Archive

Antimatter principle

The Era of Collaborative Knowledge Work

January 30, 2024
Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Collaboration, Culture change, Fellowship, Improvement, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence
Leave a comment

The Era of Collaborative Knowledge Work

Work dynamics have been evolving rapidly in recent decades. Back in 1959, management expert Peter Drucker coined the term “knowledge work” – jobs focused more on expertise application versus manual tasks. Today, many observe the economy shifting from industrial production to innovation through agile collaboration.

Fundamentally Different

The nature of work has fundamentally changed. We have shifted from an industrial economy largely based on manual labour to a knowledge economy increasingly based on intellectual collaboration. This transition invites a new way of looking at work, focused on both recognising and facilitating collaborative knowledge work (CKW).

In this model, cross-disciplinary teams come together to brainstorm and refine breakthroughs iteratively. Silos give way to fluid circles of contribution. Motivation stems intrinsically from the shared mission, not extrinsic rewards. Experimenting with unconventional ideas bears lower risk when paired with constructive peer feedback.

But embracing the CKW paradigm depends on adopting a distinctly different approach to work. How can groups establish norms where everyone feels comfortable contributing without fear of judgement or rejection?

Autonomy, Mastery and Shared Purpose

Part of the solution links back to aligning clearly around higher purpose. When autonomy coexists with shared accountability, inspiration untaps. Structuring reciprocal mentorship allows members to develop emotionally and motivationally while exchanging honest developmental guidance.

This differs drastically from the hierarchical command-and-control management style of the past century that was well-suited for manual labour but proves limiting for knowledge work. Managers can no longer simply dictate tasks and expect compliance. For collaborative efforts to thrive, managers must nurture a culture that empowers teams with autonomy while providing direction, support, and facilitation.

What About Management?

Those in the know recognise the incompatibility of CKW and the traditonal management paradigm. Yet, organistions intent on making the best of CKW are faced with transitioning away from the concept of management towards e.g. sefl-managing teams and fellowship. In essence, we’re talking about culture change. Here’s some guidance in that regard:

Guidance for Old-Guard Managers

For managers used to traditional modes of top-down management, adopting a collaborative approach invites a paradigm shift. Here are key ways to enable more participatory and productive knowledge work:

  • Provide transparent context and clarity around broader goals while giving teams discretion in determining how goals are achieved.
  • Cultivate constructive exchanges where all team members feel comfortable contributing ideas without fear of judgement.
  • Ask probing questions, identify gaps, and point to resources, not dictate solutions.
  • Focus on facilitating the collaborative process through conflict resolution, dialogue around communication norms, and adaptive coordination.
  • Champion new ideas that arise from the team and rally support across the organisation.
  • Evaluate performance based on the effectiveness of collaborative processes and quality of outputs.

Advice for New Managers

For those assuming their first management role, the collaborative approach may feel more intuitive. Still, translating intent into impact invites concerted learning. Here are some areas for new managers to consider:

  • Foster emotional intelligence to nurture relationships, understand different working styles and motivations, and resolve interpersonal friction.
  • Hone facilitative teambuilding techniques like liberating structures, engagement through powerful questions, and conversation mapping.
  • Promote inclusion by valuing diverse voices, ensuring equal opportunity for contribution, and mitigating dominant perspectives.
  • Develop fluency in digital collaboration tools and appropriate applications for remote and hybrid work settings.
  • Elevate and practice orchestrating for collaborative work.
  • Pay attendtion to the quality of interpersonal relationships and the overall social dynamic.
  • Attend to folks’ needs.

The CKW paradigm brings substantial promise and possibility but requires managers themselves to transform. By embracing this challenge, leaders can unlock unprecedented potential from today’s knowledge workers.

The future lies in fully unleashing human potential by connecting talent to shared missions. But practical change management matters. How might we reinvent team rituals and processes to make this vision an everyday reality? The answers will come collaboratively, through commitment to the journey of learning together.

The Social Side of Improvement

January 28, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Improvement, Motivation, Productivity, Self-organisation, Teambuilding
Leave a comment

The Social Side of Improvement

While organisational purpose, leadership directives, customer feedback and development processes model guide improvement efforts in business and technology, the truth is that willingness to improve is driven primarily by social and behavioral factors within teams. Even the most meticulous goals, inspired leadership, and incentive structures fall flat without the initiative of people who develop, design and maintain systems. Understanding social dynamics is key.

Cultivating Constructive Exchanges

Improvement starts with recognition of social blockers* and unhelpful or deleterious assumptions – things which teams and individuals may find uncomfortable to confront. Where people feel uncertain about transparency, or fear judgment, they tend to hide issues instead of raising them. Leaders may choose to actively cultivate environments geared towards constructive exchanges, allowing for open dialogue around issues. This helps normalise the process of identification and resolution of deficiencies.

Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Motivation

While extrinsic rewards like bonuses or promotions may temporarily boost improvement efforts, intrinsic joy and satisfaction derived from enhancing systems sustains team momentum better long-term. By tapping into natural human needs for growth, learning and overcoming challenges, organisations can activate self-perpetuating cycles of improvement. Especially in CKW (Collaborative Knowledge Work) this intrinsic drive always outweighs extrinsic rewards.

Team Cohesion and Alignment

Teams that agree on why improvements matter and how to make them happen can work together better to upgrade the way the work works. When a team shares beliefs about the value of making progress, they can encourage each other to take helpful steps through dialogue, teamwork, and motivation. Without this same vision and coordination as a team, people can lose steam and direction, which slows progress.

No policies handed down by an organisation can force improvement to happen without support within the team itself – people’s drive to learn and tackle problems as a group keeps development going over time. Smart teams focus first on creating a common purpose and satisfaction from incremental gains among the team members. This activates social forces within the team that enable ongoing improvements to happen more easily.

In essence, having people work positively together as a team, united by common goals and motivations, is what sustains long-term progress above all. Savvy teams build pride in small wins, and in camaraderie focused on solving challenges that come up. This gives the team itself an inner drive to keep improving.

The Role of Nonviolence

Teams working together day after day to refine and upgrade systems will inevitably encounter disagreements, debates over technical design tradeoffs and even interpersonal conflicts. Without mindful effort, discussions around imperfections can turn counterproductive if they degrade into blame games, aggressive posturing or dismissiveness. Leaders therefore need to proactively encourage nonviolent communication norms.

Attending to Folks’ Needs

For nonviolence to truly take root, teams may choose to move beyond civil language, to proactively attending to the psychological, emotional and practical needs of team members. This involves empathy, active listening, validating concerns without judgment, and extending support to help resolve issues causing distress. By being attentive caregivers, teams allow themselves to feel safer, exposing vulnerabilities including skill limitations and interpersonal issues that may be blocking progress.

Empathetic Language

By teaching team members to frame problems objectively, avoid finger-pointing around issues and discuss potential improvements with empathy, compassion and non-judgment, conversations become solution-focused. This prevents people from becoming defensive when their work is critiqued and keeps debate civil, allowing cooperative analysis of flaws.

Mediation Over Escalation

When conflicts around system deficiencies do emerge within teams, leaders should mediate issues through open dialogue between parties rather than let tensions escalate. Allowing people to air their perspectives fully and feel heard diffuses situations where egos can clash during ongoing refinement efforts. If deficiencies are structural, collective responsibility should be emphasized over singling out individuals to avoid disincentivizing transparency around limitations.

Nonviolence In Action

Ultimately, by normalizing nonviolent communication, dialogue and conflict mediation practices within teams, leaders can ensure that the necessary discussions around flaws and areas of improvement do not themselves disturb the social fabric underlying cooperative work. This sustains healthy relationships between members which are foundational for iterative development.

*Social Blockers

“Social blockers” refer to interpersonal or group dynamics that inhibit progress, innovation, and improvement in teams and organisations. Some examples of social blockers include:

  1. Groupthink – Where there is pressure on members to conform to a dominant narrative and not challenge assumptions. This smothers dissenting perspectives that may reveal flaws or areas to improve.
  2. Blame Culture – When failure or deficiencies consistently get attributed to individuals’ mistakes rather than addressing systematic gaps. This makes people defensive about problems rather than openly discussing solutions.
  3. Office Politics – Power struggles, protection of turf, and ego issues can distract focus away from constructive progress. Backbiting, sabotage, nepotism etc. form rifts that block alignment.
  4. Poor Leadership – Leaders who don’t welcome critical feedback or consumer insights, provide inadequate resources/training, resist change, or don’t mediate conflicts actively perpetuate barriers to improving the social dynamic.
  5. Complacency & Myopia – Organisations can get habituated to certain ways of operating, becoming complacent. Lack of outside perspective also breeds collective myopia to needs for positive change.
  6. Toxic Communicational Norms – Uncivil dialogue, aggressive confrontation styles, disrespect, and microaggressions during discussions on progress inhibits constructive exchanges in teams – somthing vital for improvement.
  7. Violence & Intimidation – In toxic organisational cultures, literal or symbolic threats of violence, intimidation, and aggression are sadly used to suppress dissent and critical feedback that reveals improvement areas. By creating an atmosphere of fear, obligation, guilt and shame,, such coercive tactics block openness.

Essentially any interpersonal and group dynamic that suppresses objective problem-solving, transparency around limitations, innovation through fresh perspectives, and constructive dialogue hampers the will and ability to improve – be it products, services or workflows. Managing these “social blockers” is key.

Further Reading

Rosenberg, M. B. (2015). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (3rd ed.). PuddleDancer Press.

The Fourth Quinlan Rule

January 24, 2024
Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Culture change
Leave a comment

The Fourth Quinlan Rule

The Bobiverse sci-fi novels (book 4 – Heaven’s River) introduce an alien race known as the Quinlans. The Quinlans teach their young three moral principles using metal analogies: the Iron Rule, the Silver Rule, and the Gold Rule.

  • Iron Rule: If you have more power than someone, you can treat them how you like. (Might makes right.)
  • Silver Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (The so-called Golden Rule of human ethics – treat others how you want to be treated.)
  • Golden Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. (Treat people how they want to be treated, not just how you want to be treated – the platinum rule in human ethics).

So in order from basic/selfish to ethical/selfless:

  • Iron – Exercise power however you wish.
  • Silver – Treat others how you want to be treated.
  • Gold – Treat others how they want to be treated.

I strikes me that the Quinlans, and Theresa in particular, might have been interested in a fourth rule: the Antimatter Rule:

“Attend to folks’ needs.”

Like antimatter, the most explosive substance in the universe, this principle channels huge motivational power by focusing attention on understanding people’s needs.

Attending to Needs

By “folks,” the principle refers to all stakeholders affected – team members, users, customers, and more. And by “needs,” it addresses the spectrum of human requirements and motivations.

Rather than make assumptions, the Antimatter Principle asks us to clearly understand what really drives those we work with before taking action.

Honoring Needs Unlocks Passion

Attending to human needs taps into the fuel that ignites passionate human endeavor – our universal desire to feel heard, seen, valued. This empathy and understanding can transform collaborations.

In just four words, the Antimatter Principle captures a profoundly human-centric ethos. Understanding what inspires people provides a key to unlocking cooperation, innovation, and positive change.

What do you think about this principle? Could attending to folks’ needs power more constructive collaboration in your experiences?

The Creative Developer: Coding is Just Our Medium

January 24, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Coding, Deming, DevOps, Engineering, Software development
Leave a comment

The Creative Developer: Coding is Just Our Medium

How many software developers when asked what they do for a living reply “writing software”? Just about 100%, I’d guess. The very title of “software developer” implies we spend our days pounding out code, line after line of instructions for computers.

But is that truly an accurate picture? I would argue that the analogy of “writing” software promotes some problematic assumptions. It focuses purely on the technical aspect of coding, ignoring all the other important facets of bringing software to life. It perpetuates stereotypes of programmers as nerdy code monkeys, heads down in front of a keyboard all day. And it fails to capture the deeply creative process that software development entails at its best.

In reality, we developers don’t just “write” software – we attend to folks’ needs, crafting systems, experiences, solutions and above all, interpersonal connections. We collaborate, gather requirements, make trade-off decisions. We envision how people will interact with the products we craft. Code is simply our medium for bringing strategy and creativity to life.

Software development has as much in common with engineering, architecture or even storytelling as it does with coding. There is an artistry and imagination behind truly great tech-based products that goes far beyond syntax. The attendants of the future will be at least as fluent in humanities as mathematics or computer science.

So the next time someone asks what you do, don’t reflexively say you “write” software. Share how you attend to users’ needs, strategise solutions, and creatively work with teammates. Let’s put to rest the tired stereotype that developers are code-writing scribes! What we do entails far more multi-dimensional and meaningful attending to needs, products and people.

What’s Your System Improvement Index?

January 21, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Improvement, Metrics, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, Systems thinking
Leave a comment

What’s Your System Improvement Index?

Most systems operate under some sort of performance metric – service uptime, number of users, needs met, revenue growth, new feature deployment, incident resolution time…that sort of thing.

Whether they’re set by management, agreed upon by the Folks That Matter™, or simply targets for continuous improvement, metrics exist.

Sometimes, they’re overtly stated – written down in strategy documents or OKRs.

And other times they’re not formalised in this way.

Don’t mistake the absence of documented goals to mean non-existence of those goals (see also: Your Real Job)..

You might think your system has no performance metrics because nothing is in writing or has ever been formally discussed – but all you have is no clear agreement as to what your system’s performance metrics are.

Whether you’re a founder, product manager, engineer or other contributor, your system can do one of two things – meet expectations or disappoint. The absence of clear, agreed, preferably documented performance metrics merely means you don’t know when the system is underperforming.

If your system lacks clearly defined metrics, stop here – the key takeaway is to discuss and agree metrics and targets, even if just on your own team – so you know when the system is failing to hit the mark.

For most mature systems and products, it’s around this time of year teams analyse performance against goals – 15% improvement in latency, 11% increase in conversion, 7% bump in NPS…that sort of thing.

My question is this:

“To meet your system’s goals, how much do your collective assumptions and beliefs need to improve?”

It’s a difficult question without an obvious answer – 0%? In line with the target metrics? Double digit percentage gains across the board?

I don’t know the answer, and you may not either – but we’d likely both agree your organisation’s mindset and culture can always evolve.

Tools like organisational psychotherapy can help reveal limiting assumptions and facilitate shifts in collective beliefs.

So let me ask plainly:

“To meet your goals this year, how much do you need your organisation’s culture to develop?”

Pinning down an exact number isn’t straightforward, but it certainly isn’t zero.

One suggestion to quantify this:

Conduct regular culture and maturity assessments, and use the year-on-year improvement as an indicative ‘System Improvement Index’ benchmark for collective thinking shifts.

Of course, you may already do this, in which case view it as validation you’re tracking evolutions in organisational worldview.

If not, there are many good culture evaluation frameworks out there. Use one aligned to your organisation’s design and purpose. We have one we can share too – just ask!

Let me close by asking once more:

To meet next year’s targets, how much do your collective assumptions and beliefs need to improve? What’s your system’s ‘Improvement Index’?

What’s Wrong with DORA?

January 17, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, DevOps, Needs
Leave a comment

What’s Wrong with DORA?

DevOps Research and Assessment (DORA) has popularised four key metrics for measuring software delivery and IT performance:

  1. Deployment Frequency
  2. Lead Time for Changes
  3. Change Failure Rate
  4. Time to Restore (1)

According to DORA, optimising these metrics leads to higher productivity, profitability, and market share. But their laser focus on velocity overlooks quality of outcomes. DORA fails to emphasise whether software updates actually meet user needs or deliver more business value. See also: The Antimatter Principle.

Overly Prescriptive Approach

Promoting these four metrics applies a one-size-fits-all DevOps model that may not suit every organisation. DORA’s rigid framework limits flexibility for companies to tailor practices to their unique needs (and the needs of all the Folks That Matter™).

Shovelling Shit Faster

Nowhere does DORA stress measuring if software improves customers’ lives. Their model incentivises shipping code changes rapidly – without considering real-world impact. For example, faster deployment cycles could degrade instead of improve products if quality is not continuously validated.

DORA says nothing about ensuring “done” items provide tangible value to users. And lowering change failure rates matters little for those issues originating from deficient system architectures rather than deployment processes. Faster restoration loses impact without resilient foundations.”.

Quality Metrics

In essence, DORA overlooks a core, fifth metric: Quality of Outcomes. This measures whether frequent code deployments actually deliver business value and satisfy customers. Velocity means little without user-centric data on software effectiveness.

Their models push maximum development speed rather than solutions optimized for needs. Quality cannot be an afterthought. DevOps connects culture, outcomes, and technical execution. DORA would better serve the industry by emphasizing value over velocity.

Questionable Data Analysis

While DORA’s reports reference data from thousands of technology professionals, their research methodology and data analysis comes under scrutiny. For example, their surveys may have sampling issues or lack statistical significance testing of findings. Correlations around improved IT performance are presented as definitive without enough controlled studies.

Narrow Focus

DORA’s reports concentrate almost exclusively on internal software development lifecycle processes. But DevOps success depends on many human and cultural dimensions that DORA largely ignores. Collaboration, security culture, communication protocols, and learning disciplines play key roles as well.

Emphasis on Speed

In striving for faster delivery of technology changes, DORA overlooks the dangers of moving too hastily. Pushing out more deployments is not valuable if quality suffers. And accelerated velocity risks increasing technical debt and architectural risks over time.

Commercial Interests

While positioned as an impartial research organisation, DORA was founded by – and continues to promote – DevOps platform vendors. These commercial interests raise questions around potential bias in their perspectives and findings.

Conclusion

DORA has stimulated valuable conversations around improving development and operations. However, as with any prescriptive framework, organisations might choose to scrutinise its limitations and find the right DevOps model for their own needs. There is no universal approach for DevOps excellence.

Personally, I’d never recommend DORA to my clients.

Footnote

1) “Time to Restore” or “Mean Time to Restore (MTTR)” is one of the four key metrics that DORA highlights for measuring DevOps/IT performance.

It refers to the average time it takes to recover and restore service when an incident, outage, or defect that impacts users occurs in production. Some examples:

  • If a server goes down, MTTR measures how long it takes on average to get that server back up and running again.
  • If a new software update causes functionality bugs, MTTR measures the average time from when the defective update was released to when it was rolled back or fixed and normal operation was restored.

So in summary, Time to Restore tracks the speed of recovery from production issues and disruptions. DORA advocates minimizing MTTR to improve availability and reduce downtime impacts on the business.

The Far-Reaching Impacts of the Law of Unintended Consequences

January 8, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Culture change, Organisational Therapy, Product development, Quintessence, Self-organisation, Software development
Leave a comment

The Far-Reaching Impacts of the Law of Unintended Consequences

The law of unintended consequences states that actions will have unanticipated effects, often counterproductive ones. This concept profoundly applies to software development, and collaborative knowledge work more generally. In these domains involving interdependent human and technical factors, even well-intentioned plans often go awry.

This post explores key unintended consequences that manifest in software develeopment and collaborative knowledge work (CKW):

Technical Debt

Technical debt refers to the deliberate choice to take shortcuts in order to expedite software delivery. Like financial debt, it can be beneficial if consciously taken on and repaid through refactoring. However, scheduled repayments often get deferred as teams race to meet deadlines. The “interest” accrues as ongoing maintenance costs.

Feature Creep

The lean startup mentality of minimum viable products and iterative development has advantages. However, an unintended consequence is feature creep – products become bloated as developers continuously add but rarely subtract capabilities. And as management finds more and more pointless or decreasing value work to keep their standing teams busy. The result is complex products growing like topsy.

Information Overload

Modern collaboration tools enable unprecedented information sharing. But an unintended consequence is information overload, which hampers productivity and decision-making. Each piece of information seems useful, yet the cumulative result is a distracted, overburdened workforce.

Tunnel Vision

In software development, teams focus on completing narrowly defined tasks. This tunnel vision means losing sight of the big picture. Pressure to deliver assigned work leads to task-oriented rather than solution-oriented thinking. This tendency is exacerbated by the widespread case of work assignments coming from management rather than self-organising teams. The unintended consequence is misalignment, reduced value, and lack of integration.

Morale Issues

Open information flow and accountability bring major benefits. However, the unintended consequence can be decreased risk-taking, and morale problems. With every action visible and judged, workers avoid mistakes that could impact performance reviews. Innovation suffers when people focus on safe, incremental tasks and protecting thir own arses (cf. CYA).

Busywork

When work is misaligned with overall goals and strategies, inevitable busywork is the result. People spin their wheels on tasks that provide no real value to customers or the organisation and its customers. Energy is frittered away on going through the motions versus really attending to folks’ needs.

Perverse Incentives and Focus on Productivity

Reward systems, especially those aimed at boosting individuals’ productivity, undermine quality and teamwork. For example, compensating developers based on lines of code incentivises quantity over quality. Emphasising individual contributors over collaboration is another common unintended consequence.

Loss of Tacit Knowledge

Capturing processes, best practices, and “how-to” knowledge in wikis and databases can provide some benefts. However, over-reliance on documentation loses tacit knowledge that comes from experience and learned skills. Key contextual information gets lost when veterans leave without transfering hard-to-document knowledge.

Technical Monocultures

Standardisation has advantages in terms of compatibility and skill transferability. But an unintended consequence is the risk of monoculture technology stacks vulnerable to single points of failure. If a widely used framework has a major bug, many downstream systems are suddenly impacted.

Integration Headaches

Connecting modern microservices architectures can provide agility. However, an unintended consequence is integration headaches when stitching together disparate systems and data sources. Overally product reliability can also suffer. Development timelines often underestimate the complexity of integrating components.

Zombie Projects

Organisations generally find it difficult or impossible to kill failing initiatives. There is a tendency for questionable projects to lurch forward as “zombies” that nobody wants to end due to e.g. sunk cost fallacy. The unintended consequence is opportunity costs – as zombies consume budgets, workers and that rarest of all resources – management attention.

Mitigation Strategies

With sufficient foresight and systems thinking, organisations can choose to institute mitigating actions:

  • A systemic focus on the Antimatter Principle (have all efforts directed at attending to the needs of all the Folks That Matter™ Cf. The Needsscape).
  • Institute product management disciplines to curtail feature creep (Cf. Product Aikido).
  • Promote diversity and constructive dissent to counter groupthink.
  • Prioritise attending to folks’ needs, including capturing (e.g. documenting) knowledge that serves folks needs for reference information .
  • Stay vigilant w.r.t. unintended consequences (often only obvious through hindsight).
  • Engage with Organisational Psychotherapy so issues can be surfaced, and reflected upon, early.

By understanding where the Law of Unintended Consequences applies, teams can take proactive steps to minimise disruptive friction and dysfunction. The result is better alignment, usable products, and organisations where the whole exceeds the sum of misguided parts.

What is “Caring”?

January 2, 2024
Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Caring, Compassion, Culture change, Empathy
Leave a comment

What is “Caring”?

In a world that seems more divided and impersonal each day, it’s easy to lose sight of what it really means to care for one another. But what does it truly mean to care?

At its core, caring is about attending to the needs of others with compassion. Caring people make an effort to understand what others need to live joyful, fulfilling lives. They seek to support people emotionally, physically, and spiritually. Their acts of caring may be large or small – from listening patiently to a friend in need to volunteering at a homeless shelter. But in all cases, caring stems from a genuine concern for the welfare of fellow human beings.

In their book Compassionomics, economists Stephen Trzeciak and Anthony Mazzarelli provide copper-bottomed evidence that caring produces tangible benefits both for givers and receivers alike. Studies show that people who volunteer tend to be healthier and live longer. Compassion training in schools reduces violence and bullying. Caring healthcare professionals have patients with better outcomes. And people who feel cared for are more resilient in the face of trauma and stress. In study after study, caring proves critical for individual and collective wellbeing.

Of course, caring can be challenging. It requires generosity, sacrifice, and emotional intelligence. There are times we must care for people we find difficult. And earnest caring always involves some risk – the risk of rejection, disappointment or loss. But as Trzeciak and Mazzarelli explain, these risks pale next to the regrets of a life spent without meaningful caring connections.

In the end, caring is not about sympathy cards or grand gestures. It is about small acts of service and support, performed consistently and sincerely. Caring is embracing our shared humanity. It is a commitment to be present and helpful in the lives of others. And it is ultimately the bond that enables human flourishing even in hard times.

Is caring important to you? Does giving and receiving of compassion feature in your life? Perhaps if we can recover the simple art of caring for one another, some of the discord in our society will dissipate, leaving more space for the ties that truly matter.

Universal Incompetence: Navigating Times of Rapid Change

January 2, 2024
Alien tech, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Doctrine
Leave a comment

Universal Incompetence: Navigating Times of Rapid Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living Different

December 19, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article
Leave a comment

Living Different

This blog “Think Different” is now some fifteen years old, with some 1500+ posts. I mention this because over the past year or two I’ve found myself more and more drawn to not only thinking different (a constant theme throughout my life since being a teenager) but to living different too. “How does this manifest itself?” I hear you ask.

Here’s my present way of living, a way that seems to suit me well in at least some respects:

  • Working on things that interest me, rather than on what brings in coin – we might call thie “Serious Play”. I now reject the Lord Mammon and all his precepts.
  • Embracing idleness.
  • Focussing on being (more) human, and humane.
  • Engaging in dialogue with people – exploring more THEIR needs and perspectives, and less my own.
  • Writing and pontificatiing less, and helping people more (If you need my help, you have but to ask).
  • Cultivating connections – with other, likeminded, human beings.
  • Seeking what’s alive in others – and myself.
  • Spreading joy whenever and wherever I can – when invited to do so.

Practical Consequences

Practically, this living different means you’ll find me much less present online (including social media and this blog), and more present in personal interactions. If you have values any of my contributions, please seek me out for one-to-one interactions.

Happy holidays! 🎄

(And do let me know what you need).

— Bob

Unveiling Business Motives

December 12, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article
Leave a comment

Unveiling Business Motives

Businesses often get pigeonholed as being all about money and profit, a view entrenched in popular belief. But delve a tad deeper, and it’s evident it’s different beneath the surface. It’s not just about financial gain; status, self-image, and control over others play pivotal roles. Let’s unpack these elements.

Is Status the Real Game?

Why do individuals climb the corporate ladder or entrepreneurs strive for business success? Often, it’s the allure of status. Status offers social recognition, a sense of achievement, and often, a feeling of superiority. It’s a potent motivator, pushing individuals to seek other than just monetary rewards. In businesses, this quest for status can shape many decisions, from aggressive expansions to high-profile acquisitions.

Self-Image: Are We What We Achieve?

Self-image is intricately linked to career and business achievements. For many, their profession or company is not just a means of livelihood; it’s a reflection of who they are. This intertwining of self-identity with business success can drive individuals to pursue goals that bolster their self-image, often prioritising it over financial practicalities.

Control: More Than Just Being the Boss

The desire for control is a fundamental human trait. In the business realm, control transcends mere managerial oversight. It’s about influencing markets, shaping consumer preferences, and even impacting societal norms. This control provides a sense of power and agency, which can be more enticing than the financial benefits that come with it.

So, What’s the Bottom Line?

While financial gain is undeniably a central aspect of business, it’s not the whole story. The drive for status, the quest for a favourable self-image, and the desire for control are equally compelling forces. Understanding these motivations can offer a more holistic view of the business world, beyond the simplistic notion of profit-making.

In conclusion, businesses operate in a complex landscape where money, while important, isn’t the sole player. Status, self-image, and control are significant factors shaping business behaviours and decisions. Recognising this can lead to a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play in the business world.

Postscript

Most folks I’ve worked with act as if profit is the key purpose driving behaviours and decisions in their organisations. I invite everyone to take another look and consider whether that’s what’s really happening, despite what people say. Espoused theory vs theory-in-action (cf. Argyris) once again.

Sustainable Business: A Timeless Approach?

November 27, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article
Leave a comment

Sustainable Business: A Timeless Approach?

Kent Beck said recently he’s been looking for “a principles-aligned sustainable business model for a long old time.” For his edification, and your delectation, I offer: The Antimatter Principle.

What Drives Sustainable Success?

In today’s fast-paced business landscape, a sustainable business model isn’t just a buzzword; it’s a necessity. At the heart of this model lies a fundamental principle: the Antimatter Principle. This principle, focusing on attending to the needs of people, offers a solid foundation for businesses seeking longevity and ethical success. But how does this principle translate into a sustainable business model?

How Does the Antimatter Principle Shape Business?

The Antimatter Principle, simply put, advocates for the prioritisation of people’s needs. In a business context, this means understanding and addressing the needs of customers, employees, and broader stakeholders. It’s about creating value that resonates on a human level, leading to deeper engagement and loyalty. So, how does a business mould its strategies around this principle?

What Does a Principles-Aligned Model Look Like?

Adopting the Antimatter Principle in business requires a paradigm shift. It’s not merely about profit margins or market share; it’s about embedding the ethos of empathy, attention to needs, and caring into every aspect of the business. This includes product development, customer service, employee welfare, governance, financial management, and environmental responsibility. But what are the tangible benefits of this approach?

Can Empathy Drive Profit?

Empathy as a business strategy often raises eyebrows. Yet, numerous studies show that when businesses genuinely care for the needs of The Folks That Matter™, they reap significant rewards. These include increased customer loyalty, improved employee experiencs (and productivity), and a positive brand image. Empathy isn’t just morally right; it’s commercially smart. But how can a business maintain this approach in the long run?

How to Sustain the Antimatter Approach?

Sustaining a principles-aligned business model demands continuous effort. It involves regularly revisiting and reassessing the needs of The Folks That Matter™, adapting to changes in this Needsscape, and staying true to the core principle of attending to people. It also means being transparent, accountable (also needs), and willing to evolve. But isn’t this approach challenging to scale?

Is Scalability a Challenge?

Scaling a business while adhering to the Antimatter Principle might seem daunting. However, it’s about scaling values as much as operations. It involves creating systems and a culture that inherently respects and responds to human needs, regardless of the size of the company. This ensures that growth doesn’t dilute the principle but reinforces it.

A Timeless Model for the Future?

In conclusion, aligning a business model with the Antimatter Principle offers a pathway to sustainable success. It’s about creating a business that isn’t just profitable, but profoundly human. Such a model, while challenging, holds the potential to stand the test of time, resonating with generations of consumers and employees alike. In a world where businesses come and go, those grounded in principles that value folks’ needs might just be the ones that last a long, old time.

What is Work?

November 10, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Culture change, Needs
Leave a comment

What is Work?

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

Is Work a Necessary Part of Human Existence?

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

Meeting Economic Needs: Is It Just About Money?

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

Fulfilling Creative Desires: More Than Just a Job?

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

Serving Social Needs: A Tool for Connection?

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

Promoting Personal Growth: Just Self-Improvement?

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

Ensuring Survival: The Basic Necessity?

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

Seeking Status: A Symbol of Success?

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

Postscript

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

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

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

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

One of his notable quotes from the essay is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of his famous quotes regarding work is:

“Work is the curse of the drinking classes.”

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

Partisanship

November 1, 2023
Actionable Insights, Agile, Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Business, Culture change, Lamentation, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy
Leave a comment

Partisanship

Does Taking Sides Help?

Supporting Agile is like supporting Hamas, or Israel, or the Palestinians, or Ukraine, or Russia, or the USA, or China, or…

This opening might shock you, but it’s an intentional jolt to invite reflection on how we often automatically pick sides. I’ve spent years criticising Agile, but recent world events have helped my see the folly of this. In the Middle East and elsewhere, any sane person would support PEACE. (Of course, sanity seems in direly short supply, presently). Similarly we might choose to aim for better meeting folks’ NEEDS in organisational practices. Instead of partisan stances, why not focus on what really matters: achieving results that speak to the needs of everyone involved?

Why Do We Rush to Choose Sides?

Choosing a side can feel satisfying. It simplifies complex issues and gives us a team to root for. However, partisanship often blinds us to the nuances that exist in any conflict or approach. Whether it’s in international relations or ways of working, like Agile, blind allegiance and partisanship never results in beneficial outcomes.

What’s the Cost of Partisanship?

The cost is steep. Partisan views stifle creativity and close us off from alternative solutions. We become invested in the success of our chosen side or approach, disregarding other approaches that offer better results. Specifically, pro-agile or anti-agile now seems to me to be highly partisan, and a similar folly. I propose we get off the taking sides bandwagon and move towards attending to folks’ fundamental needs.

What Outcomes Do Folks Need?

Instead of wallowing in partisan mire, let’s focus on folks’ needs. These can vary, but generally include:

  • Products and services that best* meet folks’ needs.
  • A workplace environment, ways of working, and organisational culture that best* meet folks’ needs.
  • [Further suggestions invited]

Each approach, including Agile, has its merits and drawbacks when it comes to these outcomes. By taking a needs-based stance, we can adopt a blend of approaches tailored to specific needs, rather than attempting to shoehorn everything into a one-size-fits-all approach.

How Do We Move Forward?

To move away from partisanship, we might choose to:

  1. Identify whose needs matter, and what those needs might be.
  2. Surface and reflect on shared assumptions and beliefs.
  3. Acknowledge our biases.
  4. Educate ourselves on different approaches.
  5. Align on desired outcomes.

This isn’t just applicable to Agile; it’s a principle we can apply universally. Whether it’s picking a side in a conflict or choosing principles and practices for organisational improvement, we might choose to free ourselves from the limitations of partisanship.

Final Thoughts

Partisanship is a tempting trap, offering the illusion of simplicity in a complex world. But it’s a trap that often leads us away from the outcomes folks need. By acknowledging this, we can pave a more effective, less divisive path forward, whether we’re discussing international relations, social change, or the best* approaches for organisational success.

*Here, may I suggest that “best” means “meets all the needs of all the folks that matter”.

Why Isn’t Management Working?

October 29, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Culture change, Fellowship, Management, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, Rightshifting
Leave a comment

Why Isn’t Management Working?

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

What’s Causing the Discontent?

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

Are Traditional Approaches Outdated?

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

How Does the Management Paradigm Affect Mental Health?

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

Is There a Solution?

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

Is Change Really Possible?

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

Summary

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

Man’s Search for Dignity

October 11, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Dignity, Needs
Leave a comment

Man’s Search for Dignity

What Does Dignity Truly Mean?

In our quest for freedom and justice, we might choose to recognise the innate worth and boundless dignity inherent in each human soul. Immanuel Kant speaks to the heart of this when he implores us to treat every individual not as mere means, but each as an end unto themselves. This is not merely a philosophical concept; it’s the bedrock of human equality, respect, and mutual understanding. More simply put, most people have a deep need for dignity.

Is There a Link Between Dignity and Well-Being?

Friends, while Dan Pink talks of autonomy, mastery, and purpose, and Viktor Frankl speaks of our inherent need for meaning, let’s not forget the soul’s unquenchable thirst for dignity. As Maya Angelou wisely points out, our very sense of self, our emotional well-being, is intertwined with our dignity. We are more resilient, more courageous, and more human when our inherent dignity receives acknowledgement and attention.

Has Dignity a Place in the Temple of Labour?

In the workplace, which Martin Luther King, Jr,. called the ‘Temple of Labour’, we often neglect this divine principle of dignity. We focus on numbers, on productivity, forgetting that we’re dealing with souls with dreams and hopes, just like Nelson Mandela who stood up for dignity in the face of dehumanising inequality. We must understand that our employees are not mere cogs in a machine but human beings. When a man or woman is treated with dignity, they rise to greater heights, not just for themselves but for the community at large.

Can We Find Some Metrics of the Soul?

How do you measure something as ethereal yet foundational as dignity? While quantifying the soul’s yearning is a complex task, Eleanor Roosevelt reminds us that dignity begins in “small places, close to home”. It manifests in lower employee turnover, higher job satisfaction, and even in the very reputation of your organisation. It’s these ‘small places’ where we might choose to set our focus.

Do We Need a Blueprint for Dignity?

  1. Transparent Communication: As the Dalai Lama suggests, the yearning for dignity is a universal human need. Open dialogue within an organisation can foster a sense of collective dignity.
  2. Inclusivity for All: A truly diverse workplace doesn’t just enrich the environment; it elevates our collective sense of dignity.
  3. Just and Fair Policies: Justice is the cornerstone of dignity. We might choose to establish fair policies that helps every man and woman feel valued.
  4. Pathways to Resolve Conflict: An effective and just approach to attending to folks’ needs, to airing grievances and to settling disputes maintains the dignity of all parties involved, allowing for growth and reconciliation.

The Horizon of Hope

Friends, let’s be clear: dignity is not some lofty aspiration; it’s the very essence that fuels a society rooted in justice and freedom. Upholding dignity propels us toward that horizon of hope—a realm where each of us is evaluated based on the integrity of our character, devoid of judgments. It’s a realm where the sanctity of human dignity is not a privilege, but a birthright that envelops everyone.

So, how about we channel our energies to manifest this vision? Let’s affirm the innate dignity within ourselves and extend that same attention to our fellow human beings. And in doing so, how about we build our homes, workplaces, and communities as living testaments to this most cherished principle.

 

Right or Popular?

October 10, 2023
Agile, Antimatter principle, Article, Ethics, Needs
Leave a comment

Right or Popular?

What Does “Right” Mean?

When we talk about being “right” in this context, we’re referring to a blend of factual accuracy and logical correctness. It means that your stance aligns with evidence and adheres to principles of logical reasoning. This isn’t about being morally right or wrong; rather, it’s about your position being defensible based on facts and rational arguments.

Why Aren’t Right and Popular Synonymous?

In an ideal scenario, what’s right should naturally be what’s popular. But we don’t live in such a simple reality. Public opinion often sways due to factors such as social influence, emotional appeal, or pre-existing biases. Popularity doesn’t put a premium on factual accuracy or logical validity. Often, a popular opinion gains traction not because it’s correct, but because it resonates with a significant number of people on a different level, be it emotional, ideological or commercial.

Can You Be Both?

Occasionally, yes, you can find yourself in the sweet spot where right meets popular. But increasingly, especially in polarised discussions—be they political, social, or even scientific—the two are mutually exclusive. The more divisive the topic, the more likely that standing on the side of logic and evidence will place you outside the mainstream. Increasingly, rigorous facts and deep insights have been overshadowed by sensationalism, crowd psychology and the might of Mammon.

What’s at Stake?

When right and popular part ways, there are consequences for both individuals and society. For individuals, it might mean less social acceptance or professional opportunities. On a societal level, the erosion of fact-based discourse can have serious implications, from the spread of misinformation to poorly-informed public policies.

How Do You Choose?

It’s a personal decision. If being correct is a core part of your identity and purpose, then there’s no question about which path to choose. However, if your role involves public influence or if your objective is to bring about change, the answer may not be so straightforward. Sometimes, a tactical compromise can serve a larger strategy, even if it means momentarily sidelining what’s right for what’s popular.

Conclusion

Being right and being popular are increasingly becoming mutually exclusive options. While it’s a dilemma that poses challenges both personally and socially, the choice ultimately lies in your hands. What you choose will depend on your needs, your values, and the context in which you find yourself.

Why Does Telling Fail?

October 10, 2023
Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Culture change, Empathy, Listening
Leave a comment

Why Does Telling Fail?

What’s Wrong with Directives?

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

Why Do People Resist?

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

Does Age Matter?

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

Can Telling Be Ineffective?

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

What Happens to Learning?

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

What Are the Alternatives?

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

Is Active Engagement the Key?

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

How About Empathy?

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

A New Way Forward

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

How Will AI Shape Office Dynamics?

October 9, 2023
AI, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Careers, Culture change, Fellowship, Relationships
Leave a comment

How Will AI Shape Office Dynamics?

What’s Truly Happening in Our Offices?

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

Is AI a Participant or a Bystander?

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

Can AI Ameliorate Workplace Bias?

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

How Do We Strike the Balance in Communication?

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

Where Are the Ethical Boundaries?

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

Will AI Reshape Office Hierarchies?

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

What’s the Inescapable Impact?

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

Talking About Needs?

October 4, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Caring, Compassion, Empathy, Fellowship, Psychology, Relationships
Leave a comment

Talking About Needs?

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

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

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

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