and innovate is paramount, the “Constant State of Ship” principle emerges as a beacon, guiding software development teams towards a future of quiet competence and competitiveness. By embracing this mindset, as exemplified by the visionary “Javelin” approach, teams can unlock the power to attend to folks’ needs with unprecedented speed, reliability, and quality – solidifying their organisation’s position as industry leaders in the software development arena.

The Blissfully Unaware Manager

March 11, 2024
Article, Business, Careers, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Psychology, Story, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

The Blissfully Unaware Manager

A short story about metacluelessness and the distinction from stupidity.

Hubris in the Corner Office

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

The Cracks Begin to Show

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

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

A Slow-Motion Catastrophe

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

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

A Failed Intervention

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

The Inevitable Conclusion

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

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

The Lesson Learned

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