Writing

Lead Human Complexity.

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

image

The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor – Campbell’s Law

Traditional management often seeks to reduce complex human behaviour to a single measure to manage. This approach works well for unthinking machines but it struggles with the complexity of human ability to shape behaviour on expectations.

People aren’t Widgets

Economists have been looking at the impact of human expectations on policy decisions for centuries. However, too little of this thinking has made it into industrial models of management thinking.

Traditional industrial models of management treat human beings on the same basis as other elements of machinery in the manufacturing process. This approach does not allow for the difference between a machine and a human’s ability to alter performance based on their own expectations and as result of interactions with others. The creative potential of collective human intelligence quickly outstrips this approach.

John Maynard Keynes highlighted in 1936 how expectations can make even the simplest choices quite complex when interactions of other human actors are involved. His simple example of a prize for nominating the best looking six faces in a beauty contest:

It is not a case of choosing those [faces] that, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those that average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practice the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.

The impact of expectations is found in many work activities. The expectations of peers can increase or decrease performance. Expected rewards shape behaviour, whether they are financial, status or emotional. Many highly skewed incentive schemes fail to achieve expected performance change because humans form a view of the likelihood or value of the returns for effort on offer. In some cases, a combination of human creativity, expectations and collaboration between employees & others will even produce totally unintended results. 

Human expectations of the future change the behaviour of people now. The accuracy of expectations does not matter. A critical role for leaders is to be a part of the conversations that are shaping the ongoing expectations in a team. Designing an incentive scheme and tracking the measures is not enough.

Networks Accelerate the Making and Sharing of Expectations

In our increasingly networked world, it is much less likely that any individual in an organisation will behave like a machine that has no choice but to optimise performance.  The networks inside and outside the organisation will create new expectations and accountabilities on individuals in the organisation. Expectations are just one part of the collective sense-making that will go on as people work to create value.  No individual or organisation is an island any more.

Leaders need to prepare to engage with this increasing complexity and to join the conversations to shape the expectations that will drive human behaviour. Creating a collective vision, building trust, realising human potential and fostering collaboration can all contribute positively to the expectations of individuals in a network.

If you leave the conversation to the network, you are losing your influence as a leader. You are also surrendering the potential for better performance.

The Creative Conflict of the Eclectic

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

“Chief among our gains must be reckoned this possibility of choice, the recognition of many possible ways of life, where other civilizations give a satisfactory outlet to only one temperamental type, be he mystic or soldier, businessman or artist, a civilization in which there are many standards offers a possibility of satisfactory adjustment to individuals of many different temperamental types, of diverse gifts, and varying interests.” – Margaret Mead

The Creative Conflict of the Eclectic

As a singer, writer, actor and more Nick Cave is a prolific and creative artist. Part of his creative potential flows from his long list of influences, if this partial list is anything to go by. The creative power of an eclectic list of influences from a variety of fields, genres and schools of thought is that it offers us the contrast & conflicts that enable us to push our work beyond its normal range. The ability to span a wider range of influences and to embrace ongoing conflict of schools of thought is an important part of why culture moves forward when management often sits still.

A wide range of inspirations & inputs offers us views that shatter our hallucinations and draw in the perspectives of the wider communities around us. Ideas profit by the testing of conflicting view points and the demands of additional stakeholders.

As Margaret Mead suggests in the quote above, we need diverse roles and viewpoints to be able to realise the creative potential of all people. We need diverse sources of conflict to see the world as it is. Averages & standards constrain us. We need to leverage the creative potential of all human capabilities. In our organisations and our approaches to personal knowledge mastery, we need to resist the temptation to associate with similar people and to be drawn to the bubble of our own reflected opinions. We need to engineer difference of views and the conflict that flows from it.

The leadership task is not alignment without conflict. The work of leadership is alignment before, during and after conflict. In a world of continuous change, the conflict is inevitable. We must choose to embrace it.

But Conflict Must Change Work

Conflict and debate can be captivating. Generating new ideas and thoughts is often an extraordinarily exhilarating process. Creativity is itself an occupation for many.

Most organisations need more than creativity. They need change that can create new value.  The delivery of better value in its widest sense is what matters. That takes new and better ways of working.

Let the conflicts and the inspiration catch you in the process of making a little change. At that moment, there is a far better chance of inspiring some new form of value.

Inspiration exists but it has to find us working – Pablo Picasso

Are You Leading for the Quarter or the Future?

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

image

No rational person would jeopardise their future to meet an arbitrary 90 day milestone. Too many corporate incentives are structured exactly this way.

There are many eloquent complaints about the danger of the short term focus of corporations, especially publicly listed ones. My concern is that this short term focus stands in the way of more human and more responsive organisations. This short term focus divides accountability.

Time is short

One force driving the pathology of traditional management approaches is short time frames & arbitrary division of time. Results are fragmented down to hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly targets. We engage in the division of time as much as we divide work.

Incentives and management processes are tied to these short term results. Dividing time in this way values values the present quarter or time period to the exclusion of almost all else. As a consequence the arbitrariness of the short time frame becomes an invitation to treat the entire process as a game and to push the future far from consideration.  

Getting the number

When a decision is made with the sole objective of delivering a number, we enter a realm of dangerous ethics and considerable risk to the future. Purpose, customer relationships, employee engagement and community reputation are immediately in jeopardy, as everyone focuses to deliver the certainty of the financial outcome required.

The pressure of a short time frame immediately eliminates activities:

  • that may require upfront investment, time or effort
  • that may involve uncertain returns like experimentation, new product development, enabling customers, employees or other stakeholders, etc
  • that involve thought, analysis, research, input or consultation
  • that deliver large benefits beyond the time period
  • that have any form of initial dip in performance

This remaining options usually come down to one or more of the following:

  • bringing forward returns, usually at a significant discount
  • grabbing more value in the relationship with another stakeholder without regard to longer term consequences in the relationship (for example by raising prices without regard to impacts on loyalty or market position, demanding rebates from suppliers, etc)
  • arbitrary cost cutting, especially employees or ‘discretionary expenses’ like marketing, training, maintenance, support, etc where effects are not immediate 
  • accounting treatments, particularly relating to the recognition or allocation of revenue or costs and the valuation or recognition of assets and liabilities
  • outright fraud and deception

Waste

Some of these changes may cut waste or realise value, largely by accident. In many cases, the organisation responds to the changes with innovations that ameliorate the longer term impact or at a minimum defer them for another quarter. Pressure can inspire creativity and efficiency. The negative future effects and ongoing pressure can also generate a treadmill of even greater pressure.

We must be clear that this activity is waste. Playing the numbers game is wasteful effort. It risks the future and compromises the core value creating relationships in the business. The demands of the ‘numbers game’ work to unravel any efforts to become a more responsive organisation. The ask to meet numbers always pushes for planned outcomes, maximum control and a lack of transparency in decision making.

No Division of Accountability

Accountability for outcomes is core to the future of any organisation. Ending number games does not mean an end to accountability. It means greater accountability.

  • Let’s be accountable to make every decisions in line with purpose and values.
  • Let’s ensure all employees are accountable to deliver now, for a better future and to realise people’s potential.
  • Let’s ensure that the accountability is an accountability to all stakeholders.
  • Let’s also work to deliver each day in a realistic manner to our long term goals, not just scrabble to manage an arbitrary day that we choose to report.

We need to end the division of accountability.

A Little Bit of Rebel

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

image

Most rebels start small.

At the end of Richard Martin’s wonderful discussion of the power of rebel within organisations there is a reference to starting small. It reminded me that ‘from little things, big things grow’  

Many change agents start out in a small and quite compliant way. They only want to make a little change for the better. They see something that needs fixing and try to fix it. These rebels start out making change for the system. They want to make the system work just a little better.

Systems don’t like little changes. Systems push back. Small fixes are crushed.

At this point, many people seeking change stop discouraged. The rebels go on. Rebels move from a small change to making bigger changes to the system. They start to see that their small problem is a symptom and that changing the system is part of the solution. Now they want to make changes to the system.

Systems don’t like changing. Systems push back. Big changes are opposed.

Many first-time rebels stop at this point. They don’t like the ostracism, the opposition and the risk. Only the dedicated rebels go on. Now the rebels want to fundamentally change the way that the systems in the organisation handles change. They want their organisations to have a better culture, to be more responsive, to be more human and to pursue bigger and more important purposes than purely financial return. These rebels are working for a change of system.

Systems don’t like change. Systems push back. Transformative change is fought. 

The few remaining rebels just keep aiming bigger. Now they step outside the system and connect with others from other systems trying to make similar change. They start to work across organisations, industries and society to learn how to be more effective and more influential in creating responsive and human organisations.

These rebels are changing the world.

image

How do you help your rare and precious rebels grow faster?

  • Do you have a culture of continuous improvement based on external performance measures that helps your people start the journey of change?
  • Do you have the room for experimentation to try new approaches?
  • Do you have a culture that fosters challenge to the big systems and processes and that supports and rewards the rebels?
  • Do you take time to discuss the culture and systems that lie behind the symptomatic problems that you face repeatedly?
  • How do you connect and engage your rebels, internally and externally, to help them stay the distance in the face of opposition?

A Tasting Plate

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

Self-help books are full of the best practices of other people’s lives. We are each unique. Treat the example of others as less of a recipe and more of a tasting plate.

No Recipe

The world is full of advice on how to get the most out of life. Usually that advice is distilled from the example of other’s successes. However best practices are often highly contextual.

Each person has a different circumstances: temperament, upbringing, capabilities, commitments, relationships, goals and purposes. What works for one person as effective practice rarely works for everyone. This is one reason why self-help advice is often so maddeningly contradictory. There is no universal recipe for success. We would even struggle to agree what that means.

Tasting Plate

Treat best practices as a tasting plate. Try out those practices that appeal to you. Experiment to see what works. Do more of what works. Add your own twists. Recognise circumstances change. You may need new experiments from time to time.

Importantly, as a leader, recognise that your practices are not universal. Allow people the opportunity to experiment with working in the way that works best for them. That is the path to make the most of their potential.

Access, Reach & Transparency

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

Networks of people working together are not new. Networks run through all our relationships at work. The access, reach and transparency of our networks is what helps change the future of work.

Humans are Connected. Humans are Social

Networks were social before social networks. Being social in networks of relationships is what defines humanity. We sit around campfires. The first call on a telephone network was between colleagues. We tell jokes in the pub and send jokes by email. We share cat pictures by mail, email and on the internet.

Ordering products for delivery by mail existed before Amazon. Linkedin did not invent business networking. Instagram did not create the sharing of photos. Airbnb did not create the lodger. Data was big before we could manage it. Yo existed as an exclamation before the Yo app.

Access, Reach & Transparency

Digital and social networks have changed the game by radically expanding the access, reach and transparency of human networks. We can reach more people with greater ease than ever and our interactions are recorded to be accessed by others.

The changes in access, reach and transparency enable us to better see the wirearchies that weave through our hierarchies. They offer us new ways to seek information, to make sense of the world and to share our learnings. These changes offer new ways of working, collaborating and cooperating.

We must remember that all that has changed is the access, reach and transparency. Our new networks must support human endeavour and human relationships. Together we connect, we share, we solve challenges and we innovate. There is no magic other than the magic of human creativity.

Let’s keep human potential at the heart of our work in networks.

A Vision that is Yours Alone is an Hallucination

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

Steve Case once said ‘Vision without execution is hallucination’. Before you get to execution, a vision goes awry if it isn’t shared by the others who must do the work.

Read most standard texts on leadership and they will begin with the leader setting the vision of a team. ‘Leader [insert verb] the vision’ defines much leadership training. As a result the focus become crafting a compelling vision and communicating it in the most persuasive way. Leaders are then expected to ensure the team delivers to that vision. Case’s comment highlights the need to ensure delivery.

There is one flaw in this approach to leadership:

An hallucination is something you think is real but others cannot see. The fact you can see it is not enough. The team cannot see what you see no matter how good your communication skills. People cannot deliver what they cannot see.

Team visions are far more effective when created by the team rather than the leader. Allowing others to contribute to shaping the vision leverages their potential to find personal purpose, to contribute more and to improve the picture. It deepens their understanding of the situation and the drivers of change. People who co-create make their own sense. The work of building a vision engages and enables others to own the vision and lead adaptation over time. The full passions, expertise and experience of the team can contribute to shaping the outcome. That work is the best guarantee the vision is seen and well understood by all.

Imposing a vision and sustaining that imposition is really hard work and largely counterproductive. No amount of telling conveys the richness of the leaders vision in a busy age of continuous partial attention. In complex scenarios the leader’s vision may be partial or too simplistic. Confusion and misinterpretation are likely. In networks there will be competing visions and competing alternatives for work. Critically an imposed vision is always the leader’s and often a compromise of purpose and passion for the team. Abundance has been replaced with compromise.

A leader’s vision is rarely seen as open for improvement even if the leader seeks input. Power differences discourage feedback. The worst outcome for organisations seeking to respond to changing markets is to be stuck thoughtlessly delivering a dated vision imposed by a now out of touch leader. Pushing the vision through will disengage others, destroy the leader’s influence and jeopardise the business.

Next time you need a vision to guide the work of a team think ‘Team [insert verb] vision’. The leader should be the facilitator not dictator of that process.

Execution is far easier when a vision is co-created. We all need fewer hallucinating leaders.

The Flying Wedge

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

Speak to any generalist and you hear the same frustrating cry “Everyone wants to know my speciality”.  A generalist needs to see the diversity of their experience as a source of differentiation, not the core proposition. Begin by meeting the specific needs of a situation.

The Challenge of Generalists

With more changes of role, career, technology and capability demanded of individuals, there are more and more people who have chosen to follow the diverse career path of the generalist. For many individuals the diversity itself is an attraction.

However, with diversity of experience and opportunity comes a challenge. How do you sell yourself in a job search or other work opportunity? When you can do many things, how do you answer the common question “What do you want to do?”  An attempt to explain your general capabilities and many future paths usually results in a confused repeat of the question.

A generalist needs to position their capabilities as a flying wedge, a specific capability supported by a wedge of general capabilities.

Problems are Specific

Whenever someone is looking to engage you, wether you are talking to a hiring manager or a client, that individual will focus on a specific problem or opportunity that needs to be addressed. They want to know first of all that you can solve that specific problem. Start by explaining how your capabilities address that need. 

Remember you are competing with specialists. Specialists will endeavour to prove they are the best in the world at some capability. They do this because that is all that they can do. The specialist sells a match between the one thing they do incredibly well and the need. If their speciality does not solve the specific need, the specialist misses out completely.

The leading point of the proposition of a generalist must be focused to compete with specialists to solve a specific need. Sell the most relevant pointy end of the flying wedge first, because it earns the right to further attention.

Meet the Situation then Differentiate

Meeting the need of the buyer is only a ticket to the next stage of the conversation. Everyone who is shortlisted can meet the needs. The challenge to win the job or work is to differentiate.

At this point, the diversity of the generalist becomes an advantage because you can follow through on your focused point by sharing your broader capabilities. Differentiating on the breadth of capabilities enables you to highlight your unique ability to:

  • better meet related challenges 
  • apply innovative solutions using other capabilities
  • deliver a better overall outcome

Specialists will need to compete on who has the most expertise. Instead you can use the flying wedge of your capabilities to widen the conversation to better sell the need for your generalist experience.

Every action writes your autobiography

Posted on by simongterry in Uncategorized

image

I came across this quote today in an exhibition of the work of the photographer Sue Ford.

We can learn from artists

For an artist it is clear that each work even a representation of another is an expression of their own potential as an artist. To make a work is to put the best of your talents on display.

We can learn a much about the future of our work from the edges explored by artists.

One of the reasons art demands this challenge is the arts is an arena of the long tail. Harold Jarche has discussed the implications of the long-tail for the future of work. We are increasingly engaged in knowledge work in a networked economy as content creators, sharers or remixers and facing the same economic effects as artists.

Every action writes your autobiography

The insight from Sue Ford’s quote above is to recognise that every action we take is an opportunity to put the best of our talents on display. We express ourselves through the big and small actions we take every day. Often the actions we don’t take are even more important when we give up the opportunity to realise our potential or to learn and grow.

We will be judged by our actions. Networks are demanding and will route around the inactive, those who fail to lead or those who fail their potential. Our reputation will be built and quickly shared through our networks. We write an autobiography in action and we are judged not for our words but the actions we take.

What do you want your autobiography to say? What potential is yours to realise? Your next action will provide an answer.

Why not make your next action a work of art?