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.

Have you ever wondered why the so-called Agile approach to software development, despite its charismatic promises, so often seems to miss the mark? You’re not alone in this predicament. Many are left puzzled as their Agile transformations fall short of expectations, leading to a mixture of confusion, disappointment, and ennui. The resolution to this problem doesn’t lie specifically within the Agile philosophy itself but within a broader, widely neglected perspective.

Not Designed for Adoption

From the get-go, Agile was never designed for easy adoption by traditional organisations. It demands a departure from conventional beliefs about work and collaboration, and this makes its implementation a real challenge, with its promises of flexibility, adaptability, and rapid delivery. However, Agile often fails to live up to its impish promises. The question remains, why?

The answer doesn’t lie within the intricacies of the approach, but rather with a comprehensive understanding of the organisation as a whole.

The Local Optimisation Trap

Accordingly, Agile transformations almost always degrade into local optimisations – offering immediate and visible local improvements but overlooking the bigger picture, such as flow efficiency across the entire organisation.

The Holistic Viewpoint

This is where alternative approaches such as the Theory of Constraints (ToC) come into the picture. They compel us to go beyond individual departments and silos, taking a holistic view of the organisation, identifying bottlenecks, and developing solutions that consider the broader operational flow.

Paradigm Shift

The shift from local to organisation-wide optimisation isn’t insignificant; it’s a PARADIGM shift. It necessitates a move from focusing on isolated components to recognising the wider interdependencies throughout the organisation.Truly a fundamental culture change.

Regrettably, this holistic view is rarely appreciated in organisations. It’s hard to grasp, challenging to execute, contradicts the prevalent silo-structures, and requires a readiness to collaborate – or even better, to integrate – multiple silos.

It’s a daunting journey, but it’s essential for building a resilient, adaptable, and more efficient organisation.

When we ask, “why does Agile often stumble?”, the answer isn’t found in Agile’s principles or methods. Rather, it’s embedded within the broader organisational mindset (a.k.a. the Analytic mindset), one that often misses the organisation-wide perspective. The journey from Agile’s local optimisation to a broader, organisation-wide approach is not an easy one. Here, Organisational Psychotherapy can help show the path towards significant improvement

Aspire to More

Let’s not limit our aspirations to enhance only the software development sector. Let’s aim to build a balanced, steady, and high-performing workflow across the organisation. This discourse is about reevaluating our understanding, going beyond our existing practices, and embracing the journey towards a more synergistic mindset, and a more holistic approach.

Isn’t it troubling when organisations cling to strategies and practices driven by relatively ineffective shared assumptions and beliefs? Why do they persist with such approaches when they are so detrimental to the mental health and wellbeing of the folks involved?

Maybe it’s time to consider how these unhelpful practices might foster a toxic work environment, leading to burnout, stress, and even depression? Can you imagine the impact of constantly being expected to conform to outdated beliefs or having one’s creativity stifled due to the rigid adherence to such notions?

Wouldn’t it be true to say that such an atmosphere might undermine the confidence of employees, making them feel undervalued and demotivated? Can we not see how this might breed a culture of fear, where individuals are reluctant to speak up, challenge the status quo or even suggest innovative ideas?

Is it not alarming that by sticking to these relatively ineffective assumptions and beliefs, organisations might be inadvertently contributing to the erosion of trust and collaboration among colleagues? Could this not lead to a fragmented work culture where employees feel isolated and unsupported?

What if, by ignoring the implications of such behaviours on mental health and wellbeing, organisations are sowing the seeds for long-term problems? Might they be unknowingly compromising productivity, job satisfaction, and employee retention in the process?

Isn’t it high time that organisations re-evaluate their strategies and practices to ensure a more supportive, inclusive, and mentally healthy environment for their employees?

Hey there! I’m Bob Marshall, the Organisational Psychotherapist, with a passion for helping organisations transform their culture and improve collaboration. If you’re wondering why you might choose to pay attention to my insights, just let me say that my unique approach can bring profound benefits to all kinds of organisations, especially those involving collaborative knowledge work.

My blog at https://lnkd.in/dytkA2A is packed with insights and stories from my five decades of experience. I draw on this experience, including founding Europe’s first 100% Agile software house and heading Falling Blossoms, the world’s first Organisational Psychotherapy provider. My posts highlight the importance of nurturing productive relationships and fostering a people-oriented culture.

One post that stands out is about the Antimatter Principle, which emphasises attending to folks’ needs to create a thriving, collaborative work environment.

Another post discusses Flow•gnosis, an innovative approach to developing software-intensive products and services.

When you read my posts, you’ll also learn from my decades in both technology and business, including roles at Sun Microsystems, and many other organisations, large and small. This deep understanding of the tech landscape allows me to provide invaluable counsel and therapy to ambitious, progressive technology and digital business organisations.

Moreover, those who have worked with me have nothing but praise for my approach and the results it has brought to their organisations. Time and again, I’ve helped clients create a more humane, people-oriented, and productive work environment that has led to outstanding success.

As the author of “Hearts over Diamonds”, “Memeology”, and “Quintessence”, and the originator of Rightshifting and the Marshall Model, my posts regularly and freely share the foundational knowledge that has contribute to the success of so many of my clients. So, if you want to see a real difference in your organisation, don’t miss out on the wisdom and insights shared on my blog, books, white papers, etc.

Join me on this transformative journey towards elevating your organisation’s performance, and also creating a meaningful, fulfilling work environment that nurtures innovation, everyone’s personal growth, and long-lasting success. Get down with the opportunity to be part of a paradigm shift that’s redefining the way businesses thrive!

Don’t miss out on the latest insights and strategies for transforming your organisation and its culture! If you find this post valuable, make sure to follow me on LinkedIn, and don’t forget to ring the bell to receive notifications whenever I share new content. Ready to unlock your organisation’s full potential? Take action now and reach out for a chat, or visit my blog more transformative ideas. Together, let’s embark on this journey towards unprecedented success!

Productivity is one of the key factors in determining the economic growth of a country, and the United Kingdom is no exception. Over the past few years, the UK’s productivity growth has been slower than other advanced economies such as the US, Germany, and France. This has raised concerns about the country’s long-term economic prospects and the standard of living for its citizens.

The UK’s productivity puzzle has been a subject of much debate and analysis. A range of factors has been identified as contributing to the country’s low productivity, including poor management practices, low investment in infrastructure, low-skilled workforce, and a lack of innovation.

The issue of poor management practices has been particularly significant in the UK, with studies showing that the country has some of the worst managers in the developed world, with a lack of leadership skills, inadequate communication, and poor people management being some of the most significant issues. This has resulted in a workforce that is less engaged, less productive, and less innovative, which ultimately impacts the overall competitiveness of UK businesses.

The practise of management, good and bad, and its root causes has long been a key focus for me and my work (Rightshifting, the Marshall Model, Organisational Psychotherapy, etc. – more details on my blog).

I’ve long felt frustrated at the seemingly intractable issues of management generally, and UK management in particular. Especially as I have evolved a solution that, if adopted, could largely remedy the situation.

The Problem

UK management is mired is what the literature calls “the Analytic Mindset”. This term refers to a certain collection of assumptions and beliefs about work, harking back to at least the late nineteenth century.

These assumptions and beliefs result, in practice, in relatively ineffective ways of relating to the workforce. Ways which inevitably lead to a workforce that is less engaged, less productive, and less innovative than what we know to be possible today.

The challenge? How to enable companies to swap out these existing, ineffective assumptions and beliefs with a relatively more effective set known as “the Synergistic Mindset”.

The Solution

And the solution? Organisational Psychotherapy.

Much like therapy for individuals, OP provides a supportive and non-judgmental space for organisations to explore their assumptions and beliefs, and their resulting policies and practices. With these beliefs surfaced and reflected-upon, fundamental changes are possible. We might call this “culture change”.

In conclusion, the UK’s productivity problem is a consequence of its organisations’ collective assumptions and beliefs about work, and how work should work.

With the right investment in shifting the collective beliefs of UK organisations, the UK can dramatically improve its productivity levels and secure its long-term economic growth.

The Marshall Model of Organisational Evolution provides a framework for understanding the four distinctly different cultures of business and how they impact the overall effectiveness of an organisation.

According to the model, there are four basic mindsets or cultures that exist in organisations: Ad-hoc, Analytic, Synergistic, and Chaordic. Each of these cultures is defined by specific characteristics and beliefs – beliefs that shape the way work is done and the results that are achieved.

Ad-hoc organisations are defined by a lack of attention to the process of work. There is little recognition of the importance of defining how work should be done and little effort is made to improve work processes over time. The focus is almost entirely on getting the work done, regardless of the process.

Analytic organisations, on the other hand, have a command-and-control style of management and a focus on costs and efficiencies. Middle-managers that characterise this culture are seen as the owners of the way the work works, responsible for allocating work and reporting on progress.

Synergistic organisations embody the principles of the Lean movement and have a focus on shared purpose, learning, flow of value, and effectiveness. This culture typically has a Theory-Y orientation and values people over processes.

The final culture, Chaordic, represents a shift from a focus on shared purpose to a focus on embracing and exploiting supreme performance only possible on the border between order and chaos. This culture is characterised by an emphasis on “positive opportunism” – being ready to identify and exploit every new opportunity the moment it emerges.

In conclusion, the Marshall Model provides a valuable tool for understanding the different cultures of businesses and how they impact the overall effectiveness of an organisation. Organisations can continually improve their effectiveness by recognising where they are in the model and choosing appropriate strategies to move forward (Rightshift). By embracing a culture that values people and shared purpose, and focuses on awareness, learning and innovation, organisations can perform way beyond expectations and industry norms.

I often use the example of Theory X vs Theory Y to illustrate how we can shift a relative ineffective business meme (treating people as lazy and untrustworthy) to a relatively more effective meme (giving people a good job to do and trusting them to get on with it). The concept of Theory X and Theory Y was first introduced by Douglas McGregor in his book “The Human Side of Enterprise” published in 1960.

Theory X is a negative view of workers and assumes that they are inherently lazy and untrustworthy, and therefore, must be tightly controlled and motivated through fear, punishment, and extrinsic rewards. On the other hand, Theory Y views workers as responsible and trustworthy, and assumes that they will naturally be motivated and productive if given the opportunity to take ownership of their work and make decisions.

The shift from Theory X to Theory Y is not just a matter of changing one’s perspective, but it also requires a fundamental change in the way businesses are run. In a Theory X environment, the management assumes a top-down approach, where the manager makes all decisions and workers are expected to follow them. In a Theory Y environment, the management assumes a participative approach, where workers are involved in decision-making, given autonomy, and provided with challenging work that they find meaningful.

Transitioning to Theory Y can lead to a number of positive outcomes for businesses. Firstly, it can lead to higher levels of employee engagement and motivation, which in turn can result in improved performance and productivity. Secondly, it can foster a more positive and collaborative work environment, which can lead to increased innovation, creativity, and problem-solving. Finally, it can also lead to higher levels of employee retention and lower levels of turnover, as workers are more likely to stay with an organisation within which they feel valued and respected.

However, making the shift from Theory X to Theory Y is rarely easy, as it requires a significant change in the way businesses are run. It requires a change in the leadership style, culture, and processes, as well as a change in the mindset of the workers. It also requires a change in the way rewards and incentives are structured, as the traditional carrot-and-stick approach will not be effective in a Theory Y environment.

In conclusion, the shift from Theory X to Theory Y is a positive change that can lead to improved performance, productivity, and engagement in the workplace. It requires a fundamental change in the way businesses are run and the way workers are treated, but the benefits make it well worth the effort.

Theory-X vs Y is just one of over seventy business memes explored in my books: https://leanpub.com/b/organisationalpsychotherapybundle1#bundle-page-heartsoverdiamonds

There are better ways to develop and deliver software. Better than the prevailing ways of approaching such things. How much better? IME – and substantiated by data from i.e. ISBSG – from twice as good through to at least five times as good.

How to access these better ways?

1. Recognise that software development and delivery is a subset of Collaborative Knowledge Work (CKW).
2. Understand that CKW requires a fundamentally different approach vs. the kinds of work most organisations recognise as “work”.
3. Realign the collective assumptions and beliefs of your organisation to enable effective CKW.
4. Recognise that 95% of improvements will necessitate changes well outside the software development/delivery “silo”.

– Bob

Put another way: If the ongoing success of the company required your role to change, would you support or resist that change? Can you even talk franklly about the issue?

Are you at all curious as to how much more productive and effective a Quintessential organisation can be compared to e.g. an Agile organisation? And what that uplift in effectiveness means for everyone involved (management, customers, employees, suppliers, society at large,…)?

(Hint: It’s something like five times more productive / effective – see Rightshifting and the Marshall Model.)

Are you at all curious how this can be possible?

I’m delighted to explain. So, if you’re at all curious, and my many posts on the subject here on this blog fall short of meeting your needs, please get in touch. Simplest might be to post your questions in the comments section of this post.

I’m also more than happy to chat on the phone, via email, or Zoom / Google Meet.

All questions answered.

– Bob

Having been involved in software (and hardware) for some fifty years now, I thought it might be time to mark the occasion with this open letter to all organisations. Especially to those organisations engaged in CKW (Collaborative Knowledge Work), such as product development and software development.

Enormous Levels of Waste

You’re wasting 80% of your time, effort, money, and human potential on bullshit work*.

You may know this already, but are too embarrassed, fearful of the consequences, or indifferent to admit it.

Or maybe your owners have so much money that wasting 80% of your operating costs is of little or no consequence to them, and thus to you.

Or you may be unaware of the potential upside of adopting modern organisational practices, and of the downside of retaining your traditional management assumptions and beliefs**.

*Bullshit work: a.k.a. busywork – work that consumes time, effort and energy yet adds no value, and meets no needs of any of the Folks That Matter.

Rightshifting

The Rightshifting Chart illustrates just how much time and effort gets wasted in CKW organisations:

The Marshall Model

And the Marshall Model explains the source of such waste (it’s the consequence of the collective assumptions and beliefs a.k.a. mindset, or memeplex, of these organisations):

Over the years, various independent consultants have validated these models.

Consultation in Confidence

**If you’d like a brief, utterly confidential, and no obligation chat about how your organisation could benefit from wasting less of your time, energy and effort, please get in touch via e.g. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-marshall-flowchainsensei-3a2a5b164/ – or via whatever channel you may prefer.

– Bob

Agile has become widespread and popular mainly because it promises “improvements” without demanding that the decision-makers change. Of course, without people changing (in particular, managers changing their collective assumptions and beliefs) Agile has zero chance of delivering on its promises. It then becomes “just one more packaged method to install in the development teams” – and just one more debacle.

As the French say:

“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”.

Thus Agile carries with it the seeds of its own inevitable failure.

“But what if managers DO change?” I hear you ask.

Well, if they change themselves in ways that move them and their organisations towards the quintessential, they won’t choose Agile.

Seeds of Success

And if you’re wondering what the seeds of success might look like, you may like to take a look at my recent book “Quintessence” (Marshall 2021).

– Bob

Further Reading

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Quintessence: An Acme for Software Development Organisations. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub).

Memeology, Quintessence

I’m done with inviting folks to discover better ways to run collaborative knowledge work businesses and other organisations. 

The Antimatter Principle

I’m done with inviting people to build more humane, engaging organisations.

Rightshifting

I’m done with illustrating the gulf in performance and effectiveness between the average organisation or business, and the best. And how much productivity just goes begging.

The Marshall Model

I’m done with inviting people to understand the role of collective assumptions and beliefs in the effectiveness of their organisations.

Effectiveness

I’m done with even mentioning effectiveness. No one seems to need it or want it or even to understand what it is and its role in organisational success.

Emotioneering

I’m done with inviting organisations to consider the way people actually go about buying goods and service, and the role of emotions therein.

FlowChain, Prod•gnosis, Flow•gnosis

I’m done with providing food for thought on how the work in collaborative knowledge work organisations can work awesomely better.

Product Aikido

I’m done with inviting folks to look more deeply into the principles of product development and what makes for more effective product development.

The Giants

I’m done with mentioning the Giants such as Ackoff, Deming, Drucker, et al.

Software

I’m done with software and helping people improve software development, reliability, quality, predictability, etc.. #NoSoftware’s the thing.

Recruiters and the Job Market

I’m done with know-nothing recruiters only focused on their next commission. And a totally broken job market focussed on mediocrity and the status quo. Oh, and CVs too. #NoCV.

The Closed-Minded

I’m done with people that are happiest sitting on their arses (metaphorically speaking) and keeping their eyes, ears, and minds closed to possibilities. Which is everybody, AFAICT.

The Unreliable

I’m done with people that promise to do things, and then, silently, do fuck all.

Agile

I’m done with Agile. Actually, as you’re probably aware, I’ve been done with Agile for a decade and more. I’m just adding it here for the sake of completeness. Oh, and I’m SO done with ignorant people who continue to promote the Agile busted flush.

I’m Done With Better Ways

I’m done with it all. Given there’s zero demand for “better”, better ways seem entirely irrelevant.

And good luck with that status quo. 

– Bob

Long-time readers of this blog will already be familiar with the concept of rightshifting. 

Shifting an organisation to the right (i.e. in the direction of increased organisational effectiveness, and towards the quintessential) is not for the work-shy or indolent. Yet the rewards are massive. 

Whilst the Marshall Model provides a general framework for such rightshifting, there’s not been a detailed roadmap describing the shifts necessary to acquire such improved effectiveness. 

My most recent book, “Quintessence”, provides just such a roadmap (or blueprint). It details the shifts in collective assumptions and beliefs necessary to become a highly effective knowledge-work organisation. Shifts of which significant outliers such as Zappos, WL Gore, Morning Star, Semco, and a host of others have demonstrated the benefits.

Go take a look and gaze in awe at what is possible in the way of improvements. 

– Bob

Further Reading

Marshall, R.W. (2018). Hearts over Diamonds: Serving Business and Society Through Organisational Psychotherapy. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub).

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Memeology: Surfacing and Reflecting On the Organisation’s Collective Assumptions and Beliefs. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub).

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Quintessence: An Acme for Software Development Organisations. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub). 

Ineffectiveness is the norm (in particular in the software and collaborative knowledge work fields).

Therefore the less effective someone appears to e.g. hiring managers, the more employable they are. The ineffective fit right in, don’t challenge norms or ruffle feathers, and appear a competent “good hire” even as they join in with sustaining and compounding the organisation’s prevailing ineffectiveness.

Simple Truth

This simple truth explains why some many organisations are so poor at developing tech products, and software more generally. They unwittingly hire “good fits’ i.e. the profoundly ineffective. And never realise the productivity improvments, etc., that they’re leaving on the table.

The (modified) Marshall Model chart (below) illustrates the situation:

How might we help these organisations appreciate their dire situation? Is that even possible?

– Bob

Further Reading

Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-run Companies.  Profile Books.

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Quintessence: An Acme for Software Development Organisations. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub).

Looking on the bright side for 2022, there’s no real blockers to us and our organisations doing so much better in 2022.

And all it takes is reflecting upon, and surfacing, our collective and individual assumptions and beliefs.

Rightshifting

The Rightshifting chart illustrates the awesome scope for “better” in our organisations:

Most organisations cluster around an effectiveness of “1”, whereas a simple shift in our assumptions and beliefs about the world of collaborative knowledge work could take us to becoming “3”, “4” or even “5” times more effective. That sounds like “better”, to me.

Quintessential Organisations

In my recent book “Quintessence“, I describe what organisations to the right of “4”, on the above chart, look like, feel like and work like.

– Bob

What will enable that understanding? Not the promotion into senior positions of folks with front-line experience (most have no experience of effective practices).

Coaching/education might do it – when the senior folks seek it out and engage with it themselves.

I believe exemplars can help (which is one of the reasons I wrote Quintessence).

The most promising way forward is normative learning, especially when guided by capable facilitators. How many senior folks are ever likely to go to the gemba and see what’s REALLY effective?

Alternative: Dispense with management entirely. Also highly unlikely, but beginning to gain some traction as an idea. Cf Reinvention Organizations (Laloux 2014), etc.. This approach doesn’t actually address the issue of folks understanding what effective software development looks like, though.

Further Reading

Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness. Nelson Parker.

What is a Mindset?