Letter to David Cameron - Accepting unaccompanied children is surely not the solution?

Dear Mr Cameron,

In response to this and other articles in relation to the UK deciding to accept unaccompanied children:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35422777

Is it only me? I don't get it!!! Surely unaccompanied children are a bigger drain than accompanied children. It simply does not make sense. If we are already short of teachers and foster families, why invite unaccompanied children?

Adults contribute to society, they teach, care and support. At least when parents and grandparents join them will any refugees have the ability to partly self-support and contribute to the economy if we allow them to do so.

And may I also point out the poor emotional well-being of a child caused by being separated from its parents which will need ongoing Health resources.

The diversity of how a family is made up is what is needed to build self-sustainable communities. If not family, then build  communities with people of all ages.

Yours Sincerely,

Heidi De Wolf

Please share this blog post if you agree!

VIDEO - Leading transformation at times of complexity

Innovation Series - Evidence-Based Practice versus Innovation

A system aka ecosystem is a self-organising entity built on relationships between diverse parts which are interdependent on one other. The more units within the whole try to 'control' their part of the system, the more complexity and bottlenecks caused which affect the systems functionality. While the parts in a human system are obviously people, the 'control' described above is not a conscious driver but one of human psychology/neurology. As such, to understand the system we must take an interest in what makes us human, how each of us behaves in different (risk) circumstances and what role our resilience plays in decision-making.

In a human system trust is a key factor to a good system. In today's world we can see how stronger controls lead to increased distrust and even paranoia. Human systems work best when we recognise that we do not live to be controlled as robots but that we thrive on our uniqueness, different perspectives and strengths, and can respect another's point of view without necessarily reaching agreement or consensus.

We live in a world where flexibility and agility helps organisations and their offers evolve in response to changes in the environment. The term 'Beta' comes from the Digital world, where websites are often tested when they are not yet fully operational, a term which people have started to adopt in relation to organisations who respond to the changing environment. I suppose to rephrase the question - How do we collate evidence when things are constantly needing to evolve?

The search for convincing evidence which ensure risks are not only mitigated but totally eliminated lead to organisational environments which stifle human potential, critical thinking and innovation. The products and/or services are hence not driven by the market but by the fear of taking risks. Irony is that those organisations who are risk averse around money often end up being the organisations with the highest number of incidence and litigations.

Organisations are not machines but human systems based on human psychology. Creativity, agility & growth are human trades and cannot be understood with a mindset which believes organisational systems more closely match that of a machine where we just replace a part when one stops working. Only when someone can successfully and unquestionably measure and map human complexity can they successfully and accurately apply evidence-based management. To give an example, the success of a product or service depends on the people 'selling' it to the world. If you want to measure success, you would need to include an accurate measure of the human input.

Innovation Series - Breaking Organisational Siloes to Unlock Innovation

An spontaneous Twitter Conversation around organisational mission, vision and the power of Trust and Kindness in breaking organisational siloes. Please find below a link to the curated Twitter chat:

https://storify.com/futurecatalyst/breaking-organisational-silos-with-trust-kindness

Innovation Series - The Key Ingredients to Innovation

Organisations in today's world need to seriously consider their commitment to innovation at all levels of the organisation. Too often I witness innovation at the top of the organisation while silo working still plagues the front line. There are good reasons for these patterns. I will here aim to set out a number of organisational tension and key ingredients which I often find missing, yet which are a vital piece of the innovation puzzle.

1. The need for diverse perspectives

At the top of the organisation, it is not uncommon to find teams of Executives which are very diverse in their backgrounds and as such have very diverse perspectives. While diverse perspectives could mean stronger conversation and potential conflict, when led and facilitated well, innovation is likely to thrive! 

When you look at an organisational chart however, you will note that with every layer of management, teams become far more functional in nature, often led by a functional specialist and driven by specific qualifications and professional values. The more functional a team, the more solid the edges to the team when working with others. Functional teams often have a more command-and-control communication style when working with others as they seek compliance from others, perceiving themselves as commercial Expert Advisers rather than collaborative Business Partners in the journey to achieving organisational improvements. 

This perspective is not helped by the notion that some organisations are outsourcing 'functional departments', encouraging commercial rather than collaborative relationships. This is a real dilemma for many organisations who need to consider outsourcing as part of much needed down-sizing efforts. Instead of tapping into more entrepreneurial thinking, outsourcing could lead to competitiveness and as a result even more siloed practices. 

So how do organisations deal with these obvious tensions? Develop a strong commitment to a Stakeholder Culture across and beyond your organisation. Whether you are working with customers, investors, employees or suppliers, the key is to embrace all parties as equal and interdependent stakeholders in delivering better outcomes. A strong Stakeholder Engagement Culture can help clarify the importance of early involvement of diverse perspectives to improve ownership and innovative outcomes, and discourage competitiveness between all parties. 

2. The need for Entrepreneurial & Start-Up Thinking 

Too often entrepreneurial thinking is mistaken for commercial acumen. There is a very big difference. Entrepreneurship is built on creativity for all stakeholders while commercial acumen is built on creating shareholder value. Also entrepreneurship is about evolving continuously through conversation with important stakeholders, while commercial acumen is about tying down solutions and products to sell to consumers. 

The evolving, engaging and collaborative nature of entrepreneurship often creates powerful building blocks to more responsive and often co-created projects or services delivered through a start-up platform. 

Large organisations know the value of entrepreneurial thinking though struggle to keep hold of them. Why? Slow decision making processes & static procedures often frustrate the internal entrepreneur (aka Intrapreneur) who prefers to work differently. Equally, they are often perceived as disruptive to the status quo and as such may be marginalised. Boards, CEOs & Senior Managers who do not value disruption as a tool for change, will likely push intrapreneurs out of the organisation. 

At this stage I would also like to add another important consideration which has become even more important in today's world. Entrepreneurship in itself is no longer enough. Each entrepreneurial bubble has to make important considerations around their Social Value in relation to the Local Economy, Local Citizens/Communities and the Environment, giving birth to the concept of the Social Entrepreneur who commits to leaner, greener and more collaborative (social) ways of making a difference.

3. Infrastructural & Design Thinking

We also need to rethink our Business Models. For too long businesses have created dependent workforces and consumers. The purpose of a business was to 'do to' and 'sell to', rather than 'do with' and 'empower'. In order to evolve, businesses do well to listen to the people they serve, not to tweak their offer, but to transform their intention and purpose. There are two strands to this. 

The first is Infrastructure or Platform Thinking. The traditional purpose of any business is to produce a service or product. Many businesses still do! However some business have recognised the creative and highly responsive power of the crowd. They have noted that the people most passionate and motivated about a service make the best employees. Some businesses, such as Uber and AirBnB, have set the scene for organisations as outcome-driven infrastructures or platforms where many people can do little things to achieve maximum opportunities. 

These businesses also tap into the excess assets of the people they serve and work with. For example, AirBnB advertises itself as '... the easiest way for people to monetise their extra space and showcase it to an audience of millions.' They provide the infrastructure or platform for people to help people. 

The second is Design Thinking to encourage co-creation of the above business models. The following video explains this beautifully and evidences how businesses need to use design thinking to solve practical, but mostly emotional and behavioural challenges for stakeholders. 

Understanding the key ingredients for unlocking innovation are key to all business sectors. Whether you work in the Public, Private or Third Sector, innovation provides an opportunity for long-term sustainability. If Future Catalyst can assist in exploring your ideal business model or help unlock your culture of Innovation, please do not hesitate to get in touch as we are on a mission to restore every business to long-term sustainability.

Innovation Series - Blog for Brave and Courageous Leaders Only

'In today's world of continuous change, anything static causes systems to be overwhelmed and causes services to get worse!'

Many leaders understand the importance of continuous improvement in a world which is constantly changing and evolving at the speed of light. This commitment needs to translate in a significant review of governance, organisational design and culture, not to mention the way in which we engage our workforce. 

Medium to large organisations whose governance and design suited them in an economic and digital-free age, are now being challenged by staffing restructures as the impact of the recession and the arrival of automation demands a different, leaner approach, often with less staff. So with this in mind organisations set out to delayer and outsource services, practices which assist with quicker decisions and the management of fluctuations in demand. 

It is great to witness such bravery and courageousness as down-sizing and other restructuring decisions are needed, but no leader will fail to recognise the impact on the people who may be affected by these important decisions. I would urge however that this bravery and courageousness needs to extend further to include changes to self, changes to organisational culture as well as further changes to inflexible organisational practices which hinder continuous improvement.

Changes to Self

Leaders who are working through staffing restructures have proven their bravery and courage in stepping up to leadership at a very volatile time which should be recognised and celebrated. Many others are showing a reluctance to stepping into the lime light understanding that leadership does not always mean 'being liked' by others. Leadership before today has meant leading a functional team with specific tasks to be completed, resembling more of a production line rather than emergent people-driven activities leading to continuous improvement.

However the purpose of organisations and leadership, like so many other practices, has changed. In an industrial age where knowledge was held by a few educated people at the top of the organisation leadership included the need for strategic thinking, planning and implementation through directive communications. Today, leaders do well to recognise that strategy, planning and delivery need to work together smarter and to intentionally seek out highly educated individuals and those who have a very different skill set, some who may be smarter than themselves. 

Why? Leadership today requires leaders to lead communities of action and innovation. Innovation in particular is triggered by bringing diverse perspectives and skill sets together. Leadership may also mean that you share the 'lime light' or more importantly offer the 'lime light' to others who are better placed to make decisions in the moment and in turn manage risks early. As such leaders need to stop commanding and start trusting in the human potential that surrounds them. A leader thus acts more like a host, in attracting people with passion and talent to the outcomes which need to be improved. 

Changes to Organisational Culture

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that hierarchy often gets in the way of a culture of continuous improvement. People should have the freedom to network and speak with others who are working towards the same outcome, which actually means that everyone in an organisation should speak to everyone as the organisations mission and vision should set out the collective outcomes. 

So why doesn't this happen? You only have to look at an organisational chart to understand this phenomena. Leaders lead teams of functional experts and most likely are functional experts themselves. The higher up in the organisation, the more you will find multi-functional teams where people with diverse perspectives (try to) work together. Try to? It is not uncommon for there to be conflict at the top table and from experience of working with groups of people for over 15 years, it is not uncommon for people to dislike conflict and do everything to avoid it. 

Sadly, it only takes one person in a group to change the dynamics of the whole team and affect the team's ability to be effective, which, in case of a team of Executives can then ripple throughout the whole organisation in the form of a culture of distrust, resulting in silo working.

Leaders are responsible for three things - one is to intentionally attract diverse perspectives, second is to embrace and facilitate conflict in the form of meaningful debate and the last is to improve group dynamics by making tough decisions about group membership. All three are significantly interlinked and require a commitment to building a culture of trust, not only in the groups leaders are a member of (though it is a great start), but to design environments which encourage a culture of trust across the organisation.

Changes to Inflexible Organisational Practices

While many leaders are clear about the fact that one size solutions fit no one, this notion does not always translate to internal processes and practices. Within each medium to large organisation sit functions which support organisational stability and who 'protect' the organisation from risk, which is - without a shadow of a doubt - important. However, leading from a perspective of organisational stability can actually make the whole organisation 'spasm' as stability in a volatile environment creates enormous organisational tensions which can reverberate throughout every single organisational cell and can leave the organisation gasping for air. Today, leading to restore stability can actually carry much higher organisational risks then embracing the need for agility and flexibility in everything organisations do. 

There are too many practices to mention which contribute to these tensions within organisations, but lets explore a few which affect leaders and staff alike. If leaders want to create a more responsive organisation, it may be helpful to explore the impact of job descriptions and performance reviews. Before I do, I wish to clarify that - in another age - these practices were highly successful in providing clarity and effectiveness within organisations. Today however, they are contributing to unnecessary stresses and pressures for leaders and staff. 

Job descriptions set out the tasks to be completed by any given role within the organisation. Add to this the notion that we are working in a volatile, uncertain, complex and often ambiguous (VUCA) world, and it may or may not become clear that job descriptions are too static and can actually be a hindrance to continuous improvement. 

Similarly, performance reviews are often built around the tasks within the job descriptions, meaning that those people who only act within their job descriptions get rewarded and those who respond to the needs of the customer in a more person-centred and outcomes-driven way are open to being told off for not sticking to 'the rules' by managers who are employed to ensure compliance (which is in their job descriptions). 

Inflexible practices hence create 'fences' around resourceful and creative people who may or may not hold the solution to successfully achieving continuous improvement for the benefit of not only the customer, but the organisation as a whole and even beyond in working with others in closer cross-organisational partnerships.

So in summary, leaders need to ensure they improve group dynamics across the organisation by building a culture of trust and challenge all which is static within their organisations to unlock continuous improvement through the flexible, resourceful and creative people they employ. This often requires an extension of the bravery and courageousness already shown in many organisations challenged by the need to downsize. 

If you would welcome the support of a flexible, resourceful and creative Business Partner who respects the bravery and courageousness of leaders in today's challenging world, please contact us via the details on our website - www.futurecatalyst.net 

Innovation Series - The Importance of mindset when solving wicked problems

In the previous blog, I started to unpick the Einstein quote which many people seem to be agreeing with, namely ...

... and covered the two types of problems many organisations face in today's world and what elements make for a wicked problem. In this blog, I wish to continue to unpick the above quote and focus more on the 'thinking' or 'mindset' which can assist in moving towards a solution to a wicked problem.

For many years people have effectively run productive organisations in a healthy economic climate. A few years back, that climate drastically changed with a significant financial downturn. At the same time and with much gusto, technology continues to flourish and is transforming the way in which we communicate and learn. With this in mind, our problem-solving abilities require us to be creative within limited budgets in which technological solutions can create real lifelines, however it is a myth to believe in a 'Field of Dreams' notion which says 'Build it and they will come!'. The chances are they won't! 

There are a number of cultural and neurological reasons for this which I won't go into at this stage, but it emphasises the need for different thinking patterns to solve highly complex human and systemic problems. 

Because of the non-linear and often chaotic representation in which wicked problems present themselves, leaders usually pick one of two options (based on their neurological brain pathways). They prioritise other less pressing linear problems over the wicked problem, resorting to purely tweaking existing solutions, or they deal with the wicked problem using a Project Management approach to implement a one-size-fits-all linear solution which allows them to control and monitor every aspect of the process, usually with tokenistic engagement leading to poor compliance and ownership. Either way, the lack of resolve of the wicked problem will turn the organisation into a Wild River with even more bottlenecks and highly reactive practices. 

Understanding thinking or mindset

So if most of us are driven by our neurology in our decision-making, what gives some of us the ability to think differently? Below are some thinking styles you may have heard off with a little bit of clarification. Please note some thinking theories overlap as most find their origin in neurology and human psychology. 

1. System Thinking Leadership

Much discussion continues to take place about the difference between leadership and management. In a hierarchical organisation, management mainly has a downward function in supporting staff teams with being organised and reaching their fullest potential. Leadership, on the other hand, tends to be a bottom-up function or at the very least a sideways peer-to-peer function, responsible for influencing upwards, helping to remove systemic bottlenecks. I say 'tend to' as this is not always the case. In organisations with a Blame Culture, leaders and managers mainly manage downward.

System Thinking leadership, as the name suggests, helps to analyse and resolve systemic failures, while trusting implementation teams to do their best to work around systemic bottlenecks as efficiently and creatively as possible in the here and now. System thinking requires leaders to take an interest, not only in the internal bigger picture, but more relevantly the external bigger picture as this knowledge will be extremely valuable in ensuring the health of the organisation in the current climate. 

I have seen many System Thinking models and theories which can be really helpful in resolving wicked problems, however System Thinking is not a process, it is an intuitive thinking pattern or mindset and can never be fully explained through a model. Some would argued that System Thinking is a predominant right-brain function. I would argue that System Thinking is a mindset which uses both sides of the brain, as System Thinkers are great at analysing problems and spotting patterns and trends which are functions more commonly found in the left-brain hemisphere. 

2. Behavioural Analysts & Social Scientists

Behavioural Analysis and Social Sciences, such as neuroscience and psychology, are key ingredients to solving wicked problems. Why? Because organisations are a human collective, and as such driven by a collection of relationships and interactions. Understanding human psychology and behavioural patterns on an individual level can really assist in understanding organisational behaviours and group dynamics. 

But this is not about qualifications! Walking through an organisation, it is very easy to spot the 'natural' Social Scientist as they can often be found observing people and interactions from the sidelines, but also tend to be braver in acting outside/beyond of the constraints placed on them by the organisation. They are likely to be the organisational bees who connect people and ideas, acting like cross-pollinators and in the process build bridges and break down silo thinking. 

Related blog: 

The World needs more Bees - Building Healthier Organisational Innovation Eco-Systems

3. Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence often refers to understanding your own and the emotions of others. Emotional Intelligence in some ways is an extension of self awareness, and includes an awareness about your personal impact on the world around you. We all act with positive intend when making a decision, however - depending on your role within an organisation - this can have a significant impact on others, both positively or negatively. Yes, positive intend can translate into negative outcomes when working with others! Human psychology is what makes organisations such highly complex systems. 

4. Resilience & Counter-Intuitive Thinking

In complex human systems such as organisations, culture and working practices can have a significant impact of a person's stress levels and resilience. As mentioned earlier, when wicked problems are avoided or solely existing solutions are tweaked, the organisation and its workload will become more and more volatile and demanding, resulting in teams feeling reactive and suffering from 'doing more with less'. 

It takes an understanding of the brain and how it affects people's decision-making to really understand your intuitive reactions versus counter-intuitive actions which help to restore your personal resilience. Counter-intuitiveness can be taught, but - like learning to drive a car - takes daily practice to fine-tune and re-wire your brain. 

Regardless of which mindset you feel suits your style, what each of them has in common is that at any point our resilience and with it our mindset can be affected by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. As such, Future Catalyst offers much needed and non-judgemental coaching so that you can continue to be resourceful and make great decisions at times of high pressure.