Archive

Management

What Are You Missing Out On?

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

For Executives and Senior Managers

Shaping the Organisational Mindset

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

Transcending Limiting Assumptions

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

For Middle Managers

Bridging Misaligned Beliefs

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

Fostering Trust and Psychological Safety

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

For Technical Workers

Unleashing Pioneering Thinking

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

Fostering Knowledge-Sharing

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Perils of Misclassifying Collaborative Knowledge Work

Introduction

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

These consequences include:

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

Incompatible Work Environments

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

Ineffective Management Approaches

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

Lack of Collaboration Support

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

Misaligned Performance Evaluation

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

Insufficient Professional Development

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

Talent Retention Challenges

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

Stifled Innovation Potential

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

Conclusion

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

The End of Improvement – The Managers’ Perspective

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

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

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

Leading Players Forced to Perform

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

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

The Overloaded Managerial Understudy

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

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

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

The Final Performance

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

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

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

 

The Executive Fuckups Crippling Software Development

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

Category Error

The Crux of the Problem

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

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

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

Applying the Wrong Lens

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

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

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

The Pitfalls of Misclassification

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

The Crux of the Issue

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

Unlocking True Potential

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

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

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

The Path Forward

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

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

The Blissfully Unaware Manager

A short story about metacluelessness and the distinction from stupidity.

Hubris in the Corner Office

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

The Cracks Begin to Show

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

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

A Slow-Motion Catastrophe

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

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

A Failed Intervention

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

The Inevitable Conclusion

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

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

The Lesson Learned

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

Metacluelessness – The Competence Blind Spot Plaguing Organisations

The Danger of Overconfidence

As a manager, having confidence in your abilities is certainly important for leading teams and making critical business decisions. However, there is a fine line between self-assurance and falling victim to a dangerous cognitive bias called metacluelessness – a lack of awareness about the boundaries of your own competence.

Clifford’s Ethics of Belief

Philosopher William Kingdon Clifford highlighted the ethical importance of not allowing ourselves to remain in a state of false beliefs or delusions. In his essay “The Ethics of Belief,” Clifford argues it is wrong, whenever the occasion arises, to believe something on insufficient evidence. To do so is to erect a “scorner’s chair” for truth and to fail to uphold our fundamental duty as human beings to pursue truth diligently.

Metacluelessness as Unethical Delusion

Metacluelessness directly violates this duty that Clifford lays out. It causes managers to grossly overestimate their skills, knowledge, and overall managerial competence based on delusional confidence rather than objective assessment of the evidence of their understanding. Managers suffering from metacluelessness erect their own “scorner’s chairs” for truth in their areas of responsibility.

They think they have a solid handle on principles, best practices, people, psycvhology, emerging trends, and the complexities involved, when in reality there are gaping holes in their grasp that they fail to acknowledge. Suffering from metacluelessness, managers operate under a false sense of mastery over critical management disciplines. They are clueless about the true extent of their cluelessness and knowledge gaps. This creates disastrous blind spots in their judgment and decision-making.

The Root of Managerial Arrogance

As Clifford states, “The source of all the miserable self-idolatries…the despicable vices…is nothing other than a persuasion existing in men’s minds not based on fair reasoning and evidence.” Metacluelessness breeds overconfidence based on delusional beliefs about one’s true competence. It is the root of managerial arrogance, close-mindedness, dismissal of risks, and poor strategic vision.

Catastrophic Consequences

The consequences can be catastrophic – flawed strategies, missed opportunities, sunk costs from failures, poor leadership examples set for teams, and more. Entire companies have met their demise because executive leadership teams suffered from the “miserable self-idolatry” of individual and collective metacluelessness in critical areas.

Cultivating True Competence

Combating metacluelessness requires cultivating true competence – an awareness of what you don’t know and diligence in addressing those shortcomings. It starts with the intellectual humility that Clifford upheld as critical for a responsible pursuit of truth and knowledge. Admit the limits of your expertise without feeling inadequate. As Clifford wrote, “A generous admission of knowledge gaps is the condition of all real progress.”

The Best Never Stop Learning

Recognise that as a manager, you supervise teams filled with specialised knowledge you cannot possibly match in every domain. True competence means knowing when to rely on the wisdom of others with deeper mastery and looking for opportunities to expand your own understanding through fair reasoning and examination of evidence. It’s about embracing a habit of perpetual learning to strengthen beliefs in alignment with evidential proof.

The best managers never stop questioning their grasp of important principles and best practices based on the ethics of belief laid out by Clifford. Don’t let the “despicable vice” of overconfident metacluelessness derail your judgment through beliefs detached from rigorous evidentiary standards. Proactively identify and confront the boundaries of your competence. Only then can you become a more complete, ethically sound, and effective manager capable of leading teams and companies to success built on a foundation of diligently pursued truths.

Power or Profits – You Can’t Have Both

“Command-and-control is less and less the model for how the world works. Hierarchies, with their emphasis on obedience and conformity, are ill-suited for a modern economy in which knowledge workers must improvise and bend the rules.”

~ Gary Hamel

Organisations often face a tradeoff between distributing power to lower level employees (and thereby increasing innovation and productivity) versus maximising management power and control. The traditional hierarchical structure concentrates decision-making authority with senior managers. While this enables top-down control and accountability, it can come at the expense of agility, innovation, and employee empowerment.

Some argue that pushing down real power and autonomy to rank-and-file workers or frontline staff threatens the traditional managerial chain of command. And this may be true. However, the counterargument is that empowered employees with a voice in key decisions, access to resources, and fewer bureaucratic constraints are more engaged, productive, and creative.

Studies of organisations that have “flattened” their traditionally steep hierarchies show they often outperform their more top-down competitors. Giving teams ownership of projects and problems paired with accountability for outcomes can drive faster iteration, customer focus, and solutions that leverage insider knowledge.

However, power distribution introduces messy realities to the tidy organisational chart. Concerns around losing control can make management reluctant to adopt more decentralised structures. And managers oppose changes seen as diluting their status or job security. The instinct is often to limit autonomy to non-critical functions.

So organisations face a stark choice between retaining centralised control or pushing down power to unlock greater innovation and responsiveness. The reality is you cannot have both tightly held managerial authority and the agility enabled by widespread employee empowerment. Attempts to blend elements of both will inevitably lead to confused systems with conflicting priorities.

Organisations have a choice – commit fully to either top-down control or bottom-up autonomy. There are reasonable argumentsfor both options. But make no mistake – compromising between the two by granting partial empowerment on select issues resolves nothing. It brings only greater frustration and deteriorating morale over time. Organisations have the choice of direction for the organisation and its culture – management power or burgeoning profits. The middle ground is ultimately untenable.

Further Reading

Lilla, M. (2024, February 26). Against managerialism. Current Affairs. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2024/02/against-managerialism

Management Shortchanges Employees At Every Turn

In many companies, management imposes policies and practices that end up costing employees in major ways. Despite no clear business benefits, executives and middle management, both, make decisions and pursue approaches that hurt workers’ wallets, productivity and well-being.

Can we ever expect a healty, productive and mutually beneficial community of relationships to emerge from a foundation of naked exploitation?

Example: RTO

One example is Return to Office mandates after COVID, but this is just a symptom of a broader issue – management making decisions without considering employees’ needs and blythe ignorance of the consequences. (Or is it mendacity? For example, Wage Theft – estimates suggest wage theft costs U.S. workers $15-50 billion per year, more than is lost to robbery and theft combined.).

Shall We Count the Ways?

“How do I love thee?
Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.”

~ Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Other common ways managers financially and personally cost staff include:

  • Stagnant wages and lack of raises, even despite rising costs of living
  • Minimal spending on employee training and career development
  • Avoiding the costs of effective health and safety and wellness programmes
  • Mandating outdated tools, working practices, organisational structures, and systems, that hinder productivity vs new approaches
  • All talk, no action on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives – “DEI Theatre”
  • Ever rising C-suite salaries, bonuses and perks while rank and file see ever-shrinking benefits
  • Lack of flexibility for work-life balance, leading to workers’ lives and earnings being disrupted by having to change jobs

Many companies view workers as nothing more than a cost to be minimised. Executives are disconnected from the employee experience. They pursue shareholder value at the expense of the workforce.

But organisations suffer when employees are not valued. Disengagement, burnout and high turnover follow. Customer satisfaction dips as unhappy employees deliver poor service. Innovation and performance decline.

Conclusion

The poor treatment of employees by management seems deeply ingrained in corporate structures and business school teachings. But are there solutions, or is management simply an irredeemable concept?

Some argue that these problems can be addressed through better laws and regulations, such as higher minimum wages, stronger health and safety protections, limits on executive compensation, and empowering workers’ rights to organise. Management training programs could also be reformed to prioritise employee wellbeing over short-term profits.

However, others contend that management by its very nature is exploitative. The hierarchical structure gives disproportionate power to executives and shareholders beholden to capitalism’s pursuit of power-holders’ wellbeing, efficiency, and profit maximization. Workers will always be squeezed under the management yoke

Radical solutions propose democratising the workplace through cooperatives, employee representation and ownership, worker representation on boards, and decentralised decision-making. But can these ideas scale successfully?

Perhaps the answer lies in a mixed approach. Pragmatic reforms to improve life for workers within current corporate models, paired with incubating alternative organisational structures that give workers an equal voice, or even the whip hand (Cf. servant leadership).

There are no easy solutions, but can we continue to accept the status quo of management blatantly and egregiously exploiting employees? Can we find a system that upholds dignity, justice and shared prosperity? Workers are assets to invest in, not costs to cut. Might we have faith that through insight, integrity and innovation, business can empower rather than extract from the workforce? The path will not be quick or easy, but progress remains possible through partnership across sectors and persistence despite setbacks.

For a model of how such an oganisation might look like – and feel like from both the workers’, managers’, and customers’ perspectives – you might like to read my latest book “Quintessence“.

Afterword

What practices have you seen, good or bad, that reveal how a company truly views its employees? Share your thoughts on when management’s decisions cost or benefit workers.

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 Role of Organisational Psychotherapy in Catalysing Customer Change

“If only we could get our market to see the incredible value of our services” – a constant refrain in supplier organisations everywhere.

In B2B sales particularly, customer organisations’ collective assumptions and beliefs are often the key constraint in both their becoming more effective in their own businesses, and their engaging with you as supplier to buy more of your organisation’s products and services. Here’s a few examples of such limiting assumptions and beliefs from specific sectors:

Manufacturing:

  • “We prioritize efficiency over agility” – Resistance to flexible solutions that disrupt tightly optimized production workflows.
  • “Innovation isn’t a priority” – Complacent attitude that hinders adoption of emerging technologies like IoT, AI etc.

Healthcare:

  • “Do no harm” – Excessive risk aversion that limits deploying new interventions without exhaustive proof.
  • “Clinicians know best” – Dismissive attitudes toward operational insights from managers or partners.

Financial Services:

  • “Regulations limit change” – Using compliance as an excuse to not undertake transformations.
  • “Our brand perception is all that matters” – Focusing excessively on marketing at the cost of customer-centricity.

Retail:

  • “Physical stores still reign” – Resistance to reimagining business models and channels despite ecommerce trends.
  • “Customer loyalty is high” – Taking customers for granted rather than innovating to excite them.

The Role of Organisational Psytchotherapy

Truly transformational change in customer organisations often benefits from addressing underlying psychological factors. This is where organisational psychotherapy can play a pivotal role in enabling customer organisations to embrace change, change which can mutually beneficial to both supplier and customers.

Kickstarting Change

Some ways psychotherapy principles can help suppliers ignite change in customer organisations are:

  • Surfacing unspoken fears about the impacts of change – fears that may be driving resistance.
  • Providing a safe space for customer organisations to voice anxieties and work through them.
  • Surfacing unhealthy group dynamics that reinforce status quo thinking.
  • Challenging embedded assumptions and blind spots through deep and facilitated inquiry and reflection.
  • Enabling open dialogue and vulnerability to build trust.
  • Helping customer teams align around shared goals and visualization.
  • Continually monitoring psychological constraints and misalignments as they emerge.

With compassion and emotional intelligence, consultants trained in organisational psychotherapy can work with customers to bust through mental barriers. This clears the path for implementing bold new visions in partnership with the enabling supplier.

The organisational psychotheapy lens is key to enabling transformations centered on shared assumptions and beliefs, not just processes. I hope these insights on blending organisational psychotherapy with change management and Theory of Constraints inspire you in your efforts to propel customer evolutions.

I’d love to hear about your experiences with organisational psychotherapy in enabling change in customer organisations. What unique insights has it provided you?

The Role of the Modern Manager: Creating Environments for People to Excel

The driving purpose behind most of my 1000+ blog posts here on Think Different is exploring how we might collectively foster environments that enable people to give of their best.

What if we created workplaces and environments where everyone feels respected, trusted, and intrinsically motivated to do meaningful work? How could empathy, compassion and vulnerability strengthen teams?

Imagine prioritising inspiration over control, coaching over criticising, unlocking potential over punishing failure. What could empathic structures, self-direction and flexibility allow us to achieve together?

Fire All the Managers

In his thought-provoking 2011 HBR article “First, Fire All the Managers”, Gary Hamel makes a compelling case for phasing out managers entirely. He argues that hierarchical management structures inhibit agility, innovation, and engagement. While eliminating management altogether seems radical, Hamel raises important points on rejecting traditional collective assumptions and beliefs about management.

Exponential Achievement

This journey requires examining collective assumptions, taking risks and pioneering new models. It may mean temporary discomfort yet enables exponential human achievement.

I don’t claim to have all the answers. But the invitation is open – to walk together toward enlightened working, one thoughtful experiment at a time. To choose fellowship over hierarchy, vision over rules, and nonviolence over Fear, Obligation, Guilt and Shame.

Enormous Possibilities

Progress won’t happen overnight. The path involves stumbles yet holds enormous possibility. My hope is my Think Different posts help spark insight and courage to create environments where every person can thrive.

What ideas do you have on this journey? What approaches resonate with you? By sharing perspectives, we discover the way forward together. The destination can best be uncovered collaboratively.

Feedback

Let me know if this resonates as an inviting post tying back to my core focus on human-centered environments while headlining the overall purpose of this long-running  blog. I appreciate you encouraging and supporting me to refine the framing and messaging!

Snowflakes

What Makes Someone a Snowflake?

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

Is Sensitivity Always a Weakness?

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

Why Don’t Snowflakes Take Responsibility?

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

How Can Snowflake People Change?

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

How to Cope With Snowflakes?

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

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

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

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

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

Do Snowflakes Frequently Ghost Their Friends?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s at Stake?

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

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

How Does Ghosting Affect Workplace Relationships and Culture?

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote

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

The System’s Unseen Value

What is Goodwill?

Goodwill refers to the intangible assets that make a business valuable beyond its tangible assets like equipment, patents, people, or inventory. It includes elements such as brand reputation, market position/share, company culture, and customer relationships. Goodwill matters because it influences the market’s perception of a business’s worth, often adding significantly to its valuation.

Does the System Matter?

While financial experts readily acknowledge the importance of goodwill, the “way the work works” (a.k.a. “the system”) almost never gets its due attention. But just as goodwill contributes to a company’s valuation, the way the work works can significantly affect an organisation’s effectiveness, costs, profitability, and employee satisfaction.

Why Overlook The Way the Work Works?

Goodwill gets its importance primarily because it appears on a balance sheet and contributes to a company’s market valuation. The way the work works doesn’t have such a direct presence in financial reporting, making it easier to overlook. This lack of visibility largely renders it irrelevant. In fact, the way the work works often acts as an intangible asset that can yield long-term benefits. Or as a boat anchor that produces significant dysbenefits.

How to Measure the Way the Work Works?

While it’s challenging to quantify the value of effective work methods, metrics like productivity, quality, employee retention, and customer satisfaction can serve as indicators. Businesses might choose to identify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that align with their objectives to assess this aspect accurately. Assuming that the way the work works is even on businesses’ radar at all.

Can Intangibles Translate to Tangibles?

The way the work works can absolutely translate into tangible results, similar to goodwill. Effective work methods can lead to higher productivity, better quality of output, staff morale, and increased customer satisfaction—all of which, in turn, improve a company’s financial performance.

Is It Time to Take Action?

The onus lies on business leaders to recognise the importance of the way the work works and implement strategies for its improvement. Companies that take this aspect seriously will find themselves better equipped to meet challenges and seize opportunities in the market.

In a nutshell, the way the work works may not feature on a balance sheet, but its impact on business success is undeniable. By understanding and optimising the way the work works, organisations can enhance an intangible asset that has long-lasting, tangible benefits.

Why Isn’t Management Working?

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

What’s Causing the Discontent?

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

Are Traditional Approaches Outdated?

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

How Does the Management Paradigm Affect Mental Health?

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

Is There a Solution?

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

Is Change Really Possible?

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

Summary

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

Questioning Management

What Do We Think We Know?

Let’s get to the point: We’re talking about management. Yeah, the way bosses tell you what to do and you do it, or else. I’ve got a question: Why do we think this is the only way, or even the best way, to get things done?

Why Do We Follow the Rules?

We’ve got these big structures in place, right? Boss at the top, managers in the middle, employees at the bottom. Now, it’s not that we shouldn’t have rules or structure. But why this structure? Did anyone ever stop to think if this pyramid is helping or hindering?

Are There Other Ways?

Now, let’s imagine we look for other methods. Not just because they’re new or trendy, but because we want to know if they work better. Stuff like teamwork, collaboration—where everyone’s on the same page, and decisions aren’t just coming from the top down. The important thing is to look at the evidence. Test it out. And for heaven’s sake, don’t just stick with something because that’s how it’s always been done!

How Do We Change Minds?

Okay, so you’ve found that these new methods are working better. How do you get the bosses to listen? Invite them to go see for themselves (a.k.a. normative learning). Just showing them your data isn;t going to get it done. Joing in creating experiments, and let them see the results first hand. Change is hard, but self-gathered evidence is hard to argue with.

What’s Next?

Hey, questioning how we manage things is bound to make some folks uncomfortable. But if we’re going to keep up with the times, we’ve got to be willing to ask tough questions. The goal here isn’t to topple the pyramid but to build something better—something that works for everyone, not just the people at the top.

So, what are we waiting for? Let’s start questioning, testing, and improving. After all, that’s how we learn, isn’t it?

Corporates Suck: A Personal Take

What Happened to the Thrill?

When I first started working with computers, I revelled in the challenges and the opportunities for learning. The sense of accomplishment and the thrill of solving complex problems were genuinely exhilarating.

And to Employee Happiness?

However, my initial enthusiasm took a nosedive when I rubbed up against the corporate world. What caused this transformation? Many argue that the corporate environment has a knack for leaching joy, replacing it with turgid egocentric managers intent on feathering their own nests at everyone else’s expense.

What’s Wrong with Corporate Culture?

In corporates, the methods used to assess and drive performance often benefit these self-serving managers rather than the well-being of the workforce as a whole. Indeed, even the very pursuit of “performance” is a theatre of fiction.

Does Autonomy Matter?

The absence of autonomy in a hierarchical corporate structure further dampens the spirit. Employees lose the joy that comes from freedom and independent decision-making, turning work into a mere series of tasks.

Autonomy often serves as a cornerstone for employee happiness. The freedom to make decisions, solve problems and contribute ideas fosters a sense of ownership and, by extension, joy. But is autonomy a valued principle in the corporate world? Unfortunately, more often than not, the answer is no.

Corporate structures frequently operate within rigid hierarchies where decision-making power is concentrated at the top. Managers assign tasks and set directives, leaving little room for employees to exercise autonomy. This top-down approach not only diminishes individual contributions but also robs employees of the satisfaction derived from autonomous action.

Furthermore, when employees feel that their role is reduced to following orders, engagement plummets. The absence of autonomy turns day-to-day tasks into a checklist to be ticked off rather than a series of meaningful contributions. This lack of freedom directly contradicts the human desire for autonomy, leading to disengagement and, ultimately, a less joyful workplace.

So, does autonomy matter? Unquestionably. Granting employees a degree of autonomy can reignite the sputtering fires of joy and engagement, leading to a more productive and happier workforce. Corporates that recognise the value of autonomy take a significant step towards restoring the joy so often missing from the workplace.

Does Mastery Matter?

Mastery, or the drive to become proficient in a skill or field, can be a significant source of joy for many. But does it hold any water in the corporate setting? Unfortunately, the pursuit of mastery often takes a back seat in corporates, sidelined by short-term goals and immediate deliverables. The emphasis on quick wins and immediate results eclipses the long-term satisfaction that comes from mastering a skill or a domain.

Furthermore, the race for promotions and recognition can dilute the pure joy of mastery. Instead of gaining proficiency for the sheer pleasure of it, skills development turns into a competitive sprint, dictated by performance evaluations and peer comparisons.

So yes, mastery does matter, but it’s often undervalued or even ignored in the corporate world. Recognising the importance of mastery could be a step towards reintroducing joy into the workplace, benefiting not just the employees but also contributing to a more skilled and engaged workforce.

Does Shared Purpose Matter?

Shared purpose can be a potent catalyst for workplace joy. When employees feel they are part of something bigger than themselves, motivation and satisfaction often follow. But how well does this concept fare in the corporate landscape? Generally, not as well as it could or should.

In many corporates, the overarching goal is clear: increase shareholder value. While this aim is valid from a business perspective, it rarely stokes the fires of individual passion or a collective sense of purpose. Employees find themselves working to benefit a distant, often faceless, group of stakeholders rather than contributing to a cause that has personal or societal meaning.

Moreover, when managerial focus is primarily on self-advancement or departmental targets, the notion of a shared purpose becomes fractured. Employees start to feel disconnected from the mission of the organisation, contributing further to the drain of joy and satisfaction.

So, does shared purpose matter? Absolutely. A unified goal not only brings people together but also instills a sense of meaning in daily tasks. To reignite the lost joy, corporates should look beyond mere profits and metrics, weaving a tapestry of shared purpose that each employee can contribute to and feel proud of.

Is Work-Life Balance a Myth?

Promises of work-life balance often remain unfulfilled. With no clear boundaries, employees experience burnout, which contributes to a cycle of joylessness.

The term “work-life balance” is bandied about in corporate circles, regularly cited as a perk or aspiration within companies. But how often is this balance truly achieved? Regrettably, it’s way more espoused than actual in many corporate settings.

In the push for self-aggrandisement and personal wellbeing of executives and senior manager, work demands often spill over into personal time. Employees find themselves tethered to their jobs through smartphones and laptops, blurring the lines between work and life. The upshot is a skewed balance that leans heavily towards work, pushing personal time and activities to the fringes.

This lopsided equation isn’t just detrimental to personal lives; it also drains the joy out of work itself. When employees can’t switch off, the chance for relaxation and rejuvenation dwindles, leading to increased stress and burnout. The absence of real work-life balance adversely affects not just individual well-being but also overall job satisfaction.

So, is work-life balance a myth? In many corporates, unfortunately, yes. But it doesn’t have to be. Companies that genuinely commit to work-life balance as a tangible practice rather than a buzzword can contribute to a more joyful, engaged workforce. Maybe enlightened corporates might choose to stop paying lip service to work-life balance and start making it a lived reality for their employees.

What About Personal Growth?

Corporates typically offer limited scope for personal growth. Focused on role-specific skills, companies overlook the broader aspects of development, reducing the job to a set of mundane activities rather than a platform for holistic growth.

Personal growth is a factor that contributes to an individual’s overall sense of happiness and well-being. However, its role in the corporate setting is often underemphasised, overshadowed by the focus on immediate performance indicators.

Companies frequently provide training and development opportunities, but these are usually confined to vain attempts to moderate behaviours, or on improving skills that directly benefit the organisation. This approach tends to neglect broader aspects of an individual’s personal and professional development. The result is a narrowed scope for growth that pertains solely to the job at hand, leaving little room for the nourishment of other facets like emotional intelligence, leadership qualities, or even hobbies and interests that can enrich lives.

The absence of opportunities for holistic personal growth can lead to stagnation. Employees may find that their roles become monotonous and unfulfilling, devoid of the challenges and learning experiences that bring joy and meaning to work.

So, what about personal growth? It’s crucial but often overlooked in the corporate agenda. A shift towards including personal development as a core part of employee growth can make work more fulfilling and joyous. After all, an individual is more than the sum of their job-related skills, and recognising this can be a step towards creating a more joyful and engaged workforce.

A Pit of Despair

In my own experience, the joy I initially found in computer-related challenges has descended into a pit of despair when involved with corporates. What was once a playground of innovation and problem-solving has for many become a bland, monotonous treadmill of routine. The constant grind, coupled with the absence of creativity and personal growth, transforms work into something far less fulfilling than it could be.

This despair isn’t just a personal anecdote but a sentiment that resonates with many who find themselves caught in the corporate machinery. The mental toll this takes is widely underestimated. Over time, the absence of joy and fulfilment leads to a range of problems, from decreased productivity to more serious issues like burnout and serious mental health concerns.

The “pit of despair” isn’t merely a dramatic term; it’s a reality for many. When a workplace fails to nourish the human aspects that make life worthwhile, it risks creating an environment where despair thrives. Therefore, addressing the factors that contribute to this state is not just an individual necessity but also a corporate imperative.

Can Corporates Change?

It’s not all doom and gloom. With a shift in focus, companies can recalibrate their methods to foster a more human-centric approach, aiming for a win-win scenario where both profits and joy can coexist.

Final Thoughts

Corporates don’t have to be joy-draining monoliths. By reevaluating the way they operate, these institutions can not only better their performance but also enhance the lives of the people who make that performance possible.

Stubborn Managers: Why Unexamined Experience Is Wasted

Are Senior Managers Learning?

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

What’s the Point of Experience?

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

Where Does Evidence Fit In?

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

Why Don’t Behaviours Change?

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

How to Make Reflection Effective?

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

What’s the Bottom Line?

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

The Counter-Cultural Guide to Business Management

Are you stuck in the rut of conventional business practices and stale boardroom jargon? Is it time to shake things up? Discover why embracing your inner rebel could be the game-changer your business desperately needs.

Why Be Counter-Cultural in Business?

If you’re reading this, chances are you’re tired of the status quo in business management. I get it. I’m tired too. The well-trodden paths often lead to stale results. So, let’s talk about why being counter-cultural isn’t just a lifestyle choice but a business imperative.

What’s Wrong with the Status Quo?

We’ve all been there, sitting in a board meeting, listening to the same jargon. Synergy. Leverage. Scalability. Blah. Blah. Blah. These buzzwords are often bandied about without much thought. They’re safe. They’re conventional. But does following the crowd actually add value? I’d suggest, not really.

How Can Counter-Culture Help?

Being counter-cultural in a business setting doesn’t mean you should throw all caution to the wind. It’s not about being reckless but rather about thinking differently. Challenging the status quo can lead to innovation. For example, rejecting the standard 9-to-5 workday could lead you to explore more flexible work arrangements that can, in turn, increase productivity and employee satisfaction.

What Are the Risks?

Now, taking a counter-cultural stance isn’t without its risks. You’ll face resistance, both internal and external. People are comfortable with what they know, and change is hard. But remember, nothing ventured, nothing gained. The risks are often outweighed by the potential for revolutionary change.

How to Make the Leap?

If you’re convinced that counter-culture is the way forward, start small. Test out a new idea on a small scale before fully implementing it. Gather data, listen to feedback, and then iterate. The aim isn’t to shock the system but to introduce new ways of thinking that can, over time, bring about meaningful change.

So, Is It Worth It?

In my experience, the answer is a resounding yes. Being counter-cultural has pushed me to explore uncharted territories in business and tech management. While not all ventures have been a roaring success, each one has been a learning experience. At the end of the day, it’s not just about profit margins or growth graphs. It’s about building a culture that fosters creativity, innovation, and, yes, a bit of rebellion.

So, the next time you’re in that board meeting, and someone starts talking about “synergising core competencies,” maybe it’s time to go against the grain. Be counter-cultural. You never know, it might just be the best business decision you’ve ever made.

The Manager’s Blinders

What Shapes a Manager’s Limited Perspective?

When managers step into their offices, they see things differently—and sometimes that means they don’t see things at all. The necessity to focus on specific factors like team responsibilities, personal targets, and their own wellbeing can often render them blind to matters in plain sight.

Why the Equine Comparison?

Horses have eyes positioned on the sides of their heads, giving them a wide field of vision but also creating blind spots directly in front and behind them. Similarly, managers often concentrate so intently on particular areas that they overlook what may be obvious to others.

Are Managers Bound by Hierarchy?

Hierarchical dynamics often narrow a manager’s field of view. Busy aligning their decisions with the goals of upper management, they may neglect input from subordinates or peers. Just as a horse may miss what’s right under its nose or behind its tail, managers can overlook what’s happening at other levels of the organisation.

Does Resource Management Limit Sight?

When focused on allocating resources like staffing and budgets, managers may fail to spot emerging needs, interpersonal issues or unexplored opportunities. These blind spots can have repercussions, delaying problem-solving and hampering innovation.

Is Accountability a Double-Edged Sword?

While being accountable adds a layer of caution to managerial decision-making, it can also instil a sort of tunnel vision. Concerns for their own wellbeing may overshadow the broader needs of the team or the organisation, obscuring potential pathways for collective growth.

What Soft Skills Are Overlooked?

Even if they value soft skills like empathy and emotional intelligence, managers can still miss the human element in their daily operations. Wrapped up in tasks and targets, they may neglect the well-being of their team members, failing to notice signs of burnout or disengagement.

How Does Adaptability Affect Perception?

While adaptability is crucial, constantly shifting focus can make managers prone to missing consistent patterns or long-term issues. In their bid to adapt and survive, they may not notice that they are perpetuating systemic problems or missing out on stable solutions.

In Summary

Just as a horse’s unique vision serves it well but also leaves it vulnerable, managers too have their own blind spots. Despite—or perhaps because of—their focus on hierarchy, resources, and accountability, they may miss things that are glaringly obvious to others. Recognising these limitations isn’t just beneficial; it’s essential for the growth and cohesion of the team and the organisation.

So You’re a Manager and You Hate Your Job?

So you’re a manager now. Welcome to the party! You’ll quickly find that a lot of things about the role are neither as fun nor as straightforward as you may have been led to believe. Let’s dig into the factors that make the job less glamorous than advertised.

What Makes the Job Risible?

  1. Unrealistic Expectations: You’re now the solver of everyone’s problems. Good luck juggling everyone’s needs and desires.
  2. Blurred Lines of Authority: You’re told you’re the boss, but often, decisions are made over your head.
  3. Dealing With Personalities: Unlike chess pieces or cogs or Borg Drones, humans have emotions, opinions, and bad days.
  4. Daily Drudgery: Meetings, paperwork, more meetings. Did anyone mention there’d be so much admin?

Why Is the Job Detestable?

  1. You Can’t Just Order People Around: Gone are the days where a stern look would do the trick. You’re not in a dictatorship, you’re in an office – or not even.
  2. Lack of Autonomy: Being a manager doesn’t mean you have all the power. In fact, it generally feels like you have less.
  3. Accountability Without Control: When things go south, you’re the first to suffer, even if the factors were beyond your grasp. A veritable whipping boy (or girl).
  4. Mundane Tasks: Think management is all strategy and expense account lunches and power moves? Think again. You’re also the go-to for approving holiday leaves and dealing with niggling disputes.

Remember Captain Sobel from ‘Band of Brothers’?

You might recall the character Captain Herbert M. Sobel, portrayed by David Schwimmer in the miniseries “Band of Brothers.” Sobel’s style was authoritarian, focused on discipline and regimen, often at the cost of morale and trust. His approach led to a lack of faith among his men and ultimately didn’t serve him or his troops well in the field.

Can Nonviolence Be the Answer?

Nonviolence is more than the absence of physical force; it’s about fostering an environment of respect, dialogue, and mutual understanding. Sobel’s method lacked these qualities, highlighting how ineffective a ‘command and control’ model can be.

Is Sobel’s Style a Cautionary Tale?

Absolutely. A rigid, authoritarian style might work in certain settings, but in most modern workplaces, this approach is outdated, ineffective and doomed to failure. Employees don’t respond well to leaders who operate solely on a basis of power and fear. A successful  team is not a set of robots to command.

What Should You Do Instead?

  1. Be Flexible: Adapt your style to the situation and the needs of your teams.
  2. Communicate: Keep the lines open. No one can read minds.
  3. Be Human: Show empathy and understanding. You’re managing people, not machines. In fact, don;t manage the people at all.”You manage things; you lead people.” ~ Grace Hooper, Rear Admiral, USN
  4. Learn Continuously: The best managers know they don’t have all the answers and are willing to grow.

Managing is tough, no doubt. But understanding its flaws and challenges is the first step in doing it better. Don’t be a Sobel; be the manager you wish you had.