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.  

Innovation Series - Linear vs Wicked Problems

Speaking with leaders across the Public and Third Sector, most - if not all - agree with this Einstein quote:

In some settings I see great examples of wicked problem-solving. Many of them bring together two or more ideas which at first appear totally unrelated. But before giving some real examples of these types of innovation further into the Innovation Series blogs, it may be helpful to take a few steps back and clarify first the types problems & thinking needed for effective innovation. 

Understanding problems

There are two types of problems, namely 'tame' linear problems and 'wicked' non-linear problems. Very often I see leaders at all levels (even at National Government level) lean towards linear problems and the use of 'tell' and 'influencing' tactics to implement one-size-fits-all solutions - not always taking the time to critically think through whether the solution fits the need fully here, now and in the future. Solutions to linear problems are often one-size-fits-all and take so long to implement that by the time it is implemented, the world has moved on and people's needs have changed. It is hence not unusual to find that in organisations where lots of energy is put into these long-term projects, that those people who work on them become increasingly disillusioned and disengaged as gradually people start noticing that the solutions no longer fits the problem. 

The truth is that most problems in today's world are 'wicked' problems. Why? Well, there are a vast number of reasons. Firstly, most problems are systemic and many organisational problems can actually be linked to national and even global crises. The one which probably springs to mind is the economic crisis, but there are other ecosystems which are equally at breaking point affecting manufacturing and service organisations, both locally and across the globe. Sadly, here too linear one-size-fits-all problem solving comes into play and actually is not considering longer-term sustainable solutions through empowering people. I digress! This video may be of interest to help clarify some of these issues - Enough is Enough  

Secondly, all problems are centred around people, meaning that any solution needs to take considerations for what drives human beings. Any analysis of a wicked problems needs to ask the following questions:

• What are the neurological and group dynamics at play?
• What drives people's motivation?
• How do humans respond to challenges and bottlenecks?
• What are the cultural expectations set by the organisation and its leadership?

As such 'wicked' problems often need a multi-pronged intervention which helps the organisation to unlock and often unlearn some habit which significantly impact on the organisation's ability to evolve however which are actually intuitively guided by our human brain. More about this later! 

Thirdly, no one can predict the future. While that has always been the case, we do appear to find ourselves in a time of greater uncertainties. The world of work is drastically changing as technology progresses and automation takes hold. Automation is a typical solution to a linear problem. Many of the organisation's practices and procedures are being translated into technology which helps the workforce perform 'simpler' tasks. 

A note of warning however must be included. By seeing automation as a linear solution, it is often misunderstood that many of the practices and procedures which are about to be automated may be wicked problems for an organisation. Many leaders growl at the vast amount of bureaucratic practices impacting on their ability to make decisions quicker (which is a real competitive advantage in today's world). As such, if no time is taken to solve the wicked problem first, automation is not going to help to unlock the organisational agility needed to survive. The same is true of any outsourcing efforts, where work is outsourced without considering the wickedness of existing organisational complexity. 

Related Slideshare presentation:

Building Organisational Adaptability & the Local Economy

It is hence crucial to fully understand the type of problems organisations face in the light of continued uncertainty in order to help identify the core knowledge needed to better inform any solution going forward. As such the identification of the problem can in itself be a wicked problem. 

The next blog in the Innovation Series will further pick apart Einstein's quote above and focus on how we can better understand the thinking or mindset needed to successfully innovate. 

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!