Clowns, Jokers, Rocks, and Hard Places
February 27, 2015
If you haven’t yet, take some time to have a read of Aimee Groth’s wonderful article on the self-organizing management schema ‘The Holocracy’.
To undertake a whole scale transformation of how an organization works - how decisions are made, and how power is distributed - is a complex and audacious task. But, it also struck me as somewhat simplistic at the same time.
What do I mean by this, I hear you toot?
What if we view the self-organizing model as the complement, the diametric opposite, of a completely designed model? Either we let the system decide, or we decide for the system. We manage to the extremes. Because, at the extremes we, have more clarity and that’s really all we want ever - is clarity, and as much as you can give us thanks very much.
My initial reaction to Ms. Groth’s piece I tweeted about:
Either/or is easy. It’s both/and that’s hard, and where the magic lives.
— David Thompson (@dcthmpsn) February 18, 2015
I suspect it could be worse to just appeal to structures on the extremes - because sometimes you’ll need a blend of both approaches, and by not having them, you’ll be leaving value on the table. Being able to hold different patterns of work together long enough, in as stable and productive way as possible, is vital. Acknowledging this, and subsequently balancing it, are most likely two of the most challenging obstacles facing any organization, in any industry.
Thanks for listening,
DT
Tell him about the twinkie
February 6, 2015
There’s always room on a Friday for Ghostbusters quotes. Am I right?
Never mind. Don’t answer that.
For those of you that remember, ‘the twinkie’ referred to above, was being used to describe the magnitude of the paranormal problem the Ghostbusters were about to find themselves in. It was a sugary prop for a discussion about measurement.
Which is exactly this week’s topic.
As you, my frequent reader knows, we’re all about curating conditions to enrich for the the likelihood of serendipitous outcomes. That’s really what Lunch Roulette-like services are all about.
While fingers-crossed and hoping is a good start, we should strive for measurement in this which, as I’ve previously mentioned, is hard.
Earlier this week I revisited this topic and began to noodle the following. I’m offering this more of a hypothesis at the moment, but I think we’re onto something.
What if emergent organizational properties (e.g. culture, innovation, engagement) require a method of measurement that is as emergent as the property that is being measured? For some recent thoughts on emergence, have a look at this post.
What might this mean? Well, for one, it would provide a rationale behind why we don’t currently do it. It might be as expensive (both from a time and resource perspective) as setting and preserving the conditions to enable the emergence in the first place.
What might such an emergent measurement scheme look like? I’d imagine, some sort of oral history and evaluation. As my friend (Alexa Beavers) has suggested, something like the Most Significant Change might be appropriate. This methodology is used within the social sector to measure impact - itself a higher order/emergent property of an intervention.
Gosh, we’ve come quite a long way from that twinkie, eh?
Thanks for listening,
DT
The other half of Working out Loud: Eyes Wide Open, Brain Switched On
February 18, 2015
In the Epilogue of Noreena Hertz’s wonderful book ‘Eyes Wide Open’, she exhorts us to keep our ‘eyes wide open and our brains switched on’.
Prof. Hertz’s book is all about navigating complexity and making decisions with incomplete information. Her advice, admittedly obvious, is quickly ignored - so her reminder (any reminder really) is a good one. I also think it’s an important piece of ‘the puzzle’ we’re exploring here, so is the focus of my post this week.
But first, let me introduce the concept of ‘Working Out Loud’ (WOL). Coined by Bryce Williams in 2010, WOL is the narration of observable work using social channels (typically digital in nature). The concept has been driven by John Stepper, with John leading the way in showing folks how to do this.
The Working Out Loud concept made it onto a list yesterday, authored by Dion Hinchcliffe, wherein Mr. Hinchcliffe described ‘The required skills for today’s digital workforce’. As Mr. Hinchcliffe describes it: “Working out loud allows one to let the network do the work and breaks down the silos that have rebuilt up with virtual workplaces and today’s far-flung multinational teams.”
Jolly good.
But, only half of the puzzle.
Let’s take the concept of ‘Working Out Loud’ to it’s limit. What happens when everyone’s doing it? All ‘work’ happening within an organization would be captured, on a fully searchable and persistent platform. That is probably a good thing, of course, but to be sure it’s the easier side of the equation. The harder question, is Now What … ?
To continue the Ghostbusters theme … Come Here Francine.
A couple of months back, I made the following observation:
“Through a combination of thoughtful physical space planning coupled with elements of rich mobile, network, and sensor data we can engineer the randomness of human interaction, in the hope of enriching for serendipitous outcomes. Such outcomes will be driven by engaged actors contextualizing previously unknown but knowable information/data/knowledge.”
See what crept in there: ‘ … engaged actors contextualizing previously unknown but knowable information/data/knowledge.’
If you don’t have curious people, ‘engaged actors’, looking to solve problems to benefit their organization, having all the data, in one place, and searchable, isn’t going to get you where you need to go.
Working Out Loud is an important piece of the puzzle - but having people in an organization looking to explore what you’re curating, in their context, in the service of ‘the mission’ is the missing piece for me.
The biggest omission on that list? Curiosity. An Essential Workplace Skill.
Thanks for listening,
DT