Lessons for Collaborative Knowledge Work

Gerhard von Scharnhorst

Origins and History

In the aftermath of Prussia’s crushing defeat by Napoleonic forces in 1806, the military theorist Gerhard von Scharnhorst sought to reform the once-formidable Prussian army. One of his key innovations was the concept of “auftragstaktik” or “mission-type-tactics.”

Rather than dictating precise orders from a central command, auftragstaktik pushed decision-making down to lower levels. Commanders at all levels were given a general objective, the resources needed to accomplish it, and the freedom to determine how best to achieve the mission based on their own initiative and circumstances on the ground.

The philosophy empowered front-line soldiers and unlocked the full creative and adaptive potential of the force. After adopting auftragstaktik, the Prussians achieved remarkable success against Napoleon’s armies at the Battles of Leipzig and Waterloo in 1813-1815. Auftragstaktik also played a major role in the stunning Prussian victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871.

Applicability to Collaborative Knowledge Work (CKW)

While developed for military operations, the core principles of auftragstaktik hold powerful lessons for collaborative knowledge work (CKW) in the modern economy – whether in software, product development, research, or other complex team-based environments.

Like 19th century combat, these domains are rife with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. Central planning and rigid hierarchies falter in the face of rapidly changing circumstances and information asymmetries between layers of management.

Auftragstaktik propounds:

• Clear overarching strategic objectives (the “mission”)
• Dispersed decision rights to those closest to the information
• An emphasis on individual initiative within defined constraints
• Bi-directional communication and coordination between layers

Modern Implementations

Many of today’s most innovative companies have embraced versions of auftragstaktik – if not in name, then in substance:

Spotify: The music streaming giant pioneered an organisational model of small, autonomous “squads” each with a clear mission aligned to company strategy. Squads have end-to-end responsibility for their areas and coordinate through linking elements like “tribes,” “chapters,” and other forums.

U.S.M.C. and SpecOps: Modern special operations embrace a philosophy of “centralised command, decentralised control” a.k.a. “Mission-type tactics”.  While top leaders set the operational vision, small teams on the ground have maximum leeway and support to accomplish their missions as they see fit based on circumstances.

Maximising Human Potential

At its core, auftragstaktik is about maximizing the full human potential of an organisation. By clearly broadcasting strategic intent while devolving execution to those closest to the information, it unlocks the advantages of both alignment and autonomy.

In our era of accelerating innovation and disruption, optimising for flexibility and adaptability is of paramount importance. The principles of von Scharnhorst’s 19th century military revolution may well be the philosophical lodestar for 21st century organisational success.

Further Reading

Marshall, R.W. (2013). Product Aikido [PDF] – Auftragstaktik For Software Development. Falling Blossoms. /wp-content/uploads/2013/04/productaikido041016.pdf

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.

The Maxim and Its Intellectual Pedigree

For those unfamiliar with the novelist and polemicist Upton Sinclair, he is perhaps best known for his 1906 novel “The Jungle” which exposed horrific conditions in the meat-packing industry and inspired reforms like the creation of the FDA. But one of Sinclair’s most oft-quoted maxims has lived on as sage advice in fields well beyond its original context of Yellow Journalism and muckraking:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

This pithy statement, now known as Upton Sinclair’s Dictum, echoes the perspective of the English mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford, who famously declared

“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

thereby making belief an issue of morality, or ethics.

Both Upton Sinclair and William Clifford saw intellectual honesty and a commitment to following evidence over expedience as paramount moral and ethical imperatives.

The Perils of Motivated Reasoning

Sinclair’s dictum cuts to the heart of the conflict of interest that can arise when people are incentivised to ignore uncomfortable truths or turn a blind eye to unethical practices. Over a century later, it remains as relevant as ever – particularly for business leaders and managers charged with enabling collaborative knowledge work.

The Crucible of Knowledge Work

In fields like software development, product design, team coaching, and other collaborative brain (grey muscle) work, the challenges teams face are often wicked problems – complex issues with no clear right answer, where even reasonable people can disagree with each other. Successfully navigating these choppy waters requires the fearless questioning of assumptions and beliefs, a relentless commitment to empiricism over ego, and a culture where all ideas can be rigorously stress-tested rather than self-censored.

Incentives Gone Awry

And yet, how often do we see teams afflicted by an insidious form of willful blindness, where dissenting perspectives are downplayed or dismissed outright in service of binding to already-held beliefs? Perhaps it’s driven by managers’ career incentives being too tightly coupled to delivering on a specific roadmap or revenue target. Maybe it stems from product leaders’ identities being too inextricably bound up with their “billion dollar baby” and thus being emotionally invested in rationalising sunk costs. Or it could simply be the natural tendency toward the comfortable inertia of groupthink.

Embracing Intellectual Honesty

Whatever the root causes, the antidote is the same – cultivating a culture of intellectual honesty, where all the Folks That Matter have both the autonomy and the enthusiasm to vocalise doubts and scrutinise lchains of reasoning, assumptions and beliefs. Where no stone goes unturned in interrogating the fundamental assumptions underlying key decisions. Where Value at Risk* queries are not only tolerated but actively encouraged as a check against blind spots and biases.

Fostering this boundary-less ethos of truth-seeking is a significant challenge facing modern knowledge-work leaders. But by striving to live up to the spirit of Sinclair’s admonition, we give ourselves the best chance of circumventing the self-deceptions and rationalisations that can otherwise send initiatives careening toward ruinous failures.

Heeding History’s Warnings

Time and again, history’s cautionary tales have proved the adage that “in a battle of conviction against conventional wisdom, conventional wisdom has largely prevailed.” That’s why embracing Sinclair’s Dictum is so vital. For only by creating an environment where people can transcend their vested interests and follow the truth wherever it leads can we hope to part the veils of entrenched assumptions and beliefs.

*”Value at risk queries” refers to the practice of actively questioning and scrutinising decisions, plans, or initiatives to assess the potential downsides, risks, and costs if things go wrong.

The term is taken from the financial concept of “value at risk” (VaR), which is a risk measurement and management method used to estimate the potential losses an investment or portfolio could face over a given time period.

Here, “value at risk queries” means rigorously examining the value potentially put at risk by a course of action – whether that value is financial, reputational, opportunity costs, or other key metrics important to the organisation.

Some examples of value at risk queries include:

• What is the worst-case scenario if this product fails to gain market traction?
• Have we fully stress-tested the assumptions around customer adoption rates?
• To what regulatory or compliance risks are we potentially exposing ourselves?
• How much technical debt and future constraints are we incurring with this architecture?
• Are we missing any significant blind spots in our competitive analysis?

Instead of shutting down or dismissing these tough “what if?” questions, organisations might choose to actively encourage and support value at risk queries. This helps surface potential blind spots and provides a check against overly optimistic planning or narrow frames of reference.

In essence, value at risk queries apply rigorous risk management thinking as an antidote to groupthink and comfortable consensus-building. They stress-test initiatives before making irreversible commitments.

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.

Businesses Ignore Deming’s Call for Real Behavioural Insight

W. Edwards Deming, the pioneering management thinker, strongly advocated for businesses to develop a deeper understanding of psychology in order to optimise systems, drive improvement, and bring joy and pride in work to the workplace.

“Understanding psychology, the study of human behaviour, is the key to managing people.”

Deming wrote. Yet decades after Deming’s teachings, most businesses remain woefully ignorant about true human psychology and behavioural drivers.

The Superficial ‘Pop Psych’ Fixation

Instead of delving into substantive research from psychology, cognitive science, and behavioural economics, the corporate world tends to favour simplistic “pop psych” maxims and heuristics. Businesses love to tout the latest bestselling books promoting ideas like “positive thinking”, “grit”, “growth mindsets”, or “mindfulness” as the secrets to better employee engagement and productivity. Consultants peddle pseudoscientific personality assessments built on shaky Jungian foundations. Corporate training programmes regurgitate self-evident platitudes about “emotional intelligence.”

Human Behaviour Is Central to Everything

This cavalier dilettantism toward psychology is concerning because human behaviour is central to every aspect of an organisation – its culture, management practices, teamwork, decision-making processes, innovation, marketing, you name it. If companies fail to rigorously study and apply research-based behavioural insights, they are effectively driving blind.

Ignoring the Science of Human Behaviour

Psychology is a legitimate field of science that has produced a wealth of empirical findings on human cognition, motivation, bias, social dynamics, and more. And not just academic theories, but proven applications in areas like user experience design, behaviour change, survey methodology, and marketing. Ignoring this body of knowledge is akin to an engineer neglecting physics or materials science.

The System of Profound Knowledge

Deming admonished that businesses must take a fundamentally different view of work, one focused on understanding systems holistically – including the human dimensions and variation. Yet even today, businesses tend to fixate on simplistic notions like employee incentives, traditional hierarchies, coercion, and other regressive pop psych-led management dogma. They give short shrift to the scientific realities of how people actually think, feel and behave.

A True Commitment to Understanding People

Of course, as Deming taught, psychology alone does not automatically confer excellence in management. It requires a coherent philosophy, sustained practice, and an unwavering commitment to continual learning, all of which many businesses still lack. But grasping human behaviour remains a crucial foundational layer.

For companies to truly embrace people-centric management as Deming advocated, they might choose to move beyond gimmicky pop psych trends and selective, self-serving interpretations of research. They may, instead, choose to dive deep into the expansive knowledge base of rigorous behavioural science – including the inconvenient truths it reveals – and apply those insights in thoughtful, judicious ways. Only then can businesses hope to make substantive and lasting improvements. Of course, improvement of any kind seem decidedly out of favour at the moment.

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

For Executives and Senior Managers

Shaping the Organisational Mindset

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

Transcending Limiting Assumptions

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

For Middle Managers

Bridging Misaligned Beliefs

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

Fostering Trust and Psychological Safety

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

For Technical Workers

Unleashing Pioneering Thinking

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

Fostering Knowledge-Sharing

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

The Power of Collective Intelligence

In more and more scenarios, solving complex challenges often requires much more than just an individual’s expertise. It demands the ability to synthesise diverse perspectives and pool intellectual resources through seamless coordination and collaboration. This emerging paradigm is known as collaborative knowledge work (CKW).

CKW brings together professionals from varied backgrounds to tackle intricate problems that defy siloed approaches. By harnessing the collective brainpower of multidisciplinary teams, organisations can innovate and achieve breakthroughs that may have once seemed unattainable. This collaborative mindset is reshaping various industries and giving rise to new types of roles and career paths.

Professions Embracing the Collaborative Paradigm

Here are some of the professions where collaborative knowledge work is taking centre stage:

Software and Digital Products

From agile squads to distributed open-source collaborations, software creation has become a team sport where developers, designers, and product experts collectively craft digital solutions.

Management Consulting

Rather than individual consultants, firms are assembling cross-functional teams to provide holistic advisory services that span multiple practice areas for their clients.

Product Design and Innovation

User-centred design demands close collaboration between designers, engineers, researchers, and other stakeholders throughout the product development lifecycle.

Scientific Research

Tackling complex scientific inquiries requires coordinated efforts between researchers across institutions, merging expertise from diverse domains.

Healthcare

Providing effective patient care requires seamless cooperation among physicians, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals.

Legal Services

Navigating intricate legal matters, especially those spanning jurisdictions, necessitates integrated teams of lawyers and paralegals from complementary practice areas.

Education and Training

Developing robust educational programmes involves interdisciplinary instructional designers, subject matter experts, and educational technologists working in concert.

Construction and Engineering

Delivering large-scale construction projects relies on integrated teams that bring together architects, engineers, builders and other specialised roles.

Finance and Investments

Managing investment portfolios and analysing risk profiles is increasingly a shared responsibility between quantitative analysts, economists, and other financial experts.

The New Collaborative Mindset

As the complexities of our world continue to grow, the demand for professionals adept at collaborative knowledge work will only intensify. Thriving in these roles requires a unique blend of specialised expertise and the ability to synthesise diverse perspectives through effective communication and coordination. This emerging paradigm presents exciting opportunities for those seeking to make a lasting impact by pushing the boundaries of what is possible through the power of collaboration. I wonder how many of the above truly understand and embrace CKW, and how many remain mired in the category error of treating CWK like traditional forms of work?

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.

Introduction

In the relentless pursuit of delivering value to customers, with unparalleled speed and reliability, the software development world has yet to widely embrace a revolutionary principle – the “Constant State of Ship”. This state, where software artefacts and products are perpetually poised for release into production environments within just 15 minutes’ notice, has emerged as a driving force behind best practices that enable true continuous deployment. Remarkably, this groundbreaking concept formed the foundation of the pioneering “Javelin” software development approach, a visionary approach conceived by FlowChainSensei (Bob Marshall) at Familiar circa 1996 and onwards, foreshadowing the industry’s even-now-yet-to-be-realised embrace of these practices.

The Power of “Constant State of Ship”

The “Constant State of Ship” serves us as an unyielding forcing function, inviting teams to adopt and adhere to a comprehensive set of best practices that catalyse the seamless flow of software into production. Let us explore how this principle reinforces each of thirteen fundamentals of Continuous Delivery (hat tip to Dave Farley):

The 13 Fundamentals Enabled

1. A Repeatable, Reliable ProcessWith the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams may choose to establish a well-defined, automated pipeline for building, testing, and deploying their software. This process needs to be repeatable and reliable, minimising the risk of human error and ensuring consistency across releases.

   The “Constant State of Ship” mindset suggests that teams have a streamlined, automated release pipeline that can be triggered at any moment. Manual steps and ad-hoc and emergency exception procedures become liabilities, as they introduce variability and increase the chances of mistakes during deployment.

   To achieve this repeatability and reliability, teams are supported to invest in build automation tools, automated testing frameworks, and deployment automation pipelines. Every step of the release pipeline can be codified, documented, and thoroughly tested to ensure predictable outcomes each time.

   Moreover, the “Constant State of Ship” principle fosters an environment of continuous learning and improvement. Any failures or issues encountered during a release are promptly analysed, and the release process is refined to prevent future occurrences. This cycle of continuous feedback and optimisation ensures that the release pipeline remains reliable and efficient, even as the codebase and systems evolve over time.

   By operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode, teams are invited to treat the release pipeline as a critical component of their software development lifecycle, investing the necessary resources and effort to make it repeatable, reliable, and capable of delivering changes to production environments at a moment’s notice.

2. Automate All the ThingsIn a “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, manual interventions become significant bottlenecks and risks, hindering the required velocity and reliability. Automation becomes imperative, spanning every aspect of the delivery pipeline, from code compilation to infrastructure provisioning. The threat of an imminent release leaves no room for error-prone manual processes that could delay or derail a deployment. Teams must automate build processes, test execution, environment provisioning, deployment steps, and release orchestration to ensure consistency and minimise the risk of human error.
3. Maintain a Releasable StateThe core tenet of “Constant State of Ship” requires that the codebase and associated artifacts remain in a perpetually releasable state. This principle invites teams to address issues promptly, maintain a high level of code quality, and vigilantly consider the accumulation of technical debt. Any defects, bugs, or instabilities in the codebase could potentially disrupt an imminent release, leading to costly delays or failures. Teams must adopt practices like continuous integration, automated testing, and ensemble programming to ensure that the codebase remains in a stable, deployable state at all times.
4. Focus on Robust (Real) Quality Assurance

   In the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm, where the possibility of demand for an immediate release is ever-present, quality assurance cannot be treated as an afterthought. “Constant State of Ship” invites the integration of quality practices throughout the entire development lifecycle, ensuring that quality is baked into the software from inception to deployment.

   While testing plays a role, it is merely one facet of a comprehensive quality assurance strategy. Teams may choose to adopt a holistic approach that emphasises quality as a continuous, pervasive practice woven into every aspect of the development approach.

   This begins with cultivating a culture of quality-driven development, where every team member participates in collective ownership and responsibility for the quality of their work. Practices such as clarity of (quantified a la Gilb) requirements, ensemble programming, peer code reviews, adherence to coding standards, and continuous static code analysis can help identify and mitigate potential issues early in the development cycle.

   Furthermore, “Constant State of Ship” invites teams to embrace principles of iterative and incremental development. By breaking down complex features into smaller, manageable, well-bounded increments, teams can more effectively manage quality risks and ensure that each increment and subsystem meets the required quality criteria before progressing to the next.

   Continuous integration and deployment pipelines play a pivotal role in this quality assurance strategy, enabling teams to continuously validate and verify the software’s functionality, performance, and stability with each incremental change. These pipelines automate the execution of various quality checks, including unit tests, integration tests, and performance tests, providing real-time feedback and enabling teams to address issues promptly.

   However, quality assurance extends beyond mere testing alone. Teams have the opportunity to adopt a holistic approach that encompasses design practices, architectural decisions, and operational readiness. By considering quality implications at every stage of the software development lifecycle, teams can proactively identify and mitigate potential risks, ensuring that the software remains in a releasable state at all times.

   “Constant State of Ship” elevates quality assurance to a core discipline that permeates every aspect of the software development effort. By fostering a culture of quality-driven development and adopting continuous quality practices, teams can attend to the needs of all the Folks That Matter, with confidence, knowing that their software meets the highest standards of reliability, stability, and performance.

5. Implement Robust Deployment PipelinesAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” necessitates the implementation of robust deployment pipelines. These pipelines automate the entire process of building, testing, and deploying software changes, ensuring consistency and minimizing the risk of errors. With the ever-present possibility of an imminent release, teams cannot afford manual, error-prone deployment processes. Automated deployment pipelines provide a standardised, repeatable path to production, reducing the likelihood of failed or inconsistent deployments.
6. Monitor the PipelineRegular smoke testing of the deployment pipeline is crucial in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. This practice helps catch issues early, before they can impact production environments, ensuring the pipeline’s reliability and preventing costly downtime. The possibility of an imminent release amplifies the importance of having a thoroughly validated deployment pipeline. Smoke tests act as a safety net, verifying the integrity of the pipeline and identifying any potential issues that could disrupt a deployment.
7. Integrate ConstantlyThe “Constant State of Ship” mindset encourages teams to integrate their changes frequently, often multiple times per day. This practice surfaces issues early, reduces merge conflicts, and ensures that the codebase remains in a releasable state, ready for deployment at any given moment. Infrequent integration can lead to divergent codebases, making it harder to identify and resolve conflicts, which could potentially disrupt an imminent release. By integrating frequently, teams can maintain a stable, unified codebase that is always primed for deployment.
8. Evolve the ArchitectureMaintaining a “Constant State of Ship” over time invites the continuous evolution of the system’s architecture (see also: Reverse Conway). Are teams prepared to refactor and adapt their architectures to accommodate new requirements, technologies, and scaling needs, without compromising the ability to release rapidly and reliably? As products grow and evolve, architectural decisions made early on may become hindrances to continuous deployment. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites teams to proactively evaluate and evolve their architectures, ensuring that they remain flexible, scalable, and conducive to rapid releases.
9. Leverage Data EnvironmentsWith the constant possibility of an imminent release, the ability to provision and manage data environments becomes critical. Teams may choose to adopt practices like database versioning, data seeding, and data masking to ensure consistent and reliable testing and deployment across environments, minimising the risk of data-related issues in production. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a robust data management strategy that enables seamless and repeatable deployments, regardless of the data complexities involved.
10. Mirror Production EnvironmentsTo minimise the risk of issues arising from environmental differences, teams operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode may choose to ensure that their development, testing, and staging environments closely mirror production environments in terms of configuration, data, and infrastructure. This practice helps identify and address potential issues before they impact the live production system. The possibility of an imminent release heightens the importance of having production-like environments, as any discrepancies could lead to unexpected behavior or failures during deployment.
11. Codify InfrastructureManually provisioning and configuring infrastructure for each release becomes a significant bottleneck when operating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode. Adopting Infrastructure as Code (IaC) practices, where infrastructure is defined and managed through code, enables teams to provision and tear down environments rapidly and consistently, minimising delays and reducing the risk of configuration drift. The “Constant State of Ship” principle invites a high degree of automation and repeatability in infrastructure management, making IaC a beneficial practice for ensuring rapid, reliable deployments.
12. Foster Collaborative OwnershipAchieving a “Constant State of Ship” invites a high degree of collaboration and shared ownership among team members. Siloed responsibilities and knowledge become obstacles to rapid delivery. Teams may choose to adopt practices that promote collective code ownership, cross-functional collaboration, and shared understanding of the codebase and delivery processes. The “Constant State of Ship” mindset invites a culture of collective responsibility, where all team members are empowered to contribute to and understand the entire delivery process, enabling seamless and efficient releases.
13. Continuous ImprovementOperating in a “Constant State of Ship” mode exposes inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the delivery pipeline and processes with uncompromising clarity. Teams may choose to embrace a culture of continuous improvement, regularly reviewing their practices, identifying areas for optimisation, and implementing changes to enhance their ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably. The constant presence of imminent releases acts as a driving force for continuous improvement, encouraging teams to continuously refine their processes, tools, and practices to achieve higher levels of velocity and quality. FlowChain was designed to systematise this very purpose.

The Visionary “Javelin” Approach

The “Javelin” approach (initally named “Jerid”) pioneered by me and my teams at Familiar from 1996 onward, was truly ahead of its time, recognising the transformative power of the “Constant State of Ship” mindset. By enshrining this principle as a cornerstone from its inception, “Javelin” has paved the way for the modern continuous deployment practices that have since become poised to gain industry standard status. This pioneering approach, along with FlowChain and e.g. Prod•gnosis, Flow•gnosis, Product Aikido, etc. exemplifies the spirit of continuous improvement intrinsic to the “Constant State of Ship” principle, ensuring its enduring relevance and impact.

Deep Cultural Implications

Reshaping the Culture and Mindset

Adopting the “Constant State of Ship” principle suggests a profound transformation that extends way beyond technical practices and processes – it hints at a seismic shift in the culture and mindset of software development teams and their parent organisations. This metamorphosis permeates every aspect of the organisation, reshaping shared assumptions, beliefs, and ways of working. However, navigating such a profound cultural shift can be a daunting challenge, often met with resistance and inertia.

This is where the discipline of organisational psychotherapy plays a pivotal role. By applying principles from psychotherapy, sociology, and group dynamics, organisational psychotherapy facilitates teams’ cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm smoothly and effectively.

A Culture of Ownership and Accountability through Empowerment

The “Constant State of Ship” mindset fosters a culture of collective ownership and accountability. Organisational psychotherapy techniques, such as participative decision-making and fellowship, empower team members to take responsibility for the quality, stability, and deployability of the codebase and overall product. This sense of empowerment cultivates a culture of shared ownership, where individuals proactively address issues, collaborate across boundaries, and collectively strive for continuous improvement.

Embracing Transparency and Trust

Maintaining a “Constant State of Ship” requires a high degree of transparency and trust among team members. Organisational psychotherapy practices, such as surfacing shared assumptions and beliefs, encourage open communication and facilitate the identification of problems and risks early. By fostering an atmosphere where team members feel comfortable expressing concerns, sharing mistakes, and seeking help, a culture of transparency and trust emerges, enabling teams to collectively address challenges and ensure the software remains in a releasable state.

Prioritising Continuous Learning

The “Constant State of Ship” principle instills a mindset of continuous learning and improvement. With each release, teams gain valuable insights into their processes, tools, and practices. Embracing new shared assumptions becomes essential, as teams must continuously refine and adapt their approaches based on feedback and lessons learned. This culture of continuous learning fosters an environment of experimentation, where failures are embraced as opportunities for growth, and success is measured by the ability to deliver value rapidly and reliably.

Aligning Towards a Common Goal

Ultimately, the “Constant State of Ship” principle unifies teams around a common goal: meeting the needs of all the Folks That Matter with unparalleled speed and reliability. This shared mission transcends individual roles, responsibilities, and technical disciplines. It creates a sense of collective purpose, where every team member’s contribution, regardless of their specific function, is valued and recognised as essential to achieving this overarching objective.

By leveraging organisational psychotherapy techniques, organisations can accelerate and streamline the cultural and mindset shifts required to embrace the “Constant State of Ship” paradigm. This discipline not only makes the transition quicker and easier but also more cost-effective, as it addresses the root causes of resistance and inertia, facilitating a smoother and more sustainable transformation.

By reshaping the culture and mindset of software development teams, the “Constant State of Ship” principle cultivates an environment conducive to continuous deployment success. It fosters a sense of collective ownership, transparency, continuous learning, and shared purpose – traits that are indispensable in today’s rapidly evolving software landscape.

Embracing the Future

When the ability to swiftly adapt and innovate is paramount, the “Constant State of Ship” principle emerges as a beacon, guiding software development teams towards a future of quiet competence and competitiveness. By embracing this mindset, as exemplified by the visionary “Javelin” approach, teams can unlock the power to attend to folks’ needs with unprecedented speed, reliability, and quality – solidifying their organisation’s position as industry leaders in the software development arena.

Effective Regulation

Within business organisations, the discourse around effective regulation often becomes polarised, oscillating between the extremes of rigid compliance and laissez-faire approaches. Compliance, typically understood as strict adherence to rules and procedures, can foster an environment of micromanagement that stifles innovation. On the other hand, a laissez-faire attitude, characterised by minimal oversight, can lead to chaos, unethical practices, and a lack of accountability.

However, true effective regulation does not reside on this spectrum between micromanagement and laissez-faire. Rather, it represents a fundamentally distinct “third way” – a holistic approach that transcends the limitations of these two extremes, fostering a culture of responsibility, continuous improvement, creativity, and autonomy.

Redefining Regulation as Principled Action

The third way redefines regulation not as a checklist of rules to be blindly followed, but as a commitment to upholding core ethical principles and standards aligned with the organisation’s mission. This paradigm shift requires:

1. Clearly articulating the organisation’s shared assumptions and beliefs, including its guiding purpose, principles and values.
2. Engaging employees in embodying these principles through e.g. dialogue.
3. Revising policies to reinforce the principles, not merely enforce rules.
4. Nurturing critical thinking over box-ticking compliance.

By empowering individuals to internalize and live these principles, a sense of ownership and genuine accountability is cultivated.

Organizational Psychotherapy: Fostering Shared Responsibility

Central to the third way is a culture where every member is invested in upholding ethical practices and sustainable growth. Organisational psychotherapy can be a powerful tool in nurturing this culture by:

1. Facilitating open dialogues to surface underlying shared attitudes and beliefs.
2. Identifying systemic issues impacting trust and accountability.
3. Developing tailored interventions to address dysfunctional group dynamics.
4. Providing a safe space for honest feedback and conflict resolution.
5. Make attending to folks’ needs a central plank.

Through this therapeutic process, organisations can heal dysfunctional patterns, rebuild trust, and instill a genuine sense of shared responsibility that transcends the compliance-laissez-faire dichotomy.

Continuous Learning: An Organisational Ethos

The third way recognises that effective regulation is an ever-evolving process, requiring a steadfast commitment to continuous learning and improvement as an organisational ethos:

1. Encouraging the continuous development of improved abilities and intelligence, by reframing failures as learning opportunities.
2. Implementing substantive, regular dialogue on emerging best practices.
3. Facilitating cross-functional knowledge sharing and mentoring.
4. Gathering feedback from all the Folks That Matter to identify areas for development.

By making attending to folks’ needs a core value, organisations can remain agile, adaptive, and always improving their approach to regulation and governance.

Ethical Leadership and Collaboration

Effective regulation invites exemplars who embody the principles the organisation aims to instill, proselytising ethical conduct through their actions and decisions. Organisations can champion the third way by:

1. Exemplifying ethical behaviour in all things.
2. Openly acknowledging mistakes and pivoting course when needed.
3. Prioritising ethical decision-making in all communication and conduct.
4. Actively listening and incorporating feedback from across the organisation.
5. Fostering cross-functional collaboration on key initiatives.

This ethical behaviour, amplified by collaboration, inspires others to genuinely embrace the third way of effective regulation.

Summary

The third way represents a distinct approach that transcends the micromanagement-laissez-faire spectrum, offering a holistic, principled path centered on shared responsibility, continuous learning, and collaborative ethical leadership. By leveraging tools like organisational psychotherapy, mindset shifts, and genuine organisational commitment, businesses can cultivate an environment that upholds ethical conduct, innovation, sustainable growth, and the highest standards of accountability and integrity.

In my prrevious post, I discussed how true beauty in software comes from serving human needs and improving lives. This sparked reflections on what defines a truly beautiful organisation. However, a sobering observation is that few organisations even give a passing thought to aspiring to beauty.

Core Purpose

At its core, a beautiful organisation exists to create value for society – actively making the world better through its purpose, products, services, principles and practices. Yet for most companies, this seems an afterthought at best compared to conventional metrics like profits, market share, shareholder returns, and executive wellbeing.

A beautiful organisation has a clearly defined higher purpose to positively impact humanity, not just make money. But how many companies today can succinctly articulate such a purpose that authentically guides all actions and decisions?

The solutions pioneered by a beautiful organisation work to solve real-world problems faced by people, communities and the planet. Sadly, too many organisations avoid grappling with society’s biggest challenges, focused principally on insulating themselves.

Attending to the Needs of All the Folks That Matter

These rare organisations serve all the Folks That Matter – employees, customers, suppliers, owners, and communities – with close attention to their needs, such as respect, equity and dignity. They cultivate diverse cultures of psychological safety where people thrive. Yet most organisations still struggle to move beyond lip service on values like inclusion and general wellness.

Continuous Innovation

A beautiful organisation innovates responsibly in a virtuous cycle of identifying human needs, creating ethical solutions that reveal new needs to address. Compare this to the narrow innovation priorities of most companies centered on products no one needs.

Unlike most firms optimising solely for profits, a beautiful organisation balances success holistically across societal impact, environmental sustainability, stakeholder value creation and financial returns. But how many corporations truly hold themselves accountable to anything beyond the bottom line (in itself a fiction of the first order)?

Comprehensive Transparency

With comprehensive transparency, a beautiful organisation even owns its harmful side effects, those arising despite best intentions. Such radical transparency is unheard of when you consider how most companies obfuscate or greenwash.

Summary

Ultimately, a beautiful organisation is both an exemplary force for good and a successful, profitable business – values and value creation in harmony. Yet this ideal seems an esoteric aspiration most companies comfortably ignore in favor of business-as-usual.

While no organisation is perfect, we might draw inspiration and hope from those rare few striving to improve lives, society and environment through their core purpose and actions The species would benefit from having a greater number of beautiful companies with the vision and courage to embrace this model of making the world better, not just making money.

The Impact of Our Questions

When it comes to understanding employee satisfaction and well-being, the questions we ask hold immense power. They shape the depth of insight we receive and the degree of self-reflection they prompt in others.

Simple vs. Reflective Questions

Consider these two contrasting questions:

1. “Do you feel happy in your work and workplace?”
2. “What factors contribute to making you feel happy or sad about your work and workplace?”

The first question stands broad and surface-level. A simple yes/no response fails to encourage any deeper self-reflection on the part of the employee. While they may respond truthfully, that single word provides no window into the nuanced drivers behind their feelings. Some might describe this as a “closed” question.

The second question, however, demands thoughtful introspection. It pushes the employee to pinpoint the root causes and specific elements that amplify or detract from their workplace fulfillment and positive sentiments about their role. Some might describe this as an “open” question.

The Value of Self-Reflection

An insightful response might go:

“I find happiness in this role’s meaningful work and growth opportunities. However, the long hours, lack of work-life balance, and poor management communication leave me frequently stressed and discouraged.”

This level of self-reflection yields far richer insights for the employer and embloyee, both. They gain a holistic view into not just the employee’s mood, but the underlying factors and pain points shaping their experience each day.

Fostering Authentic Understanding

The quality of the questions we ask directly impacts the quality of self-reflection. When we ask binary, closed-ended questions about complex issues like happiness, we restrict the potential for enlightening personal contemplation, and meaningful dialogue.

In contrast, open-ended exploratory inquiries serve as prompts for valuable self-reflection. They require respondents to purposefully examine their emotions, motivations, and the nuanced elements influencing their attitudes and engagement levels.

As employers, if we seek authentic understandings rather than superficial sentiments, we must create room for self-reflection through our questions. Instead of asking “Are you happy?”, we might choose to frame inquiries that facilitate thoughtful exploration: “What brings you a sense of meaning and fulfillment in your work? What factors leave you feeling dissatisfied or burnt out?”

The Path to Better Connection

When we invite this level of self-reflection, we don’t just understand an employee’s current state. We gain powerful insights into the roots of their experiences – both positive and negative. Armed with that deeper awareness, we can enact changes, reinforce strengths, and directly address issues eroding engagement and achievement, and sucking joy.

In the quest for connection, self-reflective questions are an under-utilised superpower. They enable not just data collection, but a purposeful exploration of the human experience we’re aiming to improve. Let’s craft questions that illuminate richer truths and inspire more fulfillment.

Defining Command-and-Control

In the context of business organisations, command-and-control refers to a top-down, highly centralised management approach. It is characterised by strict hierarchies, rigid processes and procedures, and a focus on enforcing compliance through rules and policies set by senior management.

Under a command-and-control model, strategy and decision-making flow vertically downwards, from the top, with managers and executives dictating priorities and objectives that must be executed down the chain of command. Employees have little autonomy or latitude for questioning directives from above.

The Lure of Execution

We all want to get things done effectively and efficiently. As humans, there’s a deep satisfaction in seeing our efforts translated into concrete results. Whether it’s getting that big project shipped, launching a new product, or just ticking items off our personal to-do list, achievement feels good.

However, in many organisations, the primacy placed on “getting things to work” can blind us to deeper systemic forces at play. All too often, the siren song of efficiency and execution drowns out more fundamental questions about whether we’re even working on the right things in the first place (a.k.a. effectiveness).

Institutional Inertia

The truth is, large organisations are complex systems governed as much by unspoken assumptions, ingrained beliefs, and social incentives as any official policy or executive mandate. The very rubrics we use to measure success – be it revenue targets, user growth, or other metrics – emerge from a particular culturally-entrenched worldview.

Within this context, a command-and-control narrative reigns supreme. We optimise for top-down directives, vertical hierarchies, and centralised decision-making. Goals get cascaded down, while accountability and compliance permeate back up the chain. Efficiency and order and managers’ wellbeing are prioritised above all else.

The system effectively hard-wires this command-and-control mentality. Being a “team player” often means deferring to established processes, not rocking the boat, and falling in line with conventional thinking. Those who push back or challenge assumptions are frequently sidelined as “not pragmatic” or “not working towards the same priorities.”

The Costs of Control

Things get done, to be sure. But at what cost? A singular focus on execution often means unquestioningly working towards the wrong objectives in the first place. It breeds an insular, institutionalised mindset that is exquisitely efficient…at preserving the status quo.

Perhaps more importantly, a command-and-control culture discourages the very creativity, critical thinking, and experimentation needed for an organisation to truly adapt and evolve over time. After all, what incentive does anyone have to question the deepest assumptions that underlie day-to-day work when doing so could threaten their standing, compensation, and career prospects?

Catalysing Change

True change requires creating space for fundamentally rethinking and reimagining what an organisation is optimising for in the first place. It means giving voice to diverse perspectives, nurturing a willingness to exploit fleeting opportunities and take calculated risks, and embracing a degree of productive failure.

Dismantling existing systems is hard, uncomfortable work. Doubly so for dismantling entrenched assumptions and beliefs. It inevitably encounters inertia and opposition from those who are vested in maintaining the current order. But simply getting things done is not enough – we must wrestle with whether we’re even pulling the right levers to begin with.

To catalyse genuine innovation and transformation, we might choose to move beyond blind adherence to the siren song of pure execution. We must create the conditions for all voices to be heard, for first principles to be questioned, and for fundamentally new visions and possibilities to emerge. Only then can we achieve meaningful change.

Further Reading

Seddon, J., et al. (2019). Beyond Command and Control. Vanguard Consulting

The Impact of Ideologies

If you doubt the power of beliefs, just consider the world’s religions and political movements for a moment or two. These ideologies have shaped the course of history, influencing the lives of billions and driving both incredible acts of compassion and unspeakable atrocities. The fervent conviction of their adherents demonstrates the immense impact that belief systems can have on human behaviour and societies as a whole.

Beliefs in the Workplace

And then ask yourself, why would that apply to people’s lives in general, but not to their lives at work?

The truth is, the power of belief permeates every aspect of our existence, including our workplaces. Our assumptions and beliefs about ourselves, our abilities, our colleagues, and our work environment have a profound effect on our performance, motivation, and overall job satisfaction.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Consider the self-fulfilling prophecy: if we believe we are capable of achieving great things, we are more likely to put in the effort and take the risks necessary to make those beliefs a reality. Conversely, if we doubt our abilities or assume that our efforts will be in vain, we may subconsciously sabotage our own success or fail to seize opportunities for growth and advancement.

The Impact of Beliefs on Collaboration

Moreover, our beliefs about our workplace and colleagues can significantly impact our interactions and collaboration. If we assume that our team members are competent, trustworthy, and committed to a shared goal, we are more likely to foster a positive, supportive work environment that encourages innovation and success. On the other hand, if we harbour negative assumptions about our colleagues or the company itself, we may engage in counterproductive behaviours that undermine morale and hinder progress.

Company Culture: A Shared Set of Beliefs

The power of belief in the workplace extends beyond the individual level. Company culture is essentially a shared set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that guide the behaviour and decision-making of an organisation. A strong, positive company culture can inspire employees to go above and beyond, driving innovation, customer satisfaction, and long-term success. Conversely, a toxic or misaligned culture can lead to high turnover, poor performance, and ultimately, business failure.

Deprogramming: Individual Psychotherapy

To harness the power of belief in our professional lives, we must first become aware of our own assumptions and biases. By consciously examining and challenging our beliefs, we can identify areas for personal growth and development. This process of deprogramming can be likened to individual psychotherapy, where one works to unlearn counterproductive beliefs and replace them with healthier, more empowering ones.

Organisational Psychotherapy: Fostering a Positive Culture

At the organisational level, companies can choose to recognise the importance of fostering a strong, positive culture that aligns with the values and goals of the business. This involves communicating a clear vision, leading by example, and encouraging open dialogue and feedback. By actively shaping and nurturing a culture of belief, leaders can create an environment that inspires people to bring their best selves to work every day. In essence, this process of organisational psychotherapy involves identifying and addressing the collective beliefs and assumptions that may be holding the company back, and working to instil a more positive, growth-oriented mindset throughout the organisation*.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the power of belief is not limited to the realm of religion or politics; it is a fundamental driver of human behaviour and success in all areas of life, including our professional endeavours. By recognising and harnessing the power of our assumptions and beliefs, and engaging in both individual deprogramming and organisational psychotherapy, we can unlock our full potential, build stronger teams, and create thriving organisations that make a positive impact on the world.

*Actually, the emergent mindset may be postive, or negative; growth-oriented, degrowth orients, or other. What emerges is realisation of the role of beliefs. The organisation itself gets to own the direction it takes. The involvement of an organisational psychotherapist does not automatically imply culture change “for the better”.  But it does assist organisations in realising more clarity in surfacing and reflecting upon their beliefs. As Gandhi famously said: “I came to the conclusion long ago that all religions were true and that also that all had some error in them, and while I hold by my own religion, I choose to hold other religions as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu; but our innermost prayer should be that a Hindu should become a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, and a Christian a better Christian.”

[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.

There is often subtle unease or vulnerability when another person identifies and attends to your emotional or practical needs before you ask. Even as they are attending to you, why might you feel strangely rattled or intruded upon by having your underlying feelings anticipated and met in this way?

Expectations

Part of the strangeness seems to be linked to our expectations around emotional autonomy in relationships. It might be because we assume we must self-manage feelings, not burden others unprompted, and disguise any weakness. So when someone sees through our façades and reaches out with support, it can feel jarringly unfamiliar. There is awkwardness adjusting to a new way of relating where masking distress is no longer accepted or expected.

Self-Image

Additionally, admitting needs may endanger our own resourcefulness or positive self-image. To remain strong and unaffected is easier than acknowledging where we genuinely need empathy or assistance. Conceding our emotional gaps confronts us with difficult realities about ourselves. Having someone respond caringly can dredge up shame before that nurturing registers as comfort. It takes time to overcome our reflexive impulse to deny needs that contradict the identities we aspire to.

Psychological Safety

Beneath the discomfort may also lurk trust issues around vulnerability. Emotions expose our innermost selves. Letting someone in to perceive and attend to that sensitive dimension means lowering barriers and giving up some degree of control. Psychologically, it signals dependence on their benevolence versus total self-sufficiency. With support inevitably comes some loss of authority over how we might want to be perceived. Even caring assistance can seem invasive before safety takes root.

While emotional caretaking intends to heal and bond, the path to welcoming nurture over isolation is not always smooth or instant. The vulnerability of relinquishing façades, acknowledging needs, and opening up to help all disrupt our status quo. By naming these sources of weirdness, perhaps the tensions around receiving compassionate support become less of a bewildering hurdle. Gradually, we learn to receive grace and attend to one another’s emotions without threatening inner resolve or identity. The discomfort slowly fades as emotional interdependence replaces sole self-reliance.

Summary

In essence, the discomfort we may feel when someone attends to our emotional needs often stems from unfamiliarity with true interdependence, unwillingness to show vulnerability, and a cultural overemphasis on extreme self-reliance. We expect to conceal any weakness, deny needing support, and handle distress alone without imposing on others. So when another person perceptively senses unvoiced feelings and reaches out to care for our inner experiences, it can feel weirdly intrusive. Even compassionate emotional caretaking jars notions of autonomy and challenges our reflexes to hide perceived flaws or shortcomings behind façade of capability. Yet suppressing needs creates isolation, and makes it so much more likely our needs will go unmet. Perhaps by better understanding the common strangeness behind receiving others’ attention, we can grow into truer communities where attending to one another’s unspoken needs and hopes is simply what love requires.

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

~ Gary Hamel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Reading

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

Organisations, like human beings, have a complex psyche. This collective psyche transcends individual perceptions, emerging from the interactions of members. Just as our minds have conscious and subconscious parts, so too organisations develop collective ways of perceiving, operating and relating that often remain unspoken or unobserved.

Identifying and settling tensions within the organisational psyche can facilitate growth, resilience and better commitment to purpose – the domain of organisational psychotherapy. I work as a consultant to companies, charities, public sector bodies and community groups to evaluate and nurture organisational mental health by helping them surface and reflect on shared consciousness.

Some key questions we explore through Organisational Psychotherapy:

• What visible and invisible narratives shape this organisation’s culture and choices?
• Where might discordant group emotions or motivations cause strain?
• How equitable and inclusive are existing customs and systems? Do they fully utilise organisational diversity?
• How do past shared experiences or traumas continue to affect organisational patterns?

I employ methods including extensive stakeholder interviews, observation of gatherings and operations, surveys, communication pattern analysis and existing research on the organisation.

I then provide perspective on the organisational psyche identified through discovery – covering areas from conflicts between principles and practices to the impact of founder stories on current aims. My observations seek to help organisations consciously evolve their psyche for mutually positive outcomes rather than reacting only to surface performance indicators.

In developing insights into organisational psyche, I incorporate models like Edgar Schein’s levels of organisational culture. This identifies artifacts, espoused beliefs, and shared underlying assumptions that together form the collective mindset. By probing beyond visible structures into deeper assumptions groups hold about themselves and wider reality, organisational psychotherapy can advocate for purposeful evolution rather than being locked in to habitual patterns or beliefs.

Just as personal therapy provides individuals support for self-knowledge and growth, organisational psychotherapy offers this at the collective level. My calling is helping groups access healthy psyches tuned to members’ shared humanity, their collective needs, and the greater social good.

Questioning Workplace Culture

As we explore new ways to improve how organisations function, some suggest looking at the concept of a “collective psyche.” This means recognising shared ways of thinking and acting that develop in work cultures over time.

Do you see evidence that workgroups adopt common outlooks and responses based on past experiences? Have you noticed certain “vibes” or unwritten rules shaping your workplaces? Things like what gets talked about or whose voices carry weight? If so, you may have witnessed signs of the organisational psyche.

My experience shows that often these cultural patterns go unexplored, even as they limit a company’s success or employee happiness. There may be ingrained ways of excluding people or communicating that uphold old biases. Or deep wounds from events such as layoffs that linger silently for years, killing morale and trust.

Unpacking this organisational “baggage” requires openly examining the collective psyche – facilitating honest reflections on workplace culture by those within it. This can uncover why teams act in contradictory or counterproductive ways despite stated values or policies.

While some dispute whether organisations have a “mind” beyond individuals, I frequently see signs that they do develop shared ways of thinking, passed down over the years. These may include unspoken rules about conflict, success measures valued over ethics, or tendencies to privilege certain groups’ ideas.

My message is simply that by talking openly about these cultural patterns as part of improving workplaces, companies have much to gain. There are always more positive, equitable ways for employees to coexist and collaborate. Organisations can choose to commit to ongoing self-reflection and evolution to make this a reality.

So may I invite you to notice group dynamics in your workplace. And consider advocating for culture introspection aimed at growth rather than judgment or blame. There is promise in recognising companies as having complex collective psyches inviting continuous care beyond restructuring initiatives. Perhaps it takes a village* to raise an organisation, too.

Note:

“Perhaps it takes a village to raise an organisation too” – is a play on the phrase “it takes a village to raise a child.” The idea behind that phrase is that no parent can single-handedly provide everything a child needs to mature into a well-adjusted adult. Successful upbringing requires an entire supportive community or “village” of people – parents, teachers, mentors, friends etc. – continually nurturing the child’s development.

Here we extend this metaphor to apply to organisations and workplaces as well. Just as a child needs whole communities of support, so too may organisations require more holistic “villages” iaround them to sustain positive cultural change. Relying solely on the efforts of leaders or executives is unlikely to transform entrenched workplace dynamics on its own.

True shifts in organisational psyche need to involve people at all levels engaging in self-analysis and reflection, speaking up on needed changes, building trust, and continuously evolving interpersonal habits and norms. It can’t and won’t be driven through top-down mandates or policy tweaks. The entire workplace community, including customers, partners etc., can become a village dedicated to positive organisational development, health and maturation over time.

In essence, systemic transformation requires engagement and ownership across an entire “village”. Just as healthy childhood development is a communal process, so too may be nurturing organisational culture. It is ambitious and complex work demanding community-driven change rather than quick fixes. But this holistic, village-focused approach holds real promise for creating more conscious, equitable and purpose-driven workplace cultures.

So in summary, I aim to invite readers towards this more collective understanding of organisational development – recognising it as long-term cultural evolution requiring supportive communities, not temporary quick fixes. The organisational village, so to speak, is instrumental in liberating the organisational psyche to realise its full potential.