The Elusive Formula

Contrary to popular belief, there IS in fact a universal recipe for organisational success – a one-size-fits-all formula that can unlock sustainable growth, profitability, and a thriving company culture. This recipe doesn’t come from the latest management fad or self-help book, but from the timeless wisdom of respected thought leaders like W. Edwards Deming, Eliyahu Goldratt, Gerhard von Scharnhorst, and Russell Ackoff.

The Proven Philosophies

For all the money companies pour into consultants, training programmes, offsites, and radical restructurings, the path to genuine enlightenment has been staring them in the face all along. Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge lays out a comprehensive framework for optimising business operations, fostering a nurturing environment, and driving continuous improvement. Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints provides a laser-focused approach to identifying and eliminating bottlenecks choking organisational performance. And Ackoff’s writings on systems thinking challenge conventional wisdom with powerful new paradigms for managing complexity.

The Meandering Quest

Instead of embracing and building upon these proven and time-tested ideas, companies continue to chase after the latest silver bullets and quick fixes peddled by consultants and pseudo-gurus. They cling stubbornly to antiquated command-and-control management models wholly unsuited to today’s volatile business environment. They pin their hopes on radical restructurings and top-down revolutions that merely treat symptoms rather than root causes.

In their frantic pursuit of enlightenment, organisations are engaging in a meandering quest – wandering aimlessly down one overhyped path after another while the real recipe for success remains gathering dust on the bookshelf. It’s the corporate equivalent of floundering through an endless maze, always feeling like the treasure is just around the next corner.

The Missed Opportunity

These philosophies contain profound truths about how to build resilient, adaptive organisations primed for success. And yet, the ultimate irony is that despite their brilliance, the teachings of Deming, Goldratt, von Scharnhorst, and Ackoff remain tragically underappreciated and underutilised in the business world.

The Hard Work of Wisdom

Make no mistake: Embracing such time-honoured ideas is hard work and requires diligence and much courage. That’s probably why we see it happen so infrequently. It’s far easier to be seduced by the newest fad or quick-fix solution that doesn’t require fundamentally challenging one’s mental models or way of operating. Genuinely internalising the teachings of Deming, Goldratt, von Scharnhorst, Ackoff and others demands humility, an insatiable curiosity, and a willingness to continually question shared assumptions and beliefs.

The Path Forward

The truth is, there is no complex maze to navigate. The path to organisational enlightenment is right there for those willing to open their eyes and embrace the teachings that have stood the test of time. Deming showed us how to nurture a thriving system centred on e.g. continuous learning and a deep theory of knowledge. Goldratt revealed the power of focused improvement efforts harnessing the latent potential within our companies. And Ackoff taught us to step back and see the bigger picture – to transcend reductionist thinking and operate with a holistic perspective.

The Roadmap to Success

Genuine organisational success doesn’t require the drunkard’s random walk of eternal struggle and second-guessing. It stems from having the courage to stop meandering up and down dead-end paths and instead follow the roadmap to enlightenment found within these profound bodies of work. Study them, internalise their lessons, and apply them diligently within the unique context of your organisation.

Rediscovering Wisdom

There is indeed a one-size-fits-all recipe for corporate greatness and human potential realised. We’ve had it all along. We just have to take a step back from the noise and rediscover the wisdom of the masters surrounding us. The path to enlightenment was never lost – we simply stopped paying attention.

For anyone who has worked in organisations, whether large or small, the phenomenon of workplace “silos” is all too familiar. Silos refer to the tendency for different departments or teams to operate in isolation, with little communication or collaboration between them.

While most folks working in the tech industries are familiar with the pitfalls of organisational silos such as separate marketing, sales, and operations teams, few recognise the similarly damaging effects of silos between disciplines.

For example, often, software engineers operate in isolated codebases, data scientists in segregated modeling pipelines, and designers in siloed UI frameworks. This compartmentalisation breeds many of the same pathologies as organisational silos:

• Lack of big-picture perspective
• Shortfalls in creative insights into how the work works, and could work better
• Duplicated efforts
• Limited knowledge sharing and innovation
• Rigid mental models resistant to change

Yet modern tech products and services require integrating numerous disciplines – systems thinking, the theory of knowledge, understanding of variation, and psychology, as well as the more usual specialsms: programming, data, design, DevOps, product management, and more. When disciplines remain cloistered, the resulting solutions are sub-optimal.

The Power of Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

In contrast, forging multi-disciplinary collaboration unlocks a powerful union of diverse skills, perspectives and domain knowledge. As Deming highlighted in his System of Profound Knowledge, viewing problems through a wide aperture leads to deeper insights.

Some key benefits of this cross-pollination include:

• End-to-end alignment on objectives across the value chain
• Dynamic combination of complementary expertise areas
• Faster issue resolution by aligning priorities holistically
• Continuous learning and growth for all
• Fostering an innovative, psychologically safe culture

Rather than optimising isolated components, multi-disciplinary collaboration enables the co-creation of cohesive products and experiences that delight all the Folks That Matter.

Cultivating Multi-Disciplinarity

Of course, nurturing this multi-disciplinary ideal requires organisational support and the rethinking of ingrained assumptions and beliefs about work. Incentive structures, processes, and even physical workspaces will need redesigning.

But the potential rewards are immense for forward-looking companies – accelerated innovation cycles, more productive ways of working, and formulating solutions beyond what any individual narrow-discipline specialist could achieve alone.

In our age of relentless disruption, the greatest existential risk is insular thinking – holding too tightly to narrow disciplines as the world shifts underfoot. Multi-discipline dynamism, powered by collective knowledge and continuous learning, is the currency of sustained advantage.

For those willing to transcend boundaries and embrace profound cross-discipline pollination, the possibilities are boundless. Those clinging to compartmentalised organisational and disciplinary silos, however, face morbid irrelevance.

Deming’s SoPK

For decades, W. Edwards Deming advocated his “System of Profound Knowledge” (SoPK) as the key to transforming businesses into continuously improving, customer-focused, multi-disciplinary organisations. At its core are four interdependent principles that combine heretofore disparate disciplines:

1. Appreciation for a System: Understanding that an organisation must be viewed as an interconnected system, not just isolated silos. Each part impacts and is impacted by others.
2. Theory of Knowledge: Recognising that learning and innovation arise from the synthesis of diverse theories, concepts and perspectives across domains.
3. Knowledge about Variation: Grasping that complex systems involve inherent variation that must be managed holistically, not through narrow inspection alone.
4. Psychology: Harnessing intrinsic human motivations and driving participation, rather than extrinsic forces like punitive accountability.

In most organisations, none of these profound knowledge principles are well known, let alone deeply embraced, appreciated and systematically applied. They represent a radical departure from traditional siloed thinking.

When applied holistically, Deming’s SoPK philosophy exposes the many drawbacks of organisational disciplinary silos, including:

• Lack of big-picture, end-to-end perspective
• Redundancies and inefficiencies from duplicated efforts
• Suboptimal solutions from narrow specialisations
• Fragmented vision and strategy misalignment
• Resistance to learning and change across boundaries

Deming’s philosophy highlights the advantages of multi-disciplinary collaboration to optimise systems holistically. Narrow specialisation alone is dysfunctional.

By shining a light on these drawbacks upfront, the importance of breaking down counterproductive disciplinary silos becomes even more stark. The vital need for collaboration, systems-thinking, applied psychology and profound cross-domain knowledge is clear across all disciplines and value chains.

By highlighting these drawbacks upfront, the importance of breaking down counterproductive silos becomes even more stark. The need for collaboration, systems-thinking, applied psychology and profound knowledge cuts across all disciplines.

The System View: Beyond Isolated Parts

Deming’s first principle stresses that an organisation may be viewed as an interconnected system, not just as separate silos or departments working in isolation. Each group’s efforts affect and are affected by other parts of the system.

Silos represent a fragmented, piecemeal view that is anathema to systems thinking. By reinforcing barriers between marketing, sales, engineering, operations and more, silos prevent the shared understanding required for optimising systems as a whole.

Knowledge Through Diverse Perspectives

According to Deming’s Theory of Knowledge, continuous learning and improvement stems from the interplay of diverse theories, concepts and perspectives. Innovation arises through making connections across different mental models and multiple disciplines.

When teams comprise members from various disciplines, their unique backgrounds and experiences foster richer exchanges of knowledge. Silos, in contrast, restrict the cross-pollination of ideas.

Understanding Variation

Deming’s view of variation exposes the fallacy of trying to eliminate every defect or failure through e.g. mass inspection. Complex systems involve inherent variation that must be managed holistically, not narrowly inspected away.

Multi-discipline teams can better grasp the dynamic variations impacting their shared objectives, drawing on complementary viewpoints to guide iterative learning.

Harnessing Psychology for e.g. Motivation

Finally, Deming emphasised the power of harnessing people’s intrinsic motivations, rather than relying on punitive accountability within silos (or communities of practice). When experts from various domains unite on meaningful projects, it cultivates broader purpose and drives discretionary effort.

By removing restrictive boundaries, multi-disciplinary collaboration enables self-actualisation while encouraging collective ownership of outcomes.

Cultivating a Learning Organisation

For many organisations obstructed by siloed thinking, embracing Deming’s Profound Knowledge is no simple task. It requires reimagining structures, processes and even physical spaces to nurture multi-disciplinary engagement.

Yet the potential rewards are immense – from accelerated cycles of innovation and organisational agility, to a workforce invigorated by joy, pride, and deeper fulfilment in their day-to-day. Deming’s wisdom reveals the collaborative imperative for thriving amidst volatility.

The greater risk lies not in disruption itself, but in calcifying into rigid, inward-looking organisational and disciplinary silos incapable of evolving. Organisations have a choice: cling to the illusion of control through silos and narrow specialisms, or embrace the profound knowledge gained by breaking boundaries.

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.

[Tl;Dr: What if software developers – and other related disciplines – were competent in psychology and human behaviour rather than coding and testing? What would we gain? What would we lose? ]

We live in an era of rapid technological advancement and innovation. Yet so many of our most popular technologies still fall short when it comes to understanding human behavior, motivations, and feelings. What would a software industry more attuned with psychology and social sciences look like? After all, Deming in his System of Profound Knowledge stressed the importance of psychology. Some key reasons why Deming advocated for psychological competence include:

• Motivating employees requires satisfying needs beyond just financial compensation
• Interpersonal friction can cause unproductive teams or turnover
• Lack of psychological safety limits experimentation and learning
• Poor communication causes confusion and mistakes
• Not understanding cognitive biases can lead to poor decisions

Deeper Empathy and Connection

Technology designed with empathy could foster online communities that feel welcoming, supportive, and caring. More intuitive interfaces minimising frustration and confusion would promote trust and understanding between platforms and users. Overall, technology would not only be more usable, but make people feel heard, respected, and cared for.

Products That Help Us Thrive

Rather than empty gaming loops or outrage-inducing algorithms, technology focused on well-being could enhance daily life and growth. From fitness trackers prompting healthier habits to creativity tools designed for flow states to social networks that inspire real-world action, innovation could shift from addiction to empowerment and support.

Customised Experiences

Understanding differences in personalities, demographics, and life experiences would allow for greater personalisation in how tech interacts with and supports each of us. Products and services attuned to the diversity of human behavior deliver nuanced experiences and guidance tuned for each user and context. The result is technology that contributes to our humanity, rather than robbing us of it.

Developers Who Operate Around Compassion

If engineers banded together around compassion and service to others instead of unending growth and career-oriented self-interest, we might see improvements in areas like mental health support, ethical supply chain management, and sustainability. Rather than top-down directives, grassroots working groups of developers aiming to minimise harm and reduce pain points could spread positive change.

While mastery of coding and data remains useful, competence in psychology and the human aspects of life may be key for profound betterment of our lives, and wider society too. A collaborative pivot toward emotional intelligence across the industry will prove immensely worthwhile.

In my career, working with hundreds of companies, I’ve almost never seen organisations* take a truly deliberate approach to continuous improvement. It’s nearly always treated as an afterthought or add-on to business-as-usual (BAU). But real transformation requires making continuous improvement an integral and core part of daily work. This is the “why” behind FlowChain – enabling deliberate, in-band continuous improvement.

In other words, applying the same disciplines from product development, delivery, etc. to the business (sic) of delivering continuous improvements  – continuously improving the way the work works.

What Is FlowChain?

So what is FlowChain? At its core, it is a system for managing flow – both the flow of outputs and the flow of improvements to the way the work works, concurrently and by the same means. And by “flow”, I mean the steady progress of work from request to completion through all steps in a process. Flow is optimised when the right work is happening at the right time by the right people. Roadblocks, delays, and waste are minimised or eliminated.

Flow

Optimising flow delivers the following benefits:

• Increased productivity – less time wasted, more work completed
• Improved quality – fewer defects, rework minimised
• Better customer service – faster response times, reliability
• Higher employee engagement – less frustration, more joy

But achieving flow requires continuous improvement. Problems must be made visible. Waste must be reduced iteratively. Roadblocks must be cleared continuously.

This is why FlowChain incorporates improvement into its regular rhythm. Each cycle follows a deliberate sequence:

• Plan – Select and sequence the upcoming work.
• Execute – Complete the work while tackling issues.
• Review – Analyse completed work and identify improvements.
• Adjust – Make changes to improve flow.

Unlike most continuous improvement efforts – that are separate from BAU – FlowChain makes improvement an integral in-band activity. The rapid cycles provide frequent opportunities to reflect, gain insights, and act.

Compounding Benefits

Over time, the compounding benefits are immense. Teams develop a “flow habit”, where improving flow becomes second nature. Powerful capabilities like root cause analysis, A3 problem-solving, improvement katas, and change management are honed.

In my experience, this deliberate approach is transformative. Teams gain tremendous agency to systematically improve their own flow. The organisation as a whole cultivates a culture of continuous improvement. And customers experience ever-better service and responsiveness.

The “why” of FlowChain is simple – create focus, visibility, accountability, and agency to drive continuous improvement. The results – ever better flow, reduced waste, and sustainable transformation. Deliberate, in-band continuous improvement stops being an aspiration and becomes a reality.

*Ask me about the exception.

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

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

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

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

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

What Fuels Top-Performing Software Companies?

The secret sauce of top-performing software companies often lies in their willingness to explore and implement ideas that fall outside the mainstream. Unlike many companies that stick to orthodoxy and status quo practices, these high-performers embrace the works of thinkers like Deming, Ackoff, Buckminster Fuller, Goldratt, Drucker, Seddon, and Trybus. They find value in methods and theories that many businesses either don’t know about or choose to ignore. This approach fosters a culture of continuous improvement and innovative problem-solving, setting them apart from their competitors.

Why Aren’t These Ideas More Widely Adopted?

There’s a paradox here: The ideas from these thought leaders are available, and their effectiveness has been demonstrated, yet few companies make the leap to implement them. This is usually not due to a lack of resources or information but stems from organisational inertia compounded by ignorance. Companies often feel safer sticking to conventional methods, even when evidence suggests that non-mainstream ideas could lead to significant improvements. This risk-averse mentality can create a barrier to adopting transformative approaches.

How Do Beliefs Impact Productivity?

The collective mindset or shared beliefs within an organisation can serve as either a catalyst or an obstacle to productivity. In high-performing software companies, you’ll often find a culture that not only welcomes but also thrives on unconventional wisdom. This creates a fertile ground for out-of-the-box methods to take root and flourish, driving the company forward in ways that more conventional organisations can’t easily replicate. If you’re curious, my recent book “Quintessence” catalogues and maps over seventy of the unorthodox memes of these top-performing companies.

Can We Simply Adopt Another Company’s Methods?

Transplanting methods from one company to another might seem like a straightforward way to boost productivity. However, those methods were developed within a unique ecosystem, shaped by specific challenges, goals, and culture. Attempting to graft them onto an organisation with differing assumptions and beliefs leads to misalignment, cognitive dissonance, resistance from team members, and even failure of the adopted methods to deliver the expected benefits. “Agile” is a classic example in this regard.

Has Benchmarking Any Value Here?

Many companies rely on industry-standard metrics to gauge their performance, but this approach has its limitations, particularly when comparing against top-performers who use unconventional approaches and thus metrics. These high-performers often evaluate success based on measures specifically tailored to their methods and organisational beliefs. This makes traditional benchmarking ineffective and even misleading when trying to measure up to these high-performing companies.

How Do You Close the Productivity Gap?

If you’re looking to close the productivity gap, tweaking existing methods won’t be sufficient. What’s required is a fundamental shift in organisational beliefs and assumptions that pave the way for consideration and implementation of radical, unorthodox ideas. Companies that are willing to examine their own culture critically, and to challenge the industry status quo, stand a much better chance of making significant strides in productivity.

What’s the Cost of Inaction?

Ignoring the widening gap between your company and high-performers comes at a steep price. As these leading companies continue to innovate and improve, companies that stick to conventional methods risk stagnation. In a worst-case scenario, they become increasingly irrelevant in their industry, losing out on both market share and talent to more forward-thinking competitors.

Who’s Coaching New Coaches?

When an organisation decides to bring coaching into its culture, the focus is usually on its employees. Yet the coaches themselves are often left to endure rigid training, which stands at odds with the coaching philosophy. If organisations genuinely believe in coaching, why don’t they extend this to their new coaches?

What’s Wrong with Training Compared to Coaching?

Training enforces a rigid structure, pushing predetermined information towards the participant. This approach is inflexible and impersonal, falling short of individual needs. In contrast, coaching is a dynamic, two-way relationship tailored to the individual’s unique needs and objectives.

Why Do Organisations Stick to Training New Coaches?

Many organisations default to traditional training methods, even for roles better suited for coaching. This inclination towards training could be seen as a glaring oversight and a lack of genuine commitment to the coaching approach.

Is Training New Coaches a Misstep?

Absolutely. Training, with its push approach, is fundamentally ill-equipped for roles that demand behavioural change and personal development. Especially in the realm of Collaborative Knowledge Work. By clinging to training for their new coaches, organisations contradict and undermine their supposed endorsement of coaching.

Why Is Coaching New Coaches the Superior Option?

Coaching, unlike training, draws out an individual’s inherent potential. It enhances both the effectiveness and empathy of new coaches and helps foster a real coaching culture within the organisation.

What’s the Next Step?

Organisations might choose to move beyond training and embrace a coaching-centric approach universally, starting with their newest coaches. Doing so is not just lip service to a trend; it’s a necessary evolution for genuine development.

Is Coaching Itself Beyond Reproach?

As we sing the praises of coaching over training, it’s crucial to consider a larger issue: Is coaching itself the end-all solution for organisational development? No. According to quality management expert W. Edwards Deming’s 95/5 rule, most problems (95%) are the fault of the system, not the individual. Coaching often targets individual behaviours—the “5%”—and overlooks systemic issues that could be the root cause of performance limitations. Organisations might choose to scrutinise their coaching programmes to ensure they’re not just treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

Conclusion: Where Does This Leave Us?

If organisations are serious about adopting coaching, they might choose to apply the coaching approach at all levels, including new coaches. However, it’s worth reflecting on whether coaching itself, focused as it often is on the “5%”, is enough to address the underlying systemic issues that are impeding progress. To achieve lasting change and growth, organisations must consider systemic improvements as paramount. Anything less represents a missed opportunity.

Why Is Continuous Improvement Still Rare?

Continuous improvement is seldom seen, despite its promised value. Could it be that the rarity of effective continuous improvement is due to flaws in the commonly employed PDSA model?

Does PDSA Trap Us in a Loop?

The PDSA cycle often ends up reinforcing rather than challenging the status quo. A major part of the problem lies in the unchanging collective assumptions and beliefs that underpin the PDSA process.

How Can Organisational Psychotherapy Help?

Organisational psychotherapy can play a crucial role in transforming PDSA from a loop of reinforcement to a cycle of genuine improvement. By focusing on continually shifting collective assumptions and beliefs, by degrees, organisational psychotherapy provides means to redefine the context of the PDSA cycle.

1. Spot the Blind Spots: Psychotherapeutic techniques can help identify the invisible beliefs and assumptions that guide the organisation’s decision-making process. These revelations are critical in modifying PDSA to truly serve continuous improvement, especially improvement to the organisational memeplex. What counts as “improvement”, here? Improvement means shifitng collective assumptions and beliefs into more productive alignment with the goals, purpose and aspirations of the organisation.
2. Change from Within: Organisational psychotherapy facilitates a deep, fundamental shift in collective beliefs. This sets the stage for a more meaningful and effective PDSA cycle.

Can Psychotherapy and PDSA Coexist?

The beauty of incorporating organisational psychotherapy into PDSA is that the two work in tandem, feeding into each other for a more dynamic and effective CI process.

1. Continuous Self-Assessment: Just as in individual therapy, the organisation can choose to engage in continual self-examination to ensure that the assumptions driving the PDSA cycles are current and accurate.
2. Diverse Perspectives and Open Dialogue: Psychotherapy encourages open communication, which can be valuable in diversifying the inputs in the PDSA cycle. The more perspectives you have, the less likely you are to perpetuate false assumptions.
3. Mindfulness: While data is important, Cf. Statistical Process Control, organisational psychotherapy adds another layer by focusing on the far more significant emotional and psychological aspects of decision-making.
4. Iterative Reassessments: Both PDSA and organisational psychotherapy are iterative by nature. Use regular checkpoints to measure the shift in collective assumptions and beliefs and adjust the PDSA cycle accordingly. Cf. Hearts Over DIamonds.

What’s the Way Forward?

By marrying the principles of organisational psychotherapy with the PDSA model, businesses can finally unlock the true potential of continuous improvement and the Deming Cycle. This dual approach not only revitalises PDSA but also equips it to genuinely drive Rightshifting change, rather than perpetuate the status quo.

If Bill Deming’s principles still resonate in business corridors, it’s because they address something timeless: the heart of organisational culture. This post unpacks the synergy between Deming’s teachings and organisational psychotherapy, both of which take aim at the bedrock of any company—the shared assumptions and beliefs that drive behaviour and decision-making.

What Connects Deming’s Wisdom With Organisational Psychotherapy?

The linchpin connecting Bill Deming’s philosophy and organisational psychotherapy lies in the emphasis on shared assumptions and beliefs. Deming believed that culture isn’t just a tagline, an ethos, or even a set of corporate values displayed in an office. It’s the bedrock that influences how employees behave, make decisions, and interact with each other and with customers. It shapes the organisation’s approach to problem-solving, innovation, and its overall performance.

Similarly, organisational psychotherapy doesn’t just scratch the surface by focusing on overt behaviours or explicit rules. It digs deeper into the collective unconscious of an organisation to surface the shared assumptions and beliefs that are often invisible yet powerful drivers of actions and decisions.

Is Culture More Than Just a Buzzword?

When Deming or an organisational psychotherapist talk about culture, they’re referring to the unspoken rules and shared understandings that guide behaviour within an organisation. Think of culture as a complex algorithm that’s constantly being written and rewritten by every member of your organisation based on their beliefs and assumptions.

What Are The Nuts and Bolts of Shared Assumptions and Beliefs?

What do we mean by “shared assumptions and beliefs”? These are the fundamental convictions that all members of the organisation hold in common about how the world works, how they should interact with it, and how they expect others to behave. These convictions are often so deeply embedded that they’re taken for granted and operate below the level of conscious awareness. Yet, they’re the gears that turn the wheels of everyday operations.

Why Does This Matter?

Understanding and addressing the shared assumptions and beliefs within an organisation can break the cycle of counterproductive behaviours and practices. These underpin everything from employee engagement and team collaboration to quality control and customer satisfaction. And so, of course, to revenue growth, market share and profit margins.

How Does This Translate to Action?

When your organisation aligns its strategies and processes with its actual culture—that is, its shared assumptions and beliefs—you have a much better shot at achieving your goals. The reverse is also true: if there’s a disconnect between these foundational elements and your operational activities, you’re likely setting yourself up for challenges, inefficiencies, or outright failures.

How Does Organisational Psychotherapy Address This?

An organisational psychotherapist invites you to surface and reflect on these shared assumptions, making them explicit and examining their impact on organisational behaviour. The aim is to have the organisation align its beliefs with its goals and strategies, just as Deming sought to do.

Once shared assumptions and beliefs are surfaced and available for reflection, the organisation can tailor action plans to align these core components with its goals. Whether you’re making slight adjustments or looking for a major overhaul, an organisational psychotherapist facilitates the process.

The Next Step: An Explicit Invitation

Now that you understand the pivotal role of shared assumptions and beliefs in organisational success, the actionable next step is to consult an organisational psychotherapist. Take this as your explicit invitation to dive deep into the heart of your organisation’s culture and continue Deming’s legacy.

Are Results Guaranteed?

While there’s always a level of risk when pursuing organisational change, focusing on shared assumptions and beliefs minimises this risk by targeting the root cause of your issues. Deming’s philosophy and organisational psychotherapy together provide a framework for mitigating risk by addressing the underlying cultural factors.

It’s Up To You

The methods and philosophies of Bill Deming remain a valuable resource for any organisation looking to effect meaningful, lasting change. If this aligns with your aspirations, the logical next step is to consult an organisational psychotherapist. It’s up to you what you decide to do, but consider this an invitation to explore how organisational psychotherapy can continue Deming’s wisdom in your organisation.

Summary

Though Bill Deming is no longer with us, his principles remain highly relevant, and they find a natural ally in organisational psychotherapy. By focusing on shared assumptions and beliefs, you can tackle the systemic issues that hamper productivity and efficiency.

Who Was Bill Deming?

W. Edwards Deming, commonly known as Bill Deming, was an American statistician, professor, author, and management consultant. Though most recognised for his contributions to quality management and the development of statistical process control, Deming’s work encompassed much more than equations and charts. He deeply cared about organisational culture and improving human aspects of work.

Did Deming Focus on Mental Models?

Deming was keen on changing the way people think about work and management. His System of Profound Knowledge, a cornerstone of his management philosophy, includes “understanding psychology” as one of its four elements. This shows Deming’s emphasis on the psychological aspects of organisational behaviour, closely aligning with what is now understood as organisational psychotherapy. He believed that for any change to be effective, the underlying beliefs, mindsets, and shared assumptions of people within the organisation must transform.

How Did Deming Approach Consultancy?

Deming wasn’t the typical consultant who’d hand over a report and call it a day. He committed to his client companies. Through ongoing interactions, he helped people inside organisations identify their systemic problems and internal challenges. Often, this required him to deal with strong resistance to change, which necessitated a keen understanding of human psychology. Here, Deming acted more like an organisational psychotherapist than a traditional consultant. He facilitated self-awareness and helped organisations improve from within, by addressing shared assumptions and beliefs that often acted as barriers to change.

What About Client Transformation?

Those organisations willing to listen often found themselves fundamentally transformed. For example, Ford Motor Company, one of Deming’s famous clients, shifted its corporate culture from one that blamed individuals for mistakes to one that looked at the system as a whole. This transformational approach, which also involved altering shared beliefs and assumptions, is what you’d expect from organisational psychotherapy. It aims to shift core paradigms, rather than just treating superficial symptoms.

Is Labelling Deming as an Organisational Psychotherapist Justifiable?

While the term “organisational psychotherapist” wasn’t in existance during Deming’s era, his principles, methods, and intentions align well with the practice. Through his focus on human psychology, sustained client interactions, and emphasis on systemic transformation, including the tackling of shared assumptions and beliefs, Deming could easily be viewed as an organisational psychotherapist, even if he never used that title himself.

Forget about blaming employees for every hiccup in the workplace; chances are, it’s not them—it’s the system (the way the work works). Enter Bill Deming, the overlooked genius who showed us where the real problem lies.

Who Was Bill Deming?

Bill Deming, formally known as W. Edwards Deming, was a statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and consultant. He’s particularly famous in Japan for teaching the country’s top management how to improve product quality. While highly influential in certain professional circles, he remains relatively unknown to the world of business, let alone to the general public.

What’s Deming’s 95/5 Rule?

The 95/5 rule proposes that 95% of the problems in an organisation are a consequence of the system, while only 5% are a consequence of the people within it. This revolutionary thought refocuses attention from blaming individual workers to considering the system they operate within.

The Red Bead Experiment?

The Red Bead Experiment was a powerful illustration of the 95/5 rule. In this experiment, workers would scoop beads from a bowl filled with a mix of white and red beads. Despite their best efforts, they couldn’t avoid scooping up red beads, which were considered ‘defects’. The point? The workers had no control over the system, represented by the bowl and the mix of beads. The defects were a consequence of the system, not the people.

Why Isn’t Deming More Famous?

Deming’s lack of mainstream recognition can be attributed to a few factors:

1. Cultural Differences: Deming’s principles took root in Japan, not his home country of the United States.
2. Complex Ideas: His theories aren’t beginner-friendly and demand a paradigm shift in managerial thinking.
3. Crowded Thought Space: Newer methods and more contemporary “thought leaders” often take the limelight.
4. Systemic Focus: His emphasis on systems over individuals is somewhat at odds with endemic Western management assumptions and beliefs.

Why Take Notice?

Understanding Deming’s 95/5 rule can significantly alter how you approach problem-solving in your organisation. It places importance on changing systems, not just people, to solve persistent issues.

How to Implement the 95/5 Rule?

1. Examine Systems, Not People: Before jumping to blame individuals, look at the systems in which they operate.
2. Prioritise Systemic Solutions: Focus on fixing the system rather than tackling individual performance issues.
3. Educate the Workforce: Ensure your team understands their role within the broader system and the shared responsibility for improvement.
4. Assess and Refine: After systemic changes, evaluate their effectiveness to ensure they resolve the problems you identified.

In Summary

Bill Deming and his 95/5 rule, illuminated through the Red Bead Experiment, offer a critical lens for assessing organisational issues. It’s not merely about identifying what’s wrong but understanding where the root cause lies—usually in the system rather than individual actions. Isn’t it time we acknowledged the value of this overlooked genius?

What’s Wrong with Talent Hunting?

The corporate landscape reverberates with calls to hire “top talent.” Recruitment agencies, HR departments, and LinkedIn profiles are full of phrases that pay homage to this elusive concept. Yet, what if the notion of “talent” is a red herring – diverting attention from what really matters, especially in collaborative knowledge work?

What Does Talent Even Mean?

Talent – when I use the word, I mean it as the rate at which you get better with effort. The rate at which you get better at soccer is your soccer talent. The rate at which you get better at math is your math talent. You know, given that you are putting forth a certain amount of effort. And I absolutely believe – and not everyone does, but I think most people do – that there are differences in talent among us: that we are not all equally talented.

~ Angela Duckworth, 2016

The term “talent” implies that some people possess an innate ability to evolve to excellence in specific tasks or roles, while others are doomed to mediocrity. Businesses adopt this mindset and spend enormous resources searching for that magical person who will solve all their problems. However, this search often leads to disappointment or worse, a mismatch between employee and organisational needs.

Is Talent Overrated?

It’s not that talented individuals don’t exist or that they can’t contribute to an organisation. The issue is that focusing on talent obscures a crucial aspect of productivity: the system within which people work.

Why Focus on Systems?

It turns out, research and real-world case studies suggest that systems account for about 95% of an organisation’s productivity. A well-designed system provides clear guidelines, minimises bottlenecks, and promotes efficient workflows. It creates an environment where people can excel, with or without what society typically labels as ‘talent.’

How to Build Effective Systems?

If you’re looking to enhance productivity, start by scrutinising your existing systems and processes. Ask hard questions. Is your communication streamlined? Do your workflows allow for creativity and innovation? Are roles and responsibilities clearly defined? These aspects significantly influence the productivity of your entire team, not just your star players.

Does Hiring Change When Systems Are Prioritised?

Absolutely. Instead of seeking candidates who seem to sparkle in interviews, you’d focus on those who fit well into your system. Soft skills like collaboration and adaptability take precedence, as they help people excel within established systems.

What’s the Real Secret Then?

So, should you entirely ignore talent? No, not entirely. But, remember, it’s the system that will determine how well anyone can perform, especially in collaborative knowledge work. By shifting your focus to creating effective systems, you set the stage for everyone to excel. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll find that the people you already have are the top talent you’ve been seeking all along.

Further Reading

Scholtes, P.R. (1997). The Leader’s Handbook. McGraw Hill Professional.
Duckworth, A. (2016, July 25). Angela Duckworth on Grit. EconTalk [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.econtalk.org/angela-duckworth-on-grit/

The Mirage of Measuring Productivity

Most organisations regard metrics as the Holy Grail of productivity. But what if we’re wasting our time, trapped in a Sisyphean cycle of measuring, adapting, and then measuring again, without achieving improvement? Metrics often mislead us. The more relevant question is: How do we truly make a difference?

The Complexity of Social Systems in Software Development

To get to the heart of the issue, we have to confront the chaos that comes with human beings working together. People aren’t variables in an equation; they’re living, breathing agents of unpredictability. In such an environment, even if we find a metric that looks promising, the inherent complexity could render it meaningless.

Deming’s Caveat: “The Most Important Figures are Unknown or Unknowable”

Before we take another step down the rabbit hole of productivity metrics, let’s pause to reflect on a pertinent insight from W. Edwards Deming, the father of modern quality management. He stated,

The most important figures that one needs for management are unknown or unknowable.

If one of the most influential minds in quality management and productivity warns us against an over-reliance on metrics, it’s worth taking note.

Why Metrics Often Fail in Social Systems

Metrics tend to misfire when applied to the inherently chaotic world of human interaction. It’s not a mechanical system with predictable outcomes; it’s more of an organic entity with complex, non-linear interactions. So, when metrics disappoint, it’s not the numbers that are at fault but our misplaced expectations of their ability to capture reality.

Turning to Systemic Improvements: The Untold Chapter

If we heed Deming’s advice, our focus shifts from trying to measure the immeasurable to creating conditions for productivity to flourish. When we step back from the Sisyphean task of trying to pin down productivity with metrics, as per Deming’s counsel, we make room for a paradigm shift.

Instead of fixating on measured outcomes, the focus turns towards the fertile ground from which these outcomes naturally emerge. Here’s how this shift fundamentally changes our approach to productivity. (Cf. Quintessence).

Systems Thinking: The Big Picture

Deming was a strong advocate for systems thinking. This perspective urges us to see the workplace not as a collection of isolated variables but as a holistic system. Individual performances are interrelated, affected by the entire system, including leadership styles, workplace culture, communication pathways and a host of other memes. By optimising the system as a whole, we inherently create conditions for better productivity.

Quality of Interactions Over Quantity of Output

If we’re not bogged down by the numbers, we can invest time and energy into what really matters, such as the quality of interactions among team members. High-quality interactions naturally lead to high-quality output. Team members who communicate clearly, collaborate effectively, and feel psychologically safe are more likely to be productive.

By heeding Deming’s advice, we engage in a more holistic, humane, and, ironically, effective approach to boosting productivity. We may not have a neat vanity metric to showcase in the next board meeting, but the signs will be everywhere—in the engagement of the team, the quality of the work, and the satisfaction of your clients.

Improving Without Measuring: Sounds Like Heresy, Doesn’t It?

Here’s the part where some people might think we’re heading into taboo territory. How do we know we’re making progress if we’re not measuring it? The key is to focus on systemic improvements that are intuitively beneficial, such as:

• Surfacing and reflecting on collective assumptions and beliefs
• Attending to folks’ needs
• Enhancing communication channels
• Making things visible
• Reducing work-in-progress
• Emphasising learning and personal development
• Promoting psychological safety

By attending to these areas, we’re likely moving in the right direction, even if we can’t quantify it.

Feedback Loops: Your New Best Friend

Feedback loops provide insights without the narrow focus of traditional metrics. They allow teams to observe patterns, adapt, and continuously learn. These can range from daily stand-ups to sprint reviews, to customer feedback sessions. The idea is to keep the feedback continuous and actionable.

Holistic Approaches: Taking a Cue from Organisational Psychotherapy

Improving productivity in complex systems requires less of a mechanical approach and more of a therapeutic one. Techniques like organisational psychotherapy aim to uncover underlying issues at the collective subconscious level. By addressing these foundational aspects, we’re more likely to see a genuine shift in productivity.

So, Are We Moving the Needle?

The perennial question still stands: How do we know we’re improving? But maybe we’ve been asking the wrong question. The more relevant question is: Are we creating an environment where improvement is not just possible but inevitable? And what does that environment look like?

So, let’s leave behind the vanity of metrics and embrace the nuanced, often messy journey of actual improvement. The numbers may not make it to a glitzy PowerPoint presentation, but the positive change will be palpable. And isn’t that what really matters?

W. Edwards Deming is a name synonymous with quality management and process improvement, particularly in Japan where he helped revive post-war industries. Deming’s approach centres around Statistical Process Control (SPC) and the “Plan-Do-Study-Act” (PDSA) cycle, which emphasises iterative improvement.

His core philosophy manifests through “The 14 Points of Management,” guidelines designed to steer management’s decisions and actions towards achieving quality. Here are a few key points to consider:

1. Create Constancy of Purpose: Long-Term Over Short-Term Deming believed in focusing on long-term goals instead of short-term profits.
2. Adopt the New Philosophy: Innovation Over Status Quo Deming urged the adoption of new approaches to improve quality and productivity.
3. Cease Dependence on Inspection: Build Quality In, Don’t Inspect It In For Deming, quality should be built into the process, rather than inspected into the finished product.
4. Stop Awarding Business Based on Price: Value Over Cost Deming advised prioritising value and quality when choosing suppliers, rather than just looking at price.
5. Improve the System: Continual Improvement Over Quick Fixes Deming emphasised the need for continual improvement in products, services, and processes.
6. Use Training for Skills: Education Over On-the-Job Training For Deming, well-planned training programs were preferable to quick, on-the-job training.
7. Implement Leadership: Leadership Over Mere Supervision Deming believed in guiding workers to better performance through leadership, rather than simply supervising them.
8. Drive Out Fear: Openness Over Secrecy Deming recommended creating a work environment where employees feel secure, leading to better quality work.
9. Break Down Barriers: Teamwork Over Individual Performance According to Deming, departments within an organisation must work together as a team for better quality.
10. Eliminate Slogans: Reality Over Rhetoric Deming criticised empty slogans that demand performance without providing methods. “By what method?”
11. Eradicate Numerical Quotas: Quality Over Quantity Deming advised against numerical production quotas that sacrificed quality for volume.
12. Remove Barriers to Pride of Workmanship: Satisfaction Over Speed Deming believed in allowing employees to take pride in their work, rather than rushing them through tasks.
13. Institute Education and Retraining: Learning Over Layoffs Deming advocated for continual learning and personal development of staff.
14. Take Action: System-Wide Changes Over Piecemeal Adjustments Deming called for a comprehensive approach to organisational change, rather than making small, disconnected changes a.k.a. “tinkering”.

Deciphering Philip B. Crosby’s Four Absolutes of Quality

Philip B. Crosby, another heavyweight in the quality management arena, had a simpler but equally impactful approach. He believed in the concept of “Quality is Free,” which suggests that investing in quality from the get-go actually reduces costs in the long run. Crosby laid out the “Four Absolutes of Quality” as follows:

• Quality Means Conformance, Not Goodness: Quality isn’t about being excellent; it’s about meeting specifications or requirements.
• Quality Comes from Prevention, Not Detection: The emphasis here is on stopping mistakes before they happen rather than fixing them afterward.
• Quality Performance Standard is Zero Defects, Not ‘That’s Close Enough’: Crosby propagated the idea that anything less than perfect is unacceptable.
• Quality is Measured by the Price of Nonconformance, Not Indices: Crosby quantified quality as the cost involved when failing to meet the standard.

The Face-off: Deming vs. Crosby

Here’s some key distinctions between Deming’s and Crosby’s perspectives on quality:

Philosophy vs Pragmatism

• Deming: Believed in a philosophical shift across the entire organisation, emphasising continual improvement as part of its DNA.
• Crosby: Took a more pragmatic approach with clear, measurable standards, focusing on specific, achievable outcomes.

Definition of Quality

• Deming: Didn’t provide a single definition for quality but suggested that it is a continuous quest for improvement.
• Crosby: Defined quality strictly as conformance to requirements or specifications (not the written kind we think of today, but the actual needs of the customer).

Approach to Errors and Defects

• Deming: Advocated for a constant, iterative process to reduce defects but didn’t explicitly demand a zero-defects approach.
• Crosby: Pushed for a zero-defects standard, indicating that anything less was not acceptable.

Preventive vs Reactive Measures

• Deming: While he supported preventive actions, his model allows for reactive measures as well, with the PDSA cycle helping to correct course.
• Crosby: Strictly focused on prevention over detection, emphasising that errors should be eradicated before they occur.

Scope of Application

• Deming: Offered a broad framework, the “14 Points of Management,” that touched on multiple aspects of an organisation.
• Crosby: Provided a narrower focus through his “Four Absolutes of Quality,” zeroing in on specific key principles.

Cost Implications

• Deming: Didn’t directly quantify the cost of poor quality, although he suggested that focusing on quality would naturally result in cost savings.
• Crosby: Directly correlated the cost of poor quality with the price of nonconformance (PoNC), providing a numerical way to gauge it.

Flexibility vs Rigidity

• Deming: More flexible, as his PDSA cycle allows organisations to adapt and evolve over time.
• Crosby: More rigid due to his zero-defects policy and strict conformance to requirements.

These distinctions boil down to different focal points in the journey towards quality: Deming offers a holistic, philosophical path, while Crosby provides a more tangible, practical, metric-driven route. Both have their merits, and the choice between them often depends on an organisation’s prevailing assumptions and beliefs.

Fertile Mindsets

Now let’s directly compare the foundational beliefs and assumptions needed to implement Deming’s versus Crosby’s approaches to quality.

Philosophy of Continuous Improvement vs Zero-Defect Mentality

• Deming: Assumes that improvement is a never-ending journey, fueled by the belief in the value of continuous, iterative processes.
• Crosby: Operates on the belief that the goal is to reach a zero-defect standard, where each and every error is considered a failure.

Systems Thinking vs Focused Accountability

• Deming: Necessitates a belief in systems thinking, where every part of the organisation is interconnected and contributes to quality.
• Crosby: Focuses more on specific, measurable areas and assumes that quality can be attained by holding individuals or departments accountable for their specific roles.

Employee Involvement vs Strict Adherence

• Deming: Assumes that employees are part of the solution and not the problem, advocating for an organisation-wide culture of quality.
• Crosby: While not discounting the participation of employees, Crosby invited adherence to pre-defined standards, with less emphasis on employee involvement beyond meeting these standards.

Long-Term Vision vs Short-Term Metrics

• Deming: Assumes that the organisation is committed to long-term goals and is willing to invest in long-term improvements without immediate ROI.
• Crosby: Emphasised the achieving of short-term gains as building blocks toward overall quality. Achieving and maintaining a zero-defect status can be seen as a series of short-term objectives that eventually lead to long-term quality improvements.

Flexibility vs Rigidity in Execution

• Deming: Beliefs must be flexible enough to adapt and change as new information and data become available through the PDSA cycle.
• Crosby: Assumes a rigid, unyielding stance towards goals and metrics, with no room for deviation from the set standards.

Educational Investment vs Proactive Prevention

• Deming: The organisation must believe in continuous learning and personal deveopment as fundamental aspects of quality improvement.
• Crosby: Emphasises proactive prevention of errors, believing that the best way to maintain quality is to prevent mistakes in the first place.

Quantifying Quality

• Deming: Quality is a more abstract concept, assumed to benefit the organisation in the long run, though not directly quantified.
• Crosby: Operates on the assumption that quality can be precisely measured through the ‘price of nonconformance,’ making it a more tangible asset or liability.

By understanding these foundational differences, organisations can better assess which approach to quality management aligns with their existing culture, beliefs, and goals.

Final Musings

Both Deming and Crosby offer frameworks that have stood the test of time and continue to be referenced in the world of quality management. Picking one over the other isn’t a straightforward choice; it’s more about aligning their strategies with your organisation’s unique assumptions and beliefs. After all, quality isn’t a one-size-fits-all garment but a tailored fit that evolves with the organisation and its memeplex.

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.

Understanding the Enigma of Executive Spending

In the world of business, many expect decisions to be primarily driven by the acclaimed triumvirate of cost, profit, and value. However, upon closer inspection, a strange pattern begins to emerge. It appears that senior managers and executives often focus their attention and organisational resources on objectives quite detached from these fundamental financial goals. The question arises – are there covert priorities superseding these cardinal business metrics?

The Proliferation of ‘Bullshit Jobs’: Scrum Masters and Agile Coaches

Let’s dissect roles that have recently gained popularity in the corporate world, especially within software development – the Scrum Master and the Agile Coach. These roles, which emerged from the need for increased speed and adaptability, were initially hailed as game-changers. Yet, it’s hard to ignore the high levels of expenditure often associated with their hiring and maintenance.

The Hidden Cost of Scapegoating

The paradox lies in the fact that despite being tied to production or service delivery, Scrum Masters and Agile Coaches consume a considerable share of resources. Could the justification for this spending be rooted less in seeking value and more in the preservation of managerial status and their personal risk reduction?

It appears that these roles serve as convenient scapegoats for managers. By entrusting these roles with the responsibility of team efficiency and speed of delivery, executives deflect criticism for delays, overruns, inter-team communication failures, and the inability to adapt to market changes. This tactic effectively shields managers from potential criticism, thus protecting their personal status and well-being.

The Disparity Between Espoused and Actual Objectives

The rise and acceptance of such ‘bullshit jobs’ point to a significant disparity between an organisation’s stated objectives and its leaders’ actual priorities. The implications suggest that the objectives of executives and senior managers might not align with cost efficiency, profit maximisation, or value creation. Instead, these leaders prioritise their personal status, risk-avoidance, and comfort, creating a gulf between an organisation’s potential and its actual performance.

Summary

In conclusion, given our societal constructs, it may be too optimistic to expect senior managers and executives to admit openly to the influence of personal status and risk avoidance in their decisions.

By understanding and acknowledging the jarring disconnect between personal and organisational objectives, we can step towards a more realistic evaluation of decisions. This understanding allows us to navigate the paradox of executive priorities, bringing actuality into sharper focus. Unless, of course, you don’t really want to know what’s going on.