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 ;)