Building Agile, Adaptable and Sustainable Organisations (including Culture Conversation Starter)

Today's business world is highly focussed big data. In many organisations I have worked with information gets pulled up to the top of the organisation, is analysed and translated into standardised solutions which are then sent down the hierarchy for implementation. While at times of stability top-down leadership provided a safe and stable organisational environment with clear direction, in today's climate of uncertainty and continuous change this activity has become very time-consuming (and costly) and is playing with an organisation's ability to be adaptable and responsive to today's economic challenges and opportunities and even it's ability to survive.

'Companies achieve increased responsiveness by reducing the friction of information flow, increasing their iteration rate, decreasing their cost of failure, and optimizing their structures for adaptability.' - Simon Terry

Larger organisations are starting to fail in their delivery of quality as well as cost-effective services to their customer group as they find it hard to respond timely to any opportunities or challenges due to layers and layers of management and highly regulated corporate centres demanding compliance. This can be compared to a large tanker trying to manoeuvre its way through a high volume of icebergs. Organisations need to therefore find different ways to become more agile and adaptable in how they communicate, and need time to think and reflect on what adds value and what doesn't.

It could be the difference between:

PS - Buying frontline staff a megaphone is not enough!

As well as adaptability and responsiveness, organisations need to reframe a culture of competitiveness to a culture of collaboration. Competion is a capitalist notion where organisations compete for parts of the market place. The world around us and new legislation however demands from organisations a need to look at creating more Social Value. While many organisations continue to focus on and even fight over money, what is missed is the need to build social renewal of communities and environmental sustainability.

So today's leadership requires to change its approach from focussing on internal safety and stability, to finding an agility, adaptability and sustainability both within and beyond the organisational boundaries.

Organisational adaptability comes from playing to existing strengths, continuously learning together (co-learn), continuous improvement (co-think), open flow of data and knowledge (transparency and collaboration), encouraging and reflecting on experimentations (co-creation and innovation) etc, making the workplace feel more like a community or network, where every person has ownership, multi-functional teams are driven by purpose and silo working is a thing of the past. It is not sufficient for this to be facilitated within organisational boundaries. All these need to extend outside of the boundaries of the organisation, or more importantly organisations need to learn lessons from external communities and work with them. This means seeking out a network of employees, customers, partners and funders motivated by better outcomes for all.

Having this 'outside and in' approach, requires many existing organisational support functions to significantly shift their offer. In the case of HR - to give but one example - HR needs to not reflect so much on how to recruit and retain permenant staff, but rather how to attract the right people with the right mindset, strengths and knowledge at the right time. This may mean increasingly working with freelance staff and shorter-term contracts. But equally HR needs to help unlock the fullest potential of all who work for the organisation. This is not always about doing more, in fact more often it is about letting go and turning things off.

'HR needs to organise a bonfire of policies.' - Peter Cheese, CEO of CIPD

'Traditional HR is all about retention, while the new world of work requires HR to set people and knowledge free, both within and beyond the boundaries of the organisation!' - Heidi De Wolf, Founding Director of Future Catalyst

The same applies to many other support functions such as Communication, Project Management, IT, Asset Management etc. Times of uncertainty require organisation-wide adaptability, and adaptable organisations come to life when a culture of adaptability is embraced and embedded in each person, each service, and at a Governance level equally. We often think of alignment as the alignment of processes. In truth, alignment of values and principles is more important in culture change activities and removes tensions when working with others.

A useful exercise to assess your culture in your organisation or team is to have an open discussion around the following continuums:

The Cultural Principles on the left set out a Steady State Culture while the principles on the right set out the Adaptable Culture to aim for, but only if you want your organisation to survive the continuous economic uncertainty.

Recruiters! Are you getting the best from your applicants?

As a recruiter, it is important to understand today's job market reality and the impact this has on the job applicants.

Though there are plenty of jobs being advertised via different job sites, the reality is that recruiters receive such high volumes of applications that most of the applicants don't even make it to the next stage. Yet each applicant will have spent over an hour repeating their details for the 100th time on yet another application form.

Now imagine if you were an applicant who has applied for 30 jobs in the last month. You will have spent over 30 hours completing application forms which all ask for the same details - name, address, work experience, education background, etc. Of those 30 jobs, you may have been lucky to get 1 or 2 interviews, for which the applicant needs to prepare so they can fit in with the expectations of the employer. A misfit from the employers perspective leads - if you are lucky - to some feedback on your 'performance' at the interview, though really another rejection. Imagine how you might feel after 3 months? Will you have any enthusiasm for completing another application form?

The perspective I wish to convey is one of 'wasted' time and energy due to duplication, and its impact on an applicant's enthusiasm, motivation and engagement.

Now if you allow me, here are two alternative scenario which will lead to better outcomes all round.

What if an applicant can send their CV with a higher quality personal statement? Or what if organisations could 'headhunt' people at all levels of the organisation?

The first is a very practical way in which recruiters can help applicants today. It helps applicants as it reduces the time spent duplicating information on application forms, while more time and energy can be given to a better quality personal statement which really sells the persons' suitability for the role and gives more time to look for other jobs. This ability to redirect energy to improving quality and volume of applications in turn will lead to more  opportunities and less loss of enthusiasm along the way.

The second is one of recruiters educating the applicants they come into contact with. Recruiters have a role to prepare people for the future, and - though many organisations are still fighting it with tooth and nail - social media is here to stay and is helping to change the world of work forever. It is helping us all to get better at celebrating our achievements. Some forward thinking organisations are already using websites such as Linked In and Google searches to great affect, seeking out and attracting individuals with unique skills, knowledge and experience into their organisation. This trend is growing rapidly across many industries who understand the empowering value of the internet.

My advice to recruiters and organisations who seek to recruit is to consider the proposed changes, not only to help applicants but to ensure you don't miss out on the unique individuals whose skills, knowledge and experience would add value to your organisation and help it thrive and survive!

Culture Change and Understanding the True Source of Bureaucracy

The source of bureaucracy is too often misinterpreted and misunderstood. Bureaucracy's source is not 'control', bureaucracy's source stems from a want to 'protect and make safe'.

When speaking to managers who are perceived as controlling, the predominant topic is that of protection and risk prevention to restore safety, stability and consistency. This actually shows a lack of understanding about the purpose of risk in our daily lives. Taking risks helps us all grow to maturity as it comes with powerful life lessons. It also helps each of us explore and identify our own unique strengths.

In overregulated, bureaucratic organisations and institutions, we deprive people from achieving their fullest potential. We paralyse people into 'learned dependency' and institutionalisation where thinking and decision-making only happens at the top of the organisation, and any change then demands the 'carrot and stick' approach which has little or no affect on the paralysed staff who feel undervalued and have disengaged from proceedings all together.

In order to create a positive shift in culture, it is significantly important to recognise that managers do not set out to control, but that the original positive intention is to 'protect' though in the process some managers actually overstep the line and become a 'overprotective, heroic rescuer', contributing to a 'carrot and stick' culture, overregulation and a disengaged workforce.

Next steps to transforming the culture, governance and engagement of the workforce is a three-pronged attack. This includes:

1. a Systems Thinking leadership programme with elements of human psychology and 1-2-1 leadership coaching which helps to identify and challenge the well-intended though paralysing behaviours of leaders across the organisation, and ensure any newly recruited leaders have the right attitude and aptitude which supports the right organisational culture. This may come with some tougher organisational decisions as not everyone - even with support and coaching - is ready to lead in this way

2. simplify and leanify your organisational practices, policies, procedures and processes, and identify and solve any regulatory tensions. Also get 'central support services' such as Communication, IT and HR involved in service delivery, not creating paralysing bureaucratic practices in the background

3. stop protecting staff from the truth and engage your whole workforce by sharing with them the organisational bigger picture - the good, the bad and the ugly! Share the responsibility and accountability with all managers and staff as this is the only way to build a healthier, innovative and more resilient organisation together

This three-pronged attack, but particularly the latter commitment to transparency - will help your organisation self-organise itself (breaking organisational silos). Some managers and staff will be highly motivated by the truth and roll their sleeves up, while others will want to seek out a role more suited to their strengths outside of the organisation, all supported by leaders who are no longer 'overly protective' but who support career development (whether internal or external) and personal accountability in the workforce, as well as being happy to free the organisation from bureaucracy and overregulation. 

How to move from Theory X Blame Culture to a Theory Y Agile Culture?

Many organisations in the current climate are having to deal with significant pressures. As human systems, organisations react using the same neurological pathways and human psychology as an individual. If the individual lacks resilience, we often observe a fight, flight or freeze response. When the individual is more resilient, we observe a different set of behaviours which helps the person thrive. Within an organisation however, it is often the persons at the top who set the behavioural expectations and therefore the culture of the organisation.

As I was reading up an Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y model, I noted some significant similarities between the organisation's psychology and McGregor's model. Theory X leadership is the sign of an organisation which lacks resilience and trust, which in turn translates into increased control at the top of the organisation (and where relevant Governance Board) and results in more complexity and 'You must ...' style bureaucracy (aka command-and-control, see image). This leadership style in truth paralyses most of the workforce.

In a Theory X organisation we often find increased centralised control at times of uncertainty, which leads to poorer performance, increased risk of litigation and increased mistrust and blame. Theory X, according to McGregor, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Theory X leaders are most definitely in the process of 'sinking the ship'. If your organisation or team is governed/managed by Theory X leadership, my question to anyone is: 'Do you care enough to do something about it? Or do you value your health more to step away?'

On the other hand, Theory Y leadership is a sign of resilience and trust as it recognises the need for the organisation to become more agile and play to the strengths of its whole workforce, not just the managers. Agility can only be achieved through devolution of control and installing shared accountability. To play on the boat metaphor above - 'a big tanker finds it much harder, if not impossible, to move safely through a field of icebergs' and there are plenty of 'icebergs' yet to be manoeuvred round in the current economy. This agility needs to permeate throughout everything the organisation does, starting with how it is governed and structured. To give but one example, instead of the strict 'You must ...' policies and procedures, the organisation has to consider and prioritise 'the chalk outline' of the field (see image). 

The devolution of control and accountability also means the devolution of risk. The earlier risks can be responded to within the governance process, the quicker the response and the smaller the impact of the risk. Shared accountability also means that people will take responsibility for working with others so that decisions are better-informed, solving the age-old dilemma of silo-working (a symptom of hierarchical organisational design).

The great thing about believing in Theory Y is that it makes leaders of us all and that culture can be grown at the grassroots. Our own personal resilience can help influence positive changes across the organisation as resilient leaders can help others, who may be less resilient, feel at ease. Please note that this does not make strategists redundant in the organisation. On the contrary, the shared accountability across teams does change their role from 'people managers' seeking compliance with centralised processes to 'systems thinkers' who coach/facilitate trust & resilience-building, develop peer-to-peer accountability and encourage collaborative working of multi-disciplinary and multi-agency teams. 

Procurement, the Social Value Act and Organisational Change

Simon Cohen, Business Development Manager at Aress Software started the following Linked In conversation:

Legislation such as the Social Value Act in the UK appears to be becoming more important in public procurement – with a company’s social value/social impact seemingly having significant weight in the tendering process and directly influencing whether or not it is chosen by a public body as a supplier. To what degree is this trend toward measuring social value/social impact changing the way companies behave e.g. in terms of corporate social responsibility? What impact does this have on change management?

Heidi De Wolf, Principal OD Consultant at Future Catalyst replied:

The consideration should be three-fold in my view. First there is the Environmental impact of any change initiative. Regardless of the change initiative Change Managers/Agents are involved in there will be an opportunity to consider environmental impact, and it could be as simple as not printing off papers (digital by default) or as significant as using recycled materials for a major engineering project. 

The second is Social. Change is driven by people and people are social beings. It is important for Change Agents to consider how they involve people with the change initiative. Here too we could be talking about a simple engagement survey, which in my view is fairly tokenistic but has its place, or as significant as co-creating solutions. The less tokenistic the engagement activity, the better the ownership over the change/transformation. 

The third is Economic. Change has a significant economic imprint. When you consider change as a project, many change projects will fail as usually people throw money at creating change momentum, but rarely does it lead to sustainability. When you consider change as an important and necessary part of the fabric of any organisation, change agents will approach the initiatives with a very different thinking hat. As mentioned above, change is driven by people who bring to it their thoughts and energy, which should be the new currency for many organisations who want to embrace continuous change/ improvement. 

Only by considering these three elements will change initiatives add more long-term Social Value and help develop a culture of continuous improvement and even innovation.

Simon:

Very interesting. Of course, procurers in the public sector are looking at how their suppliers impact society e.g. through employment, CSR acts such as charitable giving, activities in the local community etc. If an organisation is not used to this kind of activity on a corporate-wide level it can create a real change-management issue.

Heidi

I agree, what is worse is that everyone - from top to bottom - should have consideration for Social Value, not just procurement. We do not only silo our organisations, but through it silo our knowledge, creating 'experts' who hoard knowledge instead of placing knowledge somewhere where people can access it 'on demand', as and when it is relevant to them. We should 'co' everything, e.g. co-learn, co-produce, co-own, co-develop etc, and truly make workplaces 'human communities' again.

Simon:

Ideally, there should be a framework within the organisation on creating social value which everyone can refer to. This framework should provide guidance on what kind of social value fits in with the organisation's values, objectives etc. and how this can be achieved. 

But at the same time the organisation has to bear in mind its responsibility to its shareholders to deliver shareholder value. Often, these two kinds of value can be at odds with each other.

Heidi:

There is nothing more powerful than aligning both value creation activities, as organisational misalignment only causes unhelpful tensions which lead to tokenism and poor performance in relation to Social Value. Social Value is not a 'nice-to-have', it is a necessity if organisations want to contribute to a stronger local and national economy. 

As citizens, your shareholders (and employees) will also benefit from any Social Value commitments your organisation makes and in an ever more consciencious society, organisations who care about the economy, the environment and people will WIN long-term!

The Strategic Strengths of HRM & OD

This blog is in response to the HBR blog 'It's not HR's job to be strategic' - http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/10/its-not-hrs-job-to-be-strategic/

Unlike the blog above, I believe HRM and HR Technology (including L&D) have a very important role in the organisation's bigger picture, supporting people within the organisation, which requires a strategic overview of how people can be attracted to the organisation and supported to reach their fullest potential. While traditionally HRM was built on McGregor's Theory X, facilitating Taylorist style industrial age organisations, today's HRM is needed to support organisational transformations focusing much more on workforce motivation, agility and resilience.

Organisational Development (not to be mistaken for L&D) on the other hand is committed to the organisational bigger systemic picture, which includes people, process, finance, IT, governance and other organisational functions. With this broadness of overview, OD helps to remove silo working mentalities. They should be seen as the organisation's 'bees', cross-pollinators of ideas. Siloed strategic thinking around one aspect of the organisation does not deliver efficiencies or innovation. This is where OD draws strategists, planners and doers together to collaborate on cross-functional innovative solutions.

OD does not hold the detail, they are solely the facilitators of collaborative strategic working practices as part of the bigger organisational picture, bringing people, knowledge and ideas together from across the organisation. This makes OD is a useful partner in partnership working with other organisations whose culture and processes may differ, as ODs expertise in Organisational Behaviour, Culture and Design supports the building of bridges and the re-designing of organisational systems and structures.

So in summary both HRM and OD have an important strategic function. The only difference is that HR is a functional strategist while OD is a cross-functional strategist.

Quick Note on Organisational Culture, Strategic Ownership and Measurement

In my experience as an OD Consultant, organisations fail to bring together Employee Relations, Employee (and wider Stakeholder) Engagement and its impact on not just Employee Wellbeing but on overall organisational performance, success and ability to innovate.

Often this can be traced back to an organisational culture which encourages the use of siloed task/project-driven strategic plans with high volumes of KPI which add unnecessary complexity, and in turn encourage the strengthening of micromanagement practices at the top. What is needed is a 'joining of dots' to simplify and make more efficient the delivery and measurement of outcomes by creating ownership over a solid outcomes-driven strategy.

Why monitoring and innovation make poor bed fellows

People always act surprised when I shiver at the word 'monitoring' (aka 'scrutiny'). I would like to take the opportunity to explain this phenomena.

When you unpick the word and activity called 'monitoring', you will uncover a number of unwritten principles, ambiguous meanings and perceptions. They include:

- Distrust: when you feel the need to monitor, it usually means you are not trusting of the source and will seek out weaknesses in the detail to prove the activity of monitoring helps to make improvements. In truth, it doesn't help improve things, it drags decision back into the past.

- Past-driven: monitoring is the activity of checking afterwards what you could have influenced earlier and made better by getting involved at the start. When 'errors' or 'weaknesses' are uncovered, the expectation is that decisions are taken back to the 'drawing board', often stopping an organization to move forward into the future.

- Expecting perfection: monitoring suggests that perfection exists and is expected. No matter how many people contribute, there is no such thing as perfection. However, the expectation of perfection in turn ...

- Installs anxiety, stress and fear: not acknowledging perfection is a myth can lead to a lot of anxiety, stress and fear, which in turn leads to poorer decision-making, more complaints, higher distrust and interestingly increased monitoring (and bureaucracy) ...

- One size must fit all: looking for perfection really is a search for a one size fits all solution, and as we know one size fits no one, leading to increased negative customer feedback which is often met by increased monitoring ...

This shows how one 'innocent' word and activity can have such a significant implication on the culture of your organisation.

If you are committed to creating a culture of innovation, start by rebalancing 'energy-draining' activities such as monitoring with 'motivating' activities such as:
- trust others for increased trustworthiness, commitment and accountability
- change your focus from past to present and future
- get involved and influence early (or get out of the way and empowering others)
- be humble
- personalise
- co-create
- experiment
- learn from mistakes

... and watch how innovation (aka higher performance) will blossom in your organisation.

So am I saying that organisations should stop monitoring? Not exactly. As with everything, it's about finding the right balance. In many organisations I have worked in and with, monitoring is the order of the day and has set a culture of distrust and high bureaucracy. The best way to think about it is the 80:20 rule. If organisations prioritise monitoring as the 80% activity, it will struggle to innovate and survive. If it prioritises innovation as 80%, the organisation is more likely to continuously improve and survive.

The World needs more Bees! - Building Healthier Organisational Innovation Ecosystems

Just like in nature where the bee population is of concern, the business world has an equal challenge. It does not unlock sufficiently collaborative cross-pollinating behaviours (aka Systems Thinking) to instigate innovation. There are a number of neurological reasons why cross-pollinators are needed in organisations.

1. As a consultant I have heard many CEOs and Directors express their frustrations with silo working, wishing people would collaborate more readily with others across departments and beyond organisational boundaries. But what if human neurology encourages most people to focus on detail, while some people prefer the bigger picture.

This is exactly the case. Every organisation needs people who enjoy working with detail and people who enjoy working on the bigger picture. The latter are the organisation's systems thinkers who can often be found at the top of the organisation or in Senior Technical roles. Rather than or as well as managing people, the System Thinkers role is that of organisational 'bee', connecting the dots and looking after the wider organisational ecosystem.

The reality is that people who enjoy working with detail actually find it very hard to think 'bigger' and 'wider', while the reverse is also true.

2. Cross-pollination is not only required to connect people and ideas, but is also helpful in connecting the lessons from the past with lessons for the future. Just like some people prefer detail versus other preferring the bigger picture, some people are naturally more past-focussed while others prefer to stick their energy into the future.

Here too, asking a past-person to be a future-person or vice versa, can actually have a significant impact on a person's happiness and well-being. It can also be noted that the past-person finds change more challenging and as such often less resilient than the future-person, as understandably the future-person is more likely to scan ahead for opportunities and challenges. Only very few people (1 in 10) can access both past and future equally, though often they still have a preference.

The same old question applies? Is this about nature or nurture? My cop-out answer is 'probably a bit of both'.

So if we actually truly acknowledge people's strengths and neurological preferences, and such acknowledge that silo working is not an unusual human trade, we can see why organisational 'bees' are so important in building an efficient, collaborative and innovative organisational ecosystem.

My next blog will build on this notion and explore the impact of valuing people's preferences differently in traditional hierarchical organisations.

Politics and the use of Positive Psychology to encourage more citizens in building the future

Recently I received an email from one or other political party which asked me to complete a short survey. Reading the first two questions reminded me of a political leaflet I got through the door a while back, which asked very similar questions, but let me come back to that a little later ...

I had the pleasure recently to speak with a few politicians about their passion for improving their community and environment. Many spoke - with possibly a little bit of rolling of the eyes - about the times they were cornered by a citizen about some dog poo or a pothole needing repair. Having a curiosity for politics, though considering myself fairly apolitical, I fully understood the slight frustration shown by the politicians.

While it is helpful for politicians to reach out to the community, their interest is or should be with the 'bigger picture'. To understand the bigger picture, politicians and the people who support them rely on high volumes of data to spot trends etc. Unfortunately, politicians have lost a lot of favour of the last decade and the voting public are predominently voting with their feet.

So how then can politicians regain the public trust? And what is it about dog poo and potholes?

The first two questions on the questionnaire were:
- Do you have a problem with dogs fowling the pavements?
- Do you have a problem with potholes which require repair?

The first question on the leaflet:
- Do you have any problems you would like your political representative to look into?

Now what is the 'problem' with these questions? The questions are built on negative psychology and negative language, and - unlike in maths where (- + - = +) - that does not make for a positive citizen response. Firstly, the questions are appealing to those citizens who are already on their 'soapbox' about one or other 'problem', which is not so much an issue. Secondly however, the questions do not invite a response from those citizens who do not have a problem, but who may have views or ideas that can really make a difference. They, at most, will tick the 'No' box if you are lucky. If unlucky, the questionnaire will find its way to the bin, which would be an opportunity lost!

Let's use a positive psychology question. For example:
- We value the views and ideas of local citizens in making our communities stronger and more resilient for the future. Do you have any views or ideas about how to improve your neighbourhood?

This question does not exclude the person who would have answered the previous 'negative psychology' questions, but what do you think could happen to those citizens who do not have a problem, but may have had an idea or two about making their community even stronger? Also, note the sublety, the question does not actually state that the politician will take responsibility for taking the problem away or making the idea work?! So depending on the view or idea, further 'negotiation' can take place about who is best-placed to make the idea work.

Rebuilding citizen trust will take time without a doubt, but what if it could be as simple as changing viewpoint and language use. Is it not worth a try?

From Street Party to Community Ownership

A few years ago, Future Catalyst instigated a Street Party 'on the green' in their local community. While the Street Party was a great success with over 70 residents joining in the fun and bringing along food & drinks to share, the benefits have stretched long after the event, and have the potential to stretch to further Community Development and possibly Ownership if the need should arise.

The benefits to date include:

- neighbours greeting each other by name
- neighbours looking out for one another
- friendships
- car shares
- skills and knowledge sharing
- exercising together
- recognition of diversity needs
- signposting to local business and charities
- dog walking for someone in hospital
- etc

All this has made the street a friendly neighbourhood, and a couple of new neighbours have been welcomed since that time. With this in mind, a few residents are getting together to plan in another neighbourly get together at Christmas time.

Recognising the power of this simple exercise, it would be interesting to see whether - with the increased use of our beautiful green - whether neighbours would agree to working together to keep the green tidy? This would venture into the arena of Community Participation and possibly Community Ownership.

With Future Catalyst's expertise in relation to the Collaborative Economy, Community Development and Engagement Models and Social Renewal, I note some definite similarities with the approach as taken above. The book 'Nourishing Social Renewal' written by Dr Dick Atkinson OBE expands on this model through multiple case examples, by suggesting costings for the approach and a complimentary organisational structure for Local Government partners, helping a move from a Welfare State to a Welfare Society.

I am sure you have heard the saying 'It takes a whole village to raise a child'. I would like to plant another seed 'It takes a whole community to offer a proactive and personalised approach to individuals within the community'. As neighbours/fellow citizens, not one of us is fully dependent or independent. Welfare, most definitely stems from being interdependent!

In the spirit of the Collaborative Economy, let me know if you would like to borrow the book! ;)

The link between Organisational Structure and Risk Averse Thinking

Why is it that the bigger the organisation, the more bureaucratic and risk averse it tends to become?

It has to do with traditional hierarchical/management principles of splitting accountability away from the person who is responsible for the delivery of the outcome. In traditional organisational structures, managers are accountable for the actions and behaviours of the workforce which works for them. This leads to management, with support from HR, putting in place 'safeguards' to protect their own back, as - in a Blame Culture - holding accountability can lead to being scapegoated for inefficiencies further down the line.

As the organisation grows, the gap between accountability and responsibility becomes wider with more management layers where the person at the top becomes accountable for all the people who work within the organisation. With layers of delegated accountability, more and more safeguards, policies and procedures are produced to set behavioural expectations to protect those who hold accountability. At the front line however, the policy and procedural expectations translate into total paralysis as staff are overwhelmed with behavioural expectations coming from all directions and as such they fear to act, which actually leaves the person accountable even more open to risk. This often leads to a 'cycle of ever-increasing control'.

This splitting of accountability and responsibility when working with adults leads to a (often dysfunctional) parent-child relationship, or the organisational equivalent of 'carrot and stick' approaches and command-and-control management styles. It also makes performance management and disciplinary practices instigated by managers highly subjective and one-sided.

As such the size and structural design of an organisation has a significant impact on the behaviours of the people working within it.

So how can this be changed?

There are a number of solutions, which depend not only on your organisation's size and structure, but also on the culture, leadership and risk attitudes across the organisation. Here are just a few:

- make a conscious choice to commit to building trust across the layers of your organisation
- commit to changing your organisation's culture from a Blame to Learning/Innovation Culture
- delayer/flatten your organisation
- build multi-layer and multi-disciplinary collaborative innovation teams
- 'lean'ify and simplify policies and procedures, turn them into helpful guidance
- help adults to hold themselves to account through coaching and mentoring
- identify the right leadership style for your organisation
- make risk attitudes visible
- devolve control to teams/departments

Please share below your thoughts, case examples or other possible solutions to reducing bureaucracy and risk aversion in organisations.

Why are so many large organisations struggling in today's economy?

The world has changed. Though we are being told that the economy is growing by politicians, the truth is that the economy still lacks stability and many a brave economist and social scientists are proving that growth is not and never has been a sustainable ambition. The future remains uncertain.

To survive this uncertainty, the principle of 'lack of stability' is an important one to respond to. It suggests that at any given time more challenges may need to be faced, insisting on a resilience and adaptability for any organisation. This is not easy to achieve, particularly for larger organisations.

Organisations who hold onto stability by not reviewing and amending their values, culture and practices in line with an unstable economy create a tension between themselves and the economy. This tension can be felt in the guise of increased reactivity, stress, overwhelmed workforce and often an increased commitment to centralised control, which in turn negatively affects the performance of the workforce, quality of decisions and service delivery. It also can lead to a need to downsize. All of these are symptoms of an Organisation in Crisis.

The traditional organisational practices which were built when the economy was stable should be reviewed if the organisation wishes to stay healthy, adaptable, resilient and sustainable. If not, these practices can actually feed increased negativity, distrust and blame into the already highly-pressured environment, which is trying to 'fight' the tension and the changes needed to resolve the tension. The consequences are that the organisation, despite its increased commitment to control, looses its grip and very quickly slips into dysfunction, ill-health and its inevitable decline.

So what do organisations need to do different?

Organisations do well to match the principle of instability with becoming more agile and adaptable in their nature. For larger organisations, which can be compared with a large tanker trying to avoid icebergs, this is not an easy task, yet absolutely crucial for its survival.

The following questions may help Governance Boards and Senior Managers reflect on their organisation's adaptability:

1. Have you recently reviewed your organisational values, culture and practices in line with the changes in the economy?
2. What leadership mindsets and strengths do you need to build an adaptable organisation and lead agile teams?
3. How quick can your organisation respond to an opportunity or challenge? What role does the hierarchical organisational structure play in decision-making?
4. Do your centralised processes and communication channels help or hinder your organisation's agility?
5. Can your workforce move around the organisation fairly quickly? And what can help to make this easier?
6. Are there parts of the organisation which prioritise Business as Usual over being involved in the organisation's Transformation initiatives?
7. What can large organisations learn from innovative and adaptable SMEs?

Not only can the principle of adaptability translate to the organisation and its leaders, but also can be applied to the qualities you require from your workforce. A flexible workforce is not solely about having policies and procedures which support workforce mobility, it - like with leaders - equally comes down to attracting and retaining complimentary mindsets and strengths.

So what if an organisation feels it's losing its grip? Is it too late?

Though a proactive approach is always advisable to keep an organisation in good health, it may not be too late to seek advice and support at time of crisis. Like an individual, organisations who are suffering ill-health need to first acknowledge it and be open to exploring different ways to restore organisational health.

'Why' are Systems Thinkers so annoying to work alongside?

If you have ever worked alongside a Systems Thinker, you will know exactly what I mean. All they keep asking is 'Why?'. They even have a technique called the '5 Why's' encouraging them to ask 'Why?' five times in a row ... You may as well invite a 5-year old to a meeting.
 

Well before you resort to settling for a 5-year old, let me try to shine a little light on the science and benefits behind the question 'Why?'. Why is a very important question. It has a number of positive outcomes.
 

Purpose, Motivation and Engagement - Firstly, the question 'Why?' uncovers the purpose or positive intention of an activity or project. Purpose is a driver of motivation, high performance and ownership. Employees who are not able to answer the question 'Why?' are generally less engaged with the process of delivering an activity or project. It is also impossible for employees to work with others if they miss this information, encouraging silo working mentalities.
 

Unlocking curiosity and creativity - 'Why?' also helps to unlock people's curiosity and creativity. When people are not able to answer the question, they are more likely to want to gain this knowledge. In today's world where practically everyone has the answer to any question at their fingertips with the help of mobile technology, the question 'Why?' can even drive people to be more self-directed learners.

Linking people and resources - Seeking a higher purpose or cause by asking 'Why?' also helps identify possible collaboration opportunities (aka duplication efforts) with others who are moving towards a similar outcome. Connecting people and resources around a higher purpose can often mean better informed solutions and, in combination with the above benefit, unlock collaborative innovation.



 

Chasing true causes and higher systems - The science behind the 5 Why's? can be found in NLP, in the format of chunking up. Definition of Chunking Up: 'In NLP, ‘chunking up’ refers to moving to more general or abstract pieces of information.' Every time someone asks 'Why?', it encourages others to seek for a higher purpose or cause. For example:
 

Why is unemployment high in the UK?
Because there are too few jobs.
Why are there too few jobs?
Because businesses are not creating jobs.
Why are businesses not creating jobs?
Because there is very little demand from customers.
Why is there little demand from customers?

Because people are saving their money out of concern about the financial climate.

The example shows how each higher purpose identifies the cause of the problem in the question. Asking 'Why?' several times actually shows that there is a higher cause to the problem, in this case a broken economic system.
 

So why is that important? Well, to use the above example, what would happen if the government tries to encourage businesses to create more jobs by giving them grants? Does that solve the problem, or does it set businesses up to fail?
 

So much effort and resources go into causes which are really symptoms of a bigger national or even global system which has become dysfunctional in today's world. This in turn leads to bigger problems and loss of even more effort & resources. It can leave people and systems dysfunctional and totally overwhelmed.
 

So next time someone asks you 'Why?' remember this blog.
 

Signed - the annoying Systems Thinker ;)

Learning Methodologies for Multi-Disciplinary Teams in high-paced environments

Has your learning & development budget been cut, while workforce performance needs investing in more than ever? Stuck on how to deliver learning in a different way?

Across many Councils, fast-paced change and cross-organisational commissioning are requiring the need for high performing board and multi-disciplinary teams with diverse perspectives and organisational cultures to work effectively together. The fast-paced world means there is a need for fast-paced learning methodologies.

Formal learning activities still play an important part in the workplace, however it is often costly and takes people away from their work. Formal learning practices also pre-supposes that that what we have always considered as relevant continues to be relevant in today's world. For example, if I continue to offer only traditional 'training' to our workforce, I will soon find demand for it diminishing as more manager and employees have less time. So it is important to acknowledge first that a change or even a transformation is needed. 

In making learning and development  relevant for today, there is a need to look beyond formal learning if we are to address the increasing demand for higher-paced learning by multi-disciplinary teams grows. A good place to start is to look at the 70:20:10 model of learning. This model suggests that we should split our learning methodologies into 3, namely:

10% Formal Learning (includes course and e-learning, often built around technical knowledge)

20% Feedback & Coaching (includes individual and group feedback and coaching by managers, peers and customers)                            

70% Experience (e.g. on-the-job, on-demand Google search, sharing, working out loud, mentoring others etc)                     

Note how formal learning only constitutes a small percentage of the overall learning experience. The 90% new world learning methodologies are crucial, better timed, more relevant and often a lot more cost-effective in a fast-paced world. They are also more empowering for the learner who becomes more self-directed in their CPD (and career choices).

Put simply, what we've done in the past won't get us where we need to be in the future.

Merger Planning and Employee Engagement Advice and Support

During a major organisation-wide transformation, Future Catalyst has offered Merger Planning and Employee Engagement advice and support to Senior Managers during the merger/TUPE of teams from different organisations. The support included a number of facilitated meetings to support the Senior Managers in planning the merger journey, planning of communications and employee engagement activities before and during the merger. After the merger, Future Catalyst also planned and facilitated an interactive group coaching workshops where all managers and employees were encouraged to participate in building a new team culture and future direction, combining the strengths of the merging teams into one cohesive team.

When asked why the Future Catalyst OD Consultant opted for an interactive workshop rather than an induction, they replied:
'Mergers need to be handled with much care and sensitivity. While most organisations perceive a company or team induction as a nice welcome, employees who join the new organisation actually experience it as a total loss of identity as the induction is asking them to adopt the welcoming organisation's culture, practices and processes. It is not perceived as a merger - which should be a melting pot of strengths - but a takeover. Utilising activities which send hidden messages of a takeover rather than a merger, will lead to a unfriendly working environment, silo working, continuous team conflict, poor employee well-being, divided loyalties and disengaged staff.

Opting for an interactive workshop, Future Catalyst provides the two parties with an opportunity to come together as equals, get to know everyone and work together to identify combined team strengths, work on a continuous team building action plan and the future direction of the team/organisation. Employees who attended one of our workshops told us they felt it was a great way to get to know new team members and were excited about continuing to build the team after the workshop.'

To contact Future Catalyst, please visit our website - www.futurecatalyst.net

How to build a better world one (risk) decision at a time?

With the pressures created by the current economy it is not unusual to find people are becoming more concerned about safety and seeking ways to return to stability. When this applies to individuals, this behaviour closely matches 'survival' behaviour. Where it applies to collectives -be that communities, organisations, nations etc - we start observing behaviours such as group-think, territorialism, nimby-ism, terrorism and more worryingly, the search for stronger leaders who are believed for their promise to return the collective to 'safety' and 'stability'.
 
Safety and stability are myths, which even strong leadership cannot help bring to life. Why? Because the 'laws of nature' dictate that risk is the norm and continuous change (AKA evolution) is positive. These are the simple, but for a lot of people, counter-intuitive principles which will help rebalance decisions for better (more peaceful) outcomes.
 
All this is based on a false belief that risk is the polar opposite to safety, and that only safety can avoid blame (see 'False' Risk Continuum below). Nothing could be further from the truth! Evidence shows that (command-and-) control behaviours actually attract more extreme 'survival' behaviour in others - be that flight or flight - leaving the collective more open to extreme behaviours and scenarios as described above. 

 

 

In order to win, we need to complete the continuum with the polar opposite to control. So here is what the full risk continuum looks like: 

 

The polar opposite of control is neglect. Without adding the consideration of neglect to our decision-making processes, risk will continue to be seen as needing to be avoided instead of embraced as that what helps us survive, grow and evolve. 

 

The trick is not to control but to find balance, build resilience to change, letting go of control and learning with the flow as set by the 'laws of nature'!

 

 

 



Living Interdependently - one way to build community cohesion

When we consider our lives, one value which often comes into mind is our want to live independently. Equally while working in Social Care, we talk about service users living independently. However is this encouraging isolation.

I would like to talk to you about 'living interdependently'. Every person who gives, can receive, and vice versa. We all have so much to give to the world around us, however our desire for independence and privacy has gone too far. We have become overly territorial about whatever space we call our own and with it have shut out others who can make a difference to us.

Every person I meet, regardless of age or experience, has something to teach me. Equally, I have something that is of value to all who meet me. Life is two-way street. Not one of us is only a giver, not one of us is only a receiver.

So let's live interdependently whether at work or at home, break down those territorial barriers and re-build real communities.