In industries where collaborative knowledge work is key – software development, product design and the like – those at the top often have deeply flawed instincts about what drives productivity and creativity. Their assumptions about what motivates people and maximises value are frequently undermined by research and real-world results.

Conflating Activity with Productivity

A common managerial blind spot is the belief that more hours in the office equates to more productive output. Stemming perhaps from an industrial era mindset, executives often implement policies aimed at maximising “bums on seats.” Open plan officing, strict monitoring of attendance, limiting work-from-home – these are championed as means of fostering focus and accountability.

However, studies consistently show that knowledge workers are not production line operatives. Their optimal productive hours are limited and their cerebral tasks demand periods of distraction, refocusing and recharging. Trying to squeeze every possible minute out of them is counterproductive. Strict activity monitoring simply promotes insincere behaviour – employees pretending to be working while daydreaming or cyberloafing.

The Mythology of Keeping Them on a Tight Leash

Another frequent executive instinct is the desire for control and direct oversight. There is a notion that people must be micro-managed and kept on a tight leash lest they become complacent or distracted. Draconian monitoring of tasks, delivery and deadlines is viewed as essential in driving progress.

Yet autonomy has been shown time and again to be a powerful and essential motivator for collaborative knowledge workers. These are people who can be trusted to manage their own workflow within flexible guidelines. Injecting needless stress through oppressive oversight actively hampers productivity and alienates. The most engaged and high-performing teams are those afforded autonomy in executing their responsibilities.

Misunderstanding Intrinsic Motivation

Perhaps the most egregious executive blindspot relates to motivation itself. The traditional management view is that people are primarily motivated by money and status. The pursuit of higher salaries and promotions is seen as the catalyst that drives them.

While fair compensation and opportunities for growth are certainly baseline factors, study after study demonstrates the key drivers of motivation for knowledge workers are:

1. The inherent interest and enjoyment of the work itself
2. The opportunity to learn and develop mastery
3. A sense of purpose in creating something valuable

Environments injecting excessive financial rewards or top-down pressures to produce actively dampen these powerful intrinsic motivators. Meanwhile, cultivating working conditions that promote autonomy, mastery and purpose is proven to amplify productivity. And Cf. Dan Pink’s Drive).

Misunderstanding Collaborative Knowledge Work Itself

At a more fundamental level, many executives fail to grasp the very nature of collaborative knowledge work. They incorrectly view it as a assembly line process with discrete tasks to be delegated and combined into final deliverables. In their minds, software is built by having teams of coders each complete coding assignments that are integrated together. New products arise from different designers, analysts and specialists fulfilling their prescribed roles.

In reality, fields like software development and product design involve dynamic problem-solving where roles are fluid and team situations evolve rapidly. The work is fundamentally exploratory, requiring cycles of trial, testing, and incorporated learnings. Solutions emerge iteratively through interdisciplinary collaboration across all roles.

Trying to impose rigid, segregated workflows is antithetical to this reality. Successful collaborative knowledge work demands organisational models that are adaptive and non-siloed. People must be able to fluidly cross roles and swarm around emerging problems or opportunities as a cohesive team. Excessive process formality and, especially, hierarchy only gums up the works.

In Closing

While difficult to shed, executive instincts around managing collaborative knowledge work are often diametrically opposed to evidence-based best practices. What those at the top intuit rarely enhances outcomes – rigidly controlled activity, draconian oversight, and financial or status-based motivators actively undermine outcomes. True high performance comes from nurturing inherent motivation, respecting folks’ autonomy and needs, affording flexibility around working practices, and enabling an adaptive team-based model of execution.

Introduction

As businesses strive for innovation and growth, they often find themselves running up against unseen barriers – ingrained ways of thinking and behaving that can severely limit their ambitions and ability to adapt. In many cases, these constraining (shared) beliefs and assumptions live under the surface, making them extremely difficult to identify and uproot.

This sample dialogue (below) aims to illustrate how engaging with an AI chatbot like Claude can provide a fresher, more impartial perspective to help bring those unconscious blockers into the light. By asking probing questions and suggesting reframes, an AI can serve as a cooperative thinking partner to explore the root causes behind an organisation’s collective blind spots.

Let’s take a look at how this conversational process might unfold:
(Note: this is an actual dialogue generated by ClaudeAI)

Overcoming Organisational Blind Spots: A Candid Dialogue

Are Collective Mindsets Holding Us Back?

Business Team: We’re really struggling as a team at work. Our growth and innovation have hit a plateau, and we can’t seem to get over this hump. We feel like there are some underlying assumptions or beliefs that we all unconsciously share that are limiting our thinking, but we can’t quite put our finger on what they are. Any thoughts?

Claude: That’s an insightful observation. Could you elaborate on the areas where your team has faced repeated roadblocks or struggled to adapt? Have you noticed any patterns in how new ideas get instantly dismissed or shut down?

The Perils of Risk-Aversion

Business Team: You know, now that you mention it, we do tend to instinctively shut down ideas that seem too ambitious or radically different from our current model. There’s an assumption that taking big swings is too risky and that we’re better off sticking to incremental innovations.

Claude: I see, so there seems to be an excessive aversion to risk-taking that could be crippling your team’s ability to innovate more boldly. Where might this belief originate from? Perhaps past failures that bred excessive caution within the team?

Overconfidence from Past Successes

Business Team: And you’re right, we may be overly reliant on past glories and successes rather than pushing for true disruption these days.

Claude: Overconfidence and complacency from previous successes is a common pitfall for teams. Have you explored where those constraining beliefs originated within your group? Sometimes they start from overcorrecting after a past failure. Or they take root from excessive short-term focus and risk-aversion in decision making over time.

Business Team: You’ve hit the nail on the head. We can trace the risk-aversion back to a few high-profile product launches that failed a few years ago. And the reverence for our old products stems from the founders still being closely involved, constantly reminiscing about how we initially disrupted the market.

Shattering Ingrained Narratives

Claude: Those do seem like major sources of the limiting beliefs constraining your team’s thinking. But how can you start dismantling and changing those ingrained narratives collectively? Here are some suggestions:

1. Make the limiting beliefs explicit and discuss them openly together as a team. Bringing these unconscious biases into the light is key.
2. Have you analyzed instances where those beliefs caused you to miss opportunities and calculated the cost of leaving innovation on the table as a group?
3. Could you find examples of competitors or companies in other industries who have succeeded by doing the opposite – embracing risks, continuously reinventing themselves? Study how they cultivated a different organizational mindset.
4. Implement structural changes to counteract the limiting beliefs. For instance, explicitly weighing the cost of inaction, having an “innovation ombudsman” role, or celebrating failed experiments more than static successes.
5. Bring in fresh perspectives through new hires, industry experts, or even customers who can challenge the status quo assumptions.

The ultimate ambition might be to make curiosity, experimentation, and an appetite for disruption core cultural values for your team and organisation.

Business Team: This is immensely helpful. We have a much clearer picture now of how to diagnose and deliberately shift our unhelpful collective beliefs as a team. Change starts by bringing those unconscious biases into the light through open discussion. We really appreciate you laying out such a detailed framework – we’re energized to start implementing these ideas right away.

Bringing in an Organisational Psychotherapist

Sometimes, even with the best intentions, it can be extremely difficult for a team to identify and overcome their own deep-seated collective assumptions and beliefs on their own. This is where bringing in an outside organisational psychotherapist can be invaluable…

By prompting deeper reflection, offering new perspectives, and designing tailored interventions, an experienced organisational psychotherapist or AI assistant can catalyse the crucial process of surfacing and reflecting upon an organisation’s dysfunctional beliefs and narratives.

While working with a human expert may ultimately be advisable for any complex organisational transformation, this dialogue demonstrates how an AI like Claude can provide a potential first step. Through probing inquiries and analytical detachment, an AI chatbot can shed light on the obscured mental models that might be unwittingly obstructing an organisation’s path to greater innovation and growth.

The Visionary Notion

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

Profit Motives vs. Ethics and Humanity

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

The Beauty of Ethical Business

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

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

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

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

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

A World Oriented Toward the Greater Good

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

The Global Ethos of the Greater Good

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

A Sustainable Economic Model

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

A Radical Yet Possible Vision

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

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

Further Reading

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

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

The 95/5 Principle: Putting Systems First

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

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

The Shortcomings of Individual Coaching

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

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

Organisational Transformation: The Key to Collaborative Success

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

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

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

The Verdict: Individual Coaching Has Limited Value

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

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

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

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 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.

“Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone.”

~ Thomas Overbury

When pondering what constitutes beautiful software, we might choose to look beyond the mere lines of code on the screen. For genuine beauty in software arises not from technical excellence, but from the extent to which it genuinely serves and aligns with the needs of human beings.

A Deeper Beauty

On the surface, we may admire software having clean, elegant code structure, adhering to best practices and exhibiting visual appeal. But the ancient philosophers taught that true beauty must run deeper than superficial appearances. For software, this deeper beauty emanates from how effectively it enhances human capabilities and experiences in the real world.

Power to Elevate

Well-designed software represents the harmonious weaving of digital capabilities with human need. Just as great art inspires by achieving a personal expression of universal themes, so does beautiful software illuminate core human needs through its delivery of cohesive, purposeful functionality. It allows us to appreciate software’s power to elevate and augment our existence.

Like the Romantic poets extolled, beautiful software can facilitate a transcendent union with something greater than ourselves. When developing with insight into human needs, programmers experience a state of flow, bridging the worlds of bits and people until there is no division between the created software and those it benefits. We become co-creators, using our skills to help bring into being solutions which empower.

Resonant

At the same time, beautiful software must resonate with the depth of human experience. As Buddhist wisdom teaches, true beauty arises through mindfulness, ethical conduct, and pacification of the ego. In beautiful software, we find the development team’s consciousness – their thoughtfulness in attending to folks’ needs, their restraint in avoiding the unneeded, their core values embodied in the system’s behaviours.

Inner Light

Moreover, beautiful software exhibits an inner light not of technical correctness, but of purpose – solving real human needs with clarity and compassion. Its beauty transcends being well-crafted to also being virtuous, ethical and generous in spirit. For its core purpose is selfless service to humanity.

Conclusion

So while we may appreciate the external trappings of high-quality software, true beauty runs deeper – into how well it elevates human potential and adapts seamlessly into the real needs of peoples’ lives. For therein lies the highest achievement, to create not just products, but solutions that illuminate, attend to, and empower the human condition.

“The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years”

wrote psychiatrist R.D. Laing* back in 1967. His words cut to the core of modern society. We have normalised insanity – numbing ourselves to the absurdity around us and within us.

And what is this absurdity? It is the mindset that allows us to go about our days oblivious to the harm we inflict on ourselves, on others and on the planet. That lets corporations prioritise profits over people and presidents sanction wars in distant lands. It is the tendency of “normal” folks to follow orders and not question what’s going on.

The result? Suffering on a colossal scale. Over 100 million lives lost in wars over the last century. Millions more struggling with poverty, oppression or mental anguish. And now, climate catastrophe looming, seemingly unheeded.

Healing this insanity in humanity starts with awareness. Once we wake up from the slumber of conformity and see our society’s sickness clearly, our priorities begin to shift.

The next step is fixing our broken systems. Our companies, governments and institutions shape society’s norms – and are shaped by them. Transforming them is key to creating positive change. Employee-owned businesses focus on worker dignity and joy over profits. Progressive groups across the world are anchoring policy in ethics, not ideology. Reform movements centered on wisdom and compassion are gaining momentum.

At the individual level too, we can choose to nurture sanity by cultivating presence of mind. Turning our attention inwards, taming our egoistic tendencies and consciously spreading goodwill. Spiritual practices like meditation help us become less reactive and more response-able.

The challenges today seem daunting. But together, we can build a world where care, justice and sustainability are the new normal. As we each walk the path towards inner freedom from fear and delusion, our collective consciousness grows saner. May more of us wake up from this absurd nightmare so we can co-create the beautiful dream.

Will you join me?

* R.D. Laing (1927-1989) was an unconventional Scottish psychiatrist who radically challenged the medical model of psychiatry in the 1960s-70s. Deeply critical of diagnosis and medication, Laing viewed madness as an existential crisis rather than illness. He founded communal centers applying alternative therapies for healing over labeling. Articulated in books like The Divided Self, his controversial ideas on mental distress as an introspective process rather than biological disease created lasting impact. Laing catalysed more humanistic attitudes in mental healthcare.

Further Reading

Laing, R.D. (1967). The politics of experience and the bird of paradise. Penguin.

Human progress seems to advance in fits and starts. Many of history’s most important inventions and ideas took centuries or even millennia to be widely adopted by societies across the globe.

Writing systems, germ theory, vaccines, evolution – these revolutionary developments changed the arc of civilisation. Yet they struggled for acceptance despite ample evidence and the persistence of brilliant minds who championed them. Why is society so slow on the uptake for innovations that later prove to be game-changers?

Dominant Worldviews

As historian Thomas Kuhn explored in his seminal book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” established scientific paradigms are notoriously resistant to evidence that contradicts their foundational assumptions and conventional wisdom. Findings that don’t neatly fit the dominant worldview face an uphill battle toward acceptance. Scientists and scholars may actively suppress or ignore discoveries that undermine existing consensus due to cognitive biases. Revolutionary concepts thus lie dormant for ages.

Enablers

Technological limitations also stall adoption until complementary advancements accumulate that allow applications at scale. The printing press enabled modern vaccination campaigns. Electric lighting powered factories adopting steam engines. Progress builds gradually across spheres.

Dogmas

Cultural and religious convictions add yet another barrier. Entrenched dogmas about humanity’s place in the cosmos delayed recognition of heliocentrism for almost two millennia. Evolution continues to meet public scepticism given its clash with ancient belief systems.

Modern global connectivity accelerates recognition and validation of emerging innovations. But inertia remains strong; it may still take generations for the path-breaking ideas of today – artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, commercial space travel – to permeate societies around the world.

As organisational psychotherapy teaches us, even institutions and companies struggle to adapt to new paradigms that challenge traditional ways of operating. Stagnant bureaucracies are often buoyed by conformity and risk-aversion.

Human brilliance endows our species with ceaseless creativity. But receptiveness continues to lag the tempo of human invention. Kuhn and other historians help explain society’s chronic slowness to process paradigm-shattering developments. Open and equitable access to knowledge can perhaps narrow the stubborn gap between discovery and its widespread adoption.

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.

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.

Who’s In Charge?

For years, companies have automatically installed managers at the helm of software development teams. Why? Perhaps it’s because this model has been employed across various other industries with some semblance of success. But is this the right approach for software development?

Does Archaism Matter?

Historically, the concept of a manager has roots in the Industrial Age, where assembly lines were all the rage. These lines seemed like they needed supervision and structure. The manager became the linchpin in ensuring that production flowed more or less smoothly. While this may have worked in a factory setting, software development isn’t assembly work. It’s more akin to crafting a work of art. So why are we still clinging to archaic notions?

What Devs Need

Developers don’t need someone hovering over them, dictating their every move. They need autonomy and space to innovate. Software development is a field that requires creative thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and an in-depth understanding of technologies. These skills can’t be micromanaged into existence. Instead, a supportive, collaborative environment is more beneficial. So, if not managers, then who or what can create such an environment?

Why Not Self-Management?

Self-management or self-organising teams are a game changer in the software development industry. Such teams have no formal manager but work towards a common goal. Every team member is responsible for managing their tasks and collaborating with their teammates. While this model isn’t flawless, it’s more attuned to the needs and work style of software developers, and collaborative knowledge work more generally.

There Are Alternatives

If going manager-free feels too risky, other structures such as ‘servant leadership’ offer a middle ground. In this framework, leaders exist but act as enablers rather than dictators. Their role is to remove obstacles and facilitate, rather than control. This form of leadership suits the collaborative, innovative nature of software development.

What’s the Bottom Line?

Installing managers in software development teams is a practice that’s way outlived its usefulness. While it’s not going to change overnight, there are alternative methods of organisation that better serve the needs of developers and promote a more effective, humane work environment. So, the next time someone suggests that a manager is essential for a software development team, consider whether tradition is clouding better judgement.

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

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

Understanding Meritocracy

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

The Shortcomings of Meritocracy

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

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

Enter Needsocracy

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

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

Benefits of Needsocracy

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

Challenges Ahead

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

Summary

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

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

The philosopher George Santayana once remarked,

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Perhaps he was onto something, especially in the realm of interpersonal relationships and collaboration. In our world today, a tragic comedy plays out daily between minds and hearts:

You ignore my ideas because they’re unfathomable; I ignore your ideas because they’re stupid.

And while this back-and-forth may seem like a mere disagreement, it carries a weighty cost.

The Stifling of Unfathomable Ideas

Let’s first tackle the issue of “unfathomable” ideas. Ideas that challenge convention, defy logic, or seem too radical often find themselves on the fringes, overlooked or outright dismissed. But isn’t it these very ideas that have driven humanity forward? Think of Galileo championing the heliocentric model of our solar system, or the Wright brothers believing in flight despite widespread skepticism.

Innovation often demands that we break from the norm and dare to imagine. When we label an idea as “unfathomable,” we might be turning our backs on the next big breakthrough. After all, progress is rarely linear, and disruptive ideas are named so for a reason.

The Rejection of “Stupid” Ideas

On the other side of the coin, deeming someone’s ideas “stupid” is a blanket rejection, often rooted more in ego and personal biases than in a careful consideration of the idea’s merits. Labeling ideas as “stupid” stunts dialogue and collaboration, leading to a stagnant environment where only the loudest or most dominant voices are heard.

Moreover, what seems “stupid” in one context might be brilliant in another. The very foundation of respectful collaboration is that no idea is stupid; it’s all about quantity, with the faith that quality will emerge. Dismissing ideas outright denies the possibility of them evolving into something practical or innovative.

The Collective Cost

So, where does this leave us? With a world rife with missed opportunities. For every “unfathomable” idea shunned, we may miss out on groundbreaking advancements. For every “stupid” idea dismissed, we lose the potential for creative solutions.

The real tragedy is that these lost opportunities don’t just affect the individuals involved; they impact all of us. The innovations not pursued, the solutions not found, and the collaborations not formed can set entire communities, industries, and even civilizations back.

The Path Forward

So, how can we step away from this harmful cycle? By embracing humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to communicate.

• Humility: Recognizing that we don’t have all the answers allows us to approach ideas, no matter how unconventional, with a curious mind.
• Open-mindedness: Even if we believe an idea won’t work, exploring its roots might lead to an alternate, viable solution.
• Communication: Instead of outright rejection, pose questions. Understand the why behind the idea, and perhaps, through dialogue, refine or combine ideas into something greater.

Summary

In conclusion, the dance of egos, where ideas are dismissed either for being too outlandish or too simplistic, is a dance that serves no one. Might we tune into the rhythm of collaboration, understanding, and shared growth? Maybe, then, we can hope to harness the full spectrum of human potential and ensure that the world isn’t left the poorer for ignored ideas.

The business world is captivated by talent – an intoxicating attribute that often eclipses other factors. Many leaders believe that by hiring the most talented individuals, they will invariably achieve superior results. This notion, however, can be more delusional than it appears, particularly when viewed through the lens of W. Edwards Deming’s principles and systems thinking.

Deming, a renowned statistician, professor, author, and consultant, is best known for his groundbreaking work in improving production in Japan after World War II. His philosophy champions a systems perspective, emphasising processes, statistical variability, and the importance of culture in an organisation’s performance.

Talent – A Double-Edged Sword

As Deming and systems thinkers would argue, the excessive focus on talent can be misleading, obscuring the importance of organisational systems and culture.

There is a propensity in business to attribute success or failure solely to individual effort and capability, neglecting the critical role of the system within which these individuals operate. When an employee underperforms, it is easy to lay the blame on their lack of talent, rather than investigate systemic issues that may have caused the underperformance. Conversely, when an individual excels, it is tempting to credit their talent alone, ignoring how the system may have enabled their success.

This overemphasis on talent perpetuates what Deming dubbed the “prevailing style of management,” which involves managing by results or objectives, rather than focusing on improving the system. Such an approach can lead to short-term gains but overlooks long-term stability and sustainable growth.

The Power of Systems Thinking

Deming’s philosophy and systems thinking suggest a more holistic approach to understanding performance within organisations. It shifts the focus from individuals (and their talent) to the interconnectedness of components within an organisation, and to the power of interpersonal relationships.

Under this perspective, businesses are viewed as systems composed of interconnected processes. Here, a team’s performance isn’t merely the sum of individual talents; instead, it’s the result of interactions among team members, internal procedures, management practices, and the overall corporate culture.

A systems thinking approach emphasises that most problems and most possibilities for improvement lie in the system, not the individual parts (or talent). It’s estimated that about 94% of performance results from the system, leaving only about 6% attributable to individuals. This insight is a paradigm shift away from our intuitive, but delusional, individual-focused view of performance.

Building Better Business Systems

Recognising the power of systems over individual talent, how should businesses adapt?

Firstly, it’s critical to identify, understand, and improve the systems within which employees work. Rather than overemphasising talent recruitment, focus on the environment that enables or hinders their success.

Secondly, invest in training and development. In Deming’s view, education and continual training are critical to building better systems. Encourage an organisational culture where employees understand and appreciate the systems within which they operate.

Lastly, maintain a focus on continual improvement. Remember that most of the room for improvement lies within the system itself. Foster an environment that encourages questioning, rethinking, and overhauling systems as needed.

Conclusion

Obsession with talent should not distract businesses from the fundamental truth that systems and processes are the primary drivers of performance. Embracing Deming’s philosophy and systems thinking offers a more comprehensive, accurate, and ultimately effective path to long-term business success. Remember, a superstar employee might bring temporary success, but a superb system will bring sustainable growth.

Has the world of Agility at Scale got you feeling crazed by all the mendacity and false promises? Like a Zorkian maze of complex, twisty little methods and frameworks? Are you tired of cookie-cutter solutions that just don’t fit organisations’ needs? Do you wish for an approach that values principles over prescriptive practices, while respecting existing organisational structures and cultures? And yes, actually DELIVERING on its promises?

We are on the brink of unveiling a groundbreaking, open source approach that addresses these questions head-on, and we’d love your help to make its roll-out a reality. This approach, steeped in real-world experiences and collaborative wisdom, promises to empower organisations to become intrinsically agile, not just ‘do’ agile.

Our approach, uniquely designed to align with any organisation’s specific needs and context, respects existing structures and cultures, and focuses on the practical application of agility at scale. But the real power lies not in dogmatic practices or one-size-fits-all fremeworks, but in principles – guiding beacons that inspire continuous learning, adaptation, and respect for people and relationships.

Uniquely, this approach is open source. It thrives on collective wisdom, and we invite you to be a part of this journey. Yes, we are calling for enterprise agility† enthusiasts, practitioners, leaders, and teams worldwide to join us in launching and delivering this approach.

Your insights, experiences, and perspective will add to this rich melting pot, refining and evolving this approach for the betterment of all. After all, agility at its core is about people, their interactions, their ability to adapt, and their collective capacity to create remarkable value.

So, are you curious enough to look into becoming a part of this journey and helping shape the future of enterprise agility? It’s an open invitation‡, your chance to make a significant impact on how organisations navigate the complex world of agility at scale.

Stay tuned for the big reveal, and in the meantime, get ready to dive in, contribute, and be a part of an open-source agility revolution.

†Enterprise Agility is a comprehensive concept that pertains to an organisation’s ability to swiftly adapt, evolve, and innovate in response to dynamic business environments. It extends way beyond the implementation of agile methods in software development or project management, encompassing all areas of the organisation. This includes strategic planning, leadership, decision-making, operations, culture, and more. Organisations that demonstrate enterprise agility can rapidly respond to market changes, customer needs, technological advancements, and other external factors. They cultivate a culture of continuous learning and improvement, empowering employees at all levels to drive innovation, solve problems, and create value. In essence, enterprise agility is not just about ‘doing’ agile, but ‘being’ agile at every level of the organisation.

‡If you know me well, and are interested, then we can grant you access to the ever-growing collection of materials in our Google Docs repository. If you’re interested but don’t know me so well, then write me outlining your interest and how you might contribute. Or arrange for a chat. I look forward to your response.

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

Counterintuitive

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

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

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

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

Game Changer

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

Q: What’s the most challenging aspect of leading and managing teams?

A: Avoiding violence.

The most challenging aspect of leading and managing teams, especially in today’s modern workplaces, can be encapsulated in a single phrase: avoiding violence. The concept of violence in this context extends beyond the conventional understanding of physical aggression to include psychological violence, passive violence, and domination structures prevalent in organisations.

When discussing violence in a team setting, we must also consider psychological violence, often termed ‘abuse’ or ‘mental cruelty.’ This form of violence is inflicted not physically but emotionally and mentally. Passive violence is another important aspect to note. It encompasses consciously ignoring someone’s physical, psychological, or emotional needs or failing to ensure their safety and well-being. In both scenarios, the effect on team morale, engagement, and overall productivity can be profoundly negative.

The Roots

Renowned author and psychotherapist Marshall Rosenberg provides a critical insight into this subject, stating that “classifying and judging people promotes violence.” In essence, the root cause of most violence – verbal, psychological, or physical – is a kind of thinking that attributes conflict to wrongness in one’s adversaries.

Domination structures within organisations can be a significant source of violence. Scholar and activist Walter Wink coined the term “Domination Structures” or “Domination Culture,” highlighting a system where authority is concentrated at the top and obedience and compliance is demanded from the lower ranks. This form of structure promotes systemic beliefs, often maintained through coercive violence, which can suppress creativity, hinder collaboration, impair cognitive function, and breed a culture of fear and silence.

Relevance

The relevance of nonviolence to everyday business operations, particularly software development, is significant. Domination structures and their resulting violence lead to ineffective organisations marked by disengaged employees, low morale, and poor productivity.

Understanding and addressing these forms of violence in teams require an evolved fellowship style that promotes egalitarian, mutually respectful, and affirming relationships. It involves creating an environment that values empathy and understanding, fostering a culture that is at the ‘partnership’ end of the spectrum rather than the ‘domination’ end.

In conclusion, managing and leading teams is a challenging task that goes beyond task allocation and performance tracking. It requires navigating the delicate nuances of human emotions and creating a safe, respectful, and empathetic work environment, free from all forms of violence. This, undoubtedly, is the most demanding aspect of leadership and management, but when achieved, it can pave the way for exceptional team performance.

In our quest for success, we often navigate an array of management myths. But how can we move beyond mere avoidance of these pitfalls? The answer lies within the profound wisdom encapsulated in the Deming management philosophy.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming was a pioneer who advocated for creating work environments centered around continuous improvement, quality, and productivity. His philosophy isn’t just about avoiding mistakes—it’s a guiding light that leads to better, more fulfilling workspaces.

Let’s delve into Deming’s key principles:

Appreciation for a System

To lead effectively, we must see our organisations as interconnected systems, not standalone silos. Grasping how efforts and teams interrelate to achieve our common goals is pivotal.

Understanding Variation

Deciphering between normal variation within a process (common cause) and external, unusual changes (special cause) helps us make informed, data-driven decisions.

Theory of Knowledge

Leaders might choose to foster an environment of intellectual curiosity, where assumptions are challenged and failures become stepping stones to improvement. Knowledge isn’t simply accumulated—it evolves over time.

Psychology

Recognising human nature and its role in work is crucial. A supportive environment, where employees feel valued and secure, nurtures creativity, productivity, and joy at work.

Summary

These principles are intertwined—understanding one demands comprehension of all. Applied well, they offer a roadmap away from management myths towards a reality where work is a source of personal fulfillment and growth.

Remember, as Deming put it, “People are entitled to joy in work”. Let’s champion this ethos and create workplaces where our teams don’t just survive but flourish.