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.