Change Discourse

It's been a long time since I posted a blog entry on Peripheral Vision.

I've decided to contribute something a little different now - on subjects that I have been thinking about for a very long time.  I was going to open another blog, but thought that it would save distractions if I just continued here.

I should warn you that this is going to be pretty "big picture" but for all that, it is definitely not going to be abstract. Over the next few months of postings (I hope) you'll come across terms such as "narrative" and "social discourse" but let's be clear - those are not abstract concepts like "the average family" or the GDP.

Social discourse is that living sea of language that you inherit from the many cultures in which you were raised. It's the theatre of your cognition, the shaper of your experiences and what allows you to communicate a wealth of information to others by means of these mere marks on the screen, or those little puffs of air that resonate throughout the cafe. It's the window through which you look out from your inner self to the world around you. It's the sedimented history of thousands and thousands of years of human existence.  It sorts, organizes and informs your basic, habitual awareness.  It exists in the world around you. (If you still think that's abstract, you can blame that label on several trends in the evolution of social discourse ;). Social discourse or narrative is mainly about the habitual tags, labels and markers we give to all of our personal experiences in the private or public sphere. It's the channel through which things make sense to us and amongst us when we take in, think or talk about them.

Social discourse traverses generations and changes the conditions of our understanding over time. It carries a set of key connotations that have some very strong influences on our experiences. They arise from living in a natural world and the social organization demanded from a given level of technology. Social discourse influences and is influenced by the needs that a level of technology produces:  The needs that organize us around gathering, changing and distributing nature's provisions, the ideals that support that organization. The core ideas in our cognition and evaluations are:

• The definition of private versus public
• Gender, family, and reproductive relationships
• Power relationships (e.g., boss, employee; government, capitalist)
• Values (e.g., "freedom" "kindness" or "success" - what are they?)
• Human beings and our understanding relation to the planet Earth
• What we take to be real in the universe

However, there's usually a lag and some upheaval before the brain and heart catch up with the hands but now, all of our core ideas are about to change markedly .... and therefore so will our experience.

Overcoming Institutional Inertia

Change is difficult in large institutions.  In a previous post, I wrote:

I'm not even sure that it's that "people prefer the devil they know," as the old saying has it. It's just that it is dangerous to both the authors of the narrative and those subject to it to question the rules, to disturb the "collective illusion" that sustains the power structures. For better or for worse, power structures represent "the very fabric of society" and resistance to change should not be underestimated. 

There I argued that it would be technology that would inevitably drive changes. I was thinking, for example, that the Web 2.0 phenomenon that has emerged in recent years presents a platform for horizontal, collaborative, collegial and networked dialogue.  

But to get on board with these technologies to solve work related problems and issues, your heart just has to be in it. You have to care enough about doing things well, or creating an environment where people can be more effective, that you're willing to share your ideas and have them peer reviewed. Before you can do that, you have to be able to identify where changes and improvements are needed, and where people can make a difference.  But even before that, you need the hope that your individual or collective efforts can make a difference.  You have to believe that making a difference is possible.  


Employees can sidestep these risks by focusing on processes and tasks, rather than the broader purposes and the overall efficacy of these activities.   Managers can sidestep institutional roadblocks by behaving "Quantophrenically" or they can simply take roadblocks as natural and eternal aspects of the managerial landscape. In so doing, employees and managers contribute passively to institutional inertia.


These approaches are either products or results of cynicism, which is unfortunate.  Where does the root of the cynicism reside?  How can the tide be turned, now that we have such amazing opportunities to make changes?  


This may be much more about cultural ideology than about individuals. IMO, there has been massive oversimplification with rationalizing and standardizing over the history of business culture in general, and so much of a focus on means and methods (e.g., money, processes, perpetual "growth" in economic terms).  This means that we are cogs in a big economic machine that is, as Charles Taylor put it, "all dressed up with nowhere to go."  In order to make the changes we need now, we need to refocus on things that are intrinsically valuable (growing and sustaining mental, emotional and ecological well-being). The focus on means, methods and quantophrenics has in the past eclipsed discussion on the more intrinsically valuable objectives. 


I do think the tide is turning, however, and that a newer, richer understanding of the complexity of our natural and social systems is causing our more human values to surface, and new voices will increasingly be heard. 

Engagement and Leadership -- Creating Space

I've been keeping track of various discussions and blogs out there, and my interest in the subject of competency, motivation and opportunity (CMO) has carried over from the ideas expressed in the preceding post to thoughts on leadership.  People have been talking about qualities of leaders and one that sticks with me is the emphasis on the fact that leaders create space.  I'd have to agree. If you think about it, that jives with the Opportunity part of the CMO triad.

Sadly, that there have been times where I observed that not enough was done to create space...well, to be starkly honest, I have seen that when people have potentially transformative ideas, management can sometimes react territorially, inspiring colleagues of the would-be change agent to ignore (and even disparage) his or her new ideas, since there was no leadership that would create a way to adopt, or even discuss new ways of doing things. The constricted workplace is a culture of inertia, and since creativity always has to go somewhere, the constricted workplace becomes a toxic workplace where a lack of trust is self-reproducing.

On more positive fronts, I have also observed that when those in charge ask for and are open to their employees' input on decisions and are not afraid to delegate, the enthusiasm for work increases exponentially.

That says to me that under it all, people already have the motivation to engage and use discretionary effort (and where they have motivation and opportunity, they will develop the competencies in a risk-tolerant environment) so what's most important is the ability of those in charge to create the space to let it happen.

So, in the end, it seems to me that a leader is someone who creates space (a values-based approach) rather than someone who constricts it, identifying leadership with control (a rules-based approach.).  Leaders create a culture of trust and opportunity.

Employee Engagement: Competence, Motivation, Opportunity

In his Contrarian Thinking blog, Etienne Laliberté posted a link to a discussion paper entitled "An HR Director's Guide to Employee Engagement". I think the authors really underscore the limitation of the competency approach here:

The long-standing focus on ‘skills’ as key to increasing productivity is too limited. The ‘people and performance’ model identifies the three requirements for releasing employees’ discretionary effort as ability, motivation and opportunity. The skills agenda addresses only the first of these – employee engagement addresses all three. There is an historic opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it understands the drivers of...performance.

Their Main Point: You not only need the relevant competencies, you need opportunity and motivation.

But here's the tricky question: Which is more important?

First, consider whether relevant competencies are something people are born with. Generally they are learned. They are abilities that people learn both formally and informally, in the classroom, and more often on the job.

Second, consider what are called "generic competencies". Who cannot learn them? Apart from the tragic cases, people have capacity to learn most generic competencies, and it's a matter of motivation and opportunity whether they realize these capacities or not.

I can understand that for jobs in which professional certification and/or very well-developed technical skills are required, these requirements would be included in a job description or a job posting. But it is very important to understand that competencies are not like standard features on a car, like horsepower, or doors, or seating. They are not static givens that people are born with, they are things that, given the opportunity and motivation people will learn, develop and display.

The fact that competencies are learned, not givens, raises questions about the value of hiring on the basis of lists of generic competencies. We should be looking for potential and providing opportunities, not looking for static givens thereby ruling out potential.

If I were hiring someone for for a job, I would certainly ensure they had the key professional technical expertise required, but on the more generic competencies, I'd forgo the standard list, except perhaps for communication skills, and look for what they enjoy:

What did they do or what ideas do they have that make their eyes light up when they tell you about them? Are they interested in the fine details, or are they interested in the big picture? Do they prefer action or contemplation? Do they feel anxious if things are not perfectly clear and stable, or can they tolerate a certain level of ambiguity? Are they more comfortable dealing with "just the facts" (task masters) or do they explore possibilities (experimenters)? Are they motivated primarily to climb the ladder (careerists) or to express creativity (innovators)? Do they enjoy working alone or in groups? What balance of direction/discretion are they most comfortable with? In what way do they really want to make a difference in their professional lives?

Understanding people's preferences, their motivations, would tell me most of what I'd need to know, if not more, than checking off the standard lists. And given the opportunity to act in accordance with their preferences and motivations, they would continually develop the relevant competencies.

So motivation and opportunity do not merely "complete" the trio of elements of employee engagement necessary to improve performance, they actually are the basis for learning, developing and displaying competence.

On Risk Aversion

Is risk aversion a fear of auditors or bad press...or is it denial of the natural transformation that is occurring now towards models of complexity and resilience? It seems we prefer the illusion of control, delivered by models that are
- analytical,
- artificial,
- compartmentalized,
- categorical
- linear,
- mechanical, and
- simplistic.

To be able to achieve manageable simplicity, we would have to be able to identify and control the context, the boundaries, the parameters in which we operate. It is no longer possible to imagine that that we can. The flurry of performance measurement gone mad is probably a reaction formation. Facile metrics are a tragic and total waste of resources, and that's one of the few simple things we do really all know.

The Logic of Quantophrenia

Here's a crash course on the reasonable and unreasonable (quantophrenic) use of indicators (business metrics):

Reasonable:

Given a reliable indicator (sign) of a concrete problem, there is a concrete problem.
If the problem is resolved concretely, the indicators should represent (track/signal) that.

I>P (If I then P)
Therefore,
~P > ~I (If not P then not I)

This is a logically valid form of reasoning. It spurs committed people to remedy the concrete problem.

A simple example for illustrative purposes: Imagine that an unexpectedly high number of employees have been on long term acting assignments in different parts of your organization. What does that indicate? Let's say you do some research and your investigation reveals that, although there are a number of bona fide developmental activities occurring, the problem is due to cumbersome staffing processes and a weakness in integrating business and HR planning, making assignments a quick remedy. So what do you do? You reason that if you streamline staffing and pay more attention to resourcing with respect to projected business requirements, over time, your numbers should diminish to levels that would be expected given developmental activities.

Quantophrenic version:

Given some accurate indicator (sign) of a concrete problem, there is a concrete problem.
If the indicators have changed for the better, the problem has been concretely resolved.

I>P
Therefore,
~I > ~P

IS NOT a valid form of reasoning (it commits what logicians call "the fallacy of denying the antecedent"), and in itself a sign of a problem; i.e., tick box management.

To illustrate, using the previous example, an unexpectedly high number of employees on long term acting assignments indicates problems with cumbersome staffing processes and a weakness in integrating business and HR planning. So what do you do? To meet your indicator target, you remove everyone from their acting assignments. Obviously, you have met your indicator target 100%, but you have not solved the concrete problem, in fact you have quite clearly exacerbated it.

This is a very simplistic example, but it illustrates the potential dangers of metrics as business drivers.

Question: what drives quantophrenia?

Conceptual Filing Cabinets are not Reality

Ever noticed that when corporate downloads an initiative to remedy an internal management problem, the effects on the ground tend to be the opposite of what was intended? Without going into details, this may explain why. Mintzberg said:

"Strategic planning is not strategic thinking. One is analysis, the other is synthesis"*

The fact is, the corporate structure tends to be organized in terms of business lines or branches, so initiatives get forumulated around compartmentalized resources.  That means analytical thinking will predominate in planning - and analytical thinking relies on compartmentalized categories – checklist items. People mistake their conceptual filing cabinets for reality and are rewarded for substituting numbers for facts. But as some astute Brit said not long ago, “You don’t fatten a pig by weighing it.”  The success of mechanistic models of the past has seduced us to seeking "simple" solutions in  complex arenas, much more complex than are tackled by the hard numbers of "hard science." 

Most activities in business are dynamically interconnected and adjustments in one area can be offset by failing to consider their impact on other areas. Thinking strategically involves connecting the dots, lateral thinking, the use of the right brain, which is basically grounded in intention, will, and commitment (caring).

The first thing required for an effective strategy is that you genuinely care.

The second thing is flexibility and openness.

Some folks believe that analytical thinking is a cut above more poetic sensitivities and that it is the sole defender objectivity and of fairness. I'd like you to consider that such a view is rather narrow, sometimes honest but simplistic, other times useful to people with a power-for-power's-sake agenda. Models of evaluation based on analytical thinking are just as prone to manipulation and bias as any poetic kind of perspective. They are also dangerous as one doesn't need brute strength or mass hysteria to convince, but one can just point to "the numbers"as an incantation. This is less likely in very precise areas such as physics, but in business, there are just no exhaustive and exclusive definitions that can be reliably used for evaulative purposes. Our definitions and indicators are handy rules of thumb, never meant to be the be-all and end-all of evaluation. (ISO - I despair.) A planner can pick a few handy items from a potentially infinite list of possible indicators.  Nevertheless, those who employ a definition, a methodology, who fail to think things through broad-mindedly with an honourable meaning, purpose and value, who yet check a list of measures, have the advantage of the appearance of objectivity. This is a pernicious effect of the "trope of science" and needs rooting out.

*link no longer available.