Archive

Culture change

An Overabundance of Planning

“The minimum you can get away with is always far less than you think you need.”

~ @FlowchainSensei

A Common Objection

“We’d be inundated if we attended to even a fraction of all the needs of all the Folks that Matter” is one common objection I regularly hear to the Antimatter Principle.

And yet, in most software development projects, the team is inundated with things to do, based on “the Plan” – regardless of whether that’s a big up-front plan, or an incremental plan (running backlog) assembled by degrees over time. A mountain of work (features, tasks, etc.) stretching out to the misty blue horizon, and back to the dawn of (project) time.

Research (see, for example, Capers Jones’ book “Assessment and Control of Software Risks”) highlights that much of what gets planned, and thus gets done, is pointless and proves unnecessary when (finally) made available to users. This reality is also reflected in the now highly controversial series of CHAOS reports from the Standish Group.

Specious

So, I regard the aforementioned objection as specious. Not intentionally so, most often. But specious never the less.

For me, “Attending to Folks Needs” means doing the least (responsibly) possible, and then seeing if the need (or a need) of the folks in question has been met. Most often those need(s) will not have been entirely met – and maybe not even partially – but the team then has the option to have another go – based on some solid information.

This approach has at least two benefits:

  • The person (customer, user, etc.) in question will feel that they matter, that their opinion counts, and that the team is focussed on them as a human being.
  • The team will have solid information upon which to validate or invalidate their earlier guesses (and yes, they will always be guesses until so validated).

At some point, it’s likely all the critical needs of all the Folks That Matter will have been met. And that point will like have arrived much earlier that with more traditional approaches. And with reduced costs and effort.

– Bob

Afterword

Some readers may argue that the above approach looks a lot like Agile. In practice (sic) I see enough differences to reject that comparison. For a deeper insight into why, may I invite you to consider #NoSoftware.

Simples

I can’t pretend I’m not frustrated with the software community for its limited engagement with the question of organisational performance. Given that organisational performance is inextricably linked with the quality of life of folks working in software and IT departments everywhere, and with the health of society more broadly too. This post explores the (simple) connection between organisational performance and Organisational Psychotherapy.

Organisational Performance

I’m using the term “performance” here more broadly than might be regarded as common (but consistent with e.g. the Wikipedia entry).

Aside: In the vocabulary of the Antimatter Principle, we define organisational performance (somewhat opaquely, to be sure) as:

“The relative impact on all the needs of all The Folks That Matter™, of meeting all the needs of all The Folks That Matter™”

For the purposes of this post, I’m using the term to cover:

  • Financial performance (profits, revenues, return on assets, return on investment, debt ratio, etc.)
  • Shareholder value (total shareholder return, economic value added, share price, etc.)
  • Sales and market share
  • Customer and supplier (including employee and management) satisfaction
  • Corporate Social Responsibility
  • The well-being of the Core Group (probably the most crucial, yet least openly discussed)

The Proposition

Organisational Psychotherapy is a very simple proposition, really. Let’s lay it out and see who agrees or disagrees with the line of reasoning at any point:

  1. The assumptions and beliefs held in common (i.e. collectively) within an organisation drive every aspect of the behaviours of that organisation.
  2. The behaviours of an organisation, in toto, govern the performance of that organisation.
  3. To increase the performance of an organisation in any or all of the dimensions of organisational performance requires some changes in its behaviour.*
  4. Any and all changes in behaviour come from changes in the collective assumptions and beliefs held by the organisation.
  5. Organisations rarely have the competence (skills) to examine, change their collective assumptions and beliefs
  6. Outside intervention (i.e. the Organisational Psychotherapist) can help kick-start the organisation in its internal dialogue, introspection and acquisition of the skills necessary to examine and change its collective assumptions and beliefs.

*Note: Excluding considerations of external factors beyond the control of the organisation.

Put another way, Organisational Psychotherapy reduces the risks, costs and timescales of an organisation changing its collective assumptions and beliefs, and thereby reduces the risks, costs and timescales of improving the performance of the organisation.

Diagrammed

Here’s a diagram illustrating the above line of reasoning:

Graphic representation of the line of reasoning

 

Further Reading

Who Really Matters: The Core Group Theory of Power, Privilege, and Success ~ Art Kleiner
The Five Capitals – a framework for sustainability ~ Forum For the Future article
Productivity ~ Think Different blog post

Structurally Broken

“When you have a system in which structural failure is embedded, nothing short of structural change will significantly improve it.”

~ George Monbiot

He was talking about the UK’s transport infrastructure, but I’ve long believed the world’s “Software Industry” system is structurally broken, too. Even the very name “software industry” signals dysfunction. (Of course, this observation applies to many industries, not just software).

Software

“The great Harvard marketing professor Theodore Levitt used to tell his students, “People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole!” Every marketer we know agrees with Levitt’s insight. Yet these same people segment their markets by type of drill and by price point; they measure market share of drills, not holes; and they benchmark the features and functions of their drill, not their hole, against those of rivals.”

~ Clayton M. Christensen

We’ve heard time and again that people (customers, the general public) don’t want software, they want the utility that software can bring. Yet we call our industry the software industry, condemning us to build and deliver stuff that our customers don’t want. Granted, “that cat’s outa da bag” as Lt Columbo would say. Renaming the whole industry as something like “the pain solving industry” or the “attending to folks’ needs” industry ain’t going to happen any time soon, if ever.

Industry

Why do we describe the <name to be argued over> field as an “industry” anyways? Images of factories and satanic mills and slave plantations and the Apple “1984” advertisement come to mind. “Art” is rarely labelled as an industry, for example.

Structural Change

So what kind of structural change or changes might bring about some improvements?

#NoSoftware points the way. Analogous to the Paris 15-minute city idea (by implication, #NoCars).

And until customers stop asking for drills (software) and begin explicitly asking for holes (their needs met) we’ll likely not see much change.

What kind of structural changes can you envisage, suggest?

– Bob

Further Reading

Beyond Command And Control – A Book Review ~ Think Different blog post

 

Better Antimatter Customers

[Some years ago I wrote a post entitled “Better Customers“. This is an update of that post, reframed using the AntimatterPrinciple]

More effective organisations need better Folks That Matter™. Where “better” means more demanding discerning. Less gullible.

Folks that demand their needs are met, or as a minimum, attended-to, not tech, nor features, nor hand-wavy “value”.

Folks that refuse to pay when their needs are ignored, met poorly, or not addressed at all.

Folks that hold a healthy skepticism for unevidenced claims and promises.

Folks that disrupt the cosy hegemony of the technologists (see e.g. #NoSoftware).

Folks that push back against complex and expensive non-solutions.

Folks that push through the embarrassment of failure to call suppliers to account.

Folks that understand THEIR Folks That Matter™, and look for partners that want to help them in that.

Folks who see the value in relationships, trust, and evidence, whilst rejecting faith-based arguments.

Folks that buy on criteria other than lowest (ticket) price (cost being just one need amongst many).

Folks that embrace the human element and humane relationships in the world of business.

Folks that understand their own strengths – and their weaknesses, and act accordingly.

Folks that generously share the laurels of success, and share responsibility for failure too.

There are so many folks that feel a need to do better, but desperately need the support of their Folks That Matter™ to make that happen. Without better Folks That Matter™, the reforms and improvements we need will indeed take a long time in coming.

– Bob

 

Three Questions

There are three questions I like to ask my clients upon our first meeting. You might find them equally useful in your own dialogues within your particular organisation. Here are the three questions:

1. Is anyone in your organisation at all interested in productivity (or quality, or effectiveness)?

Note: Many folks will express an interest in productivity, quality or effectiveness, but not act congruent with this espoused interest. You might like to look into the work of Chris Argyris to learn more about this phenomenon (see: espoused theories vs theories-in-use). You may also care to look at what’s really happening within the organisation for evidence of actual interest in e.g. productivity.

If your true answer to question 1 is “no”, then there’s not much point proceeding to the next question.

But if there are folks in your organisation at all interested in productivity (or quality, or effectiveness), then question 2 is:

2. Do all interested parties agree that folks’ collective assumptions and beliefs about work, the world of work, and how work should work is at the root of effectiveness a.k.a. productivity?

If your answer to question 2 is “no”, then I propose you might like to look elsewhere for your answers, rather than proceed to question 3.

But if there are enough folks in your organisation who can agree that collective assumptions and beliefs about work, the world of work, and how work should work is at the root of organisational effectiveness a.k.a. productivity, then question 3 is:

3. How will you go about affecting this collection of shared assumptions and beliefs – in ways which translate to meeting folks’ needs for increased productivity (or quality, or effectiveness)?

Note: In some organisations, maybe there are already some initiatives or actions in train intended to bring about such a change in shared assumption and beliefs.

I’d be very interested to hear your answers.

– Bob

The Evolution Of An Idea

Many people have expressed an interest in learning more about the evolution of Organisational Psychotherapy. This post attempts to go back to the roots of the idea and follow its twists and turns as it evolved to where it is today (January 2020).

Familiar

Around the mid-nineties I had already been occupied for some years with the question of what makes for effective software development. My interest in the question was redoubled as I started my own software house (Familiar Limited) circa 1996. I felt I needed to know how to better serve our clients, and grow a successful business. It seemed like “increasing effectiveness” was the key idea.

This interest grew into the first strand of my work: Rightshifting. I had become increasingly disenchanted with the idea of coercive “process” as THE way forward. I had seen time and again how “process” had made things worse, not better. So I coined the term Rightshifting to describe the goal we had in mind (becoming more effective), rather than obsessing over the means (the word “process”, in my experience, conflating these two ideas).

“Rightshifting” describes movement “to the right” along a horizontal axis of increasing organisational effectiveness (see: chart). Even at this stage, my attention was on the organisation as a whole (and sometimes entire value chains) rather than on some specific element of an organisation, such as a software development team or department.

Circa 2008 I began to work on elaborating the Rightshifting idea, in an attempt to address a common question:

“What do all these organisations (distributed left and right along this horizontal axis) do differently, one from the other?”

Subsequently, the Marshall Model emerged (see: chart). Originally with no names for the four distinct phases, categories or zones of the model, but then over the space of a few months adding names for each zone: “Ad-hoc”, “Analytic” (as per Ackoff); “Synergistic” (as per Buckminster Fuller); and “Chaordic” (as per Dee Hock).

These names enabled me to see these zones for what they were: collective mindsets. And also to answer the above question:

Organisations are (more or less) effective because of the specific beliefs and assumptions they hold in common.

I began calling these common assumptions and beliefs a “collective mindset”, or memeplex. This led to the somewhat obvious second key question:

“If the collective mindset dictates the organisation’s effectiveness – not just in software development but in all its endeavours, across the board – how would an organisation that was seeking to become more effective go about changing its current collective mindset for something else? For something more effective?”

Organisation-wide Change

Organisation-wide change programmes and business transformations of all kinds – including so-called Digital Transformations – are renowned for their difficulty and high risk of failure. It seemed to me then (circa 2014), and still seems to me now, that “classical” approaches to change and transformation are not the way to proceed.

Hence we arrive at a different kind of approach, one borrowing from traditions and bodies of knowledge well outside conventional management and IT. I have come to call this approach “Organisational Psychotherapy” – named for its similarities with individual (and family) therapy. I often refer to this as

“Inviting the whole organisation onto the therapist’s couch“.

I invite and welcome your curiosity and questions about this brief history of the evolution of the idea of Organisational Psychotherapy.

– Bob

Further Reading

Memes Of The Four Memeplexes ~ A Think Different blog post

Discretionary Effort

“Discretionary effort” is a term often uses to describe the extra effort that some folks choose to put into whatever they’re doing. In the context of the workplace, it can mean things like working extra (unpaid) hours, attending to things outside of one’s immediate responsibilities, helping folks in addition to doing one’s own work, and so on. It’s a close cousin of that bête noire of organisations everywhere: “Employee engagement”. (Engaged employees are those employees who, amongst other things, contribute by way of discretionary effort).

I’ve worked with numerous managers and executives that ache to see more discretionary effort from their people. But discretionary effort is just that – discretionary. At the discretion of the folks involved.

When folks choose to put in extra hours, they do so because they’re motivated to do so. Sometimes this motivation is intrinsic (e.g. joy or pride in the work), and sometimes it’s extrinsic (e.g. bonuses, praise, threats – whether real or implied, etc.).

Of those managers and executives I’ve worked with, none have understood the psychology behind discretionary effort. Many have tried to incentivise it or exhort their people to greater discretionary efforts. Few have sought the psychological roots of intrinsic motivation (for which see e.g. Dan Pink’s book “Drive” – which explains these roots as “autonomy”, “mastery” and “purpose”).

Aside: Intrinsic motivation, and the conditions which help it to emerge, is the hallmark of the Synergistic mindset, and conspicuous by its marked absence in the working conditions fostered by the Analytic Mindset – Cf. the Marshall Model.

If we but think about it for a moment, extrinsically-motivated discretionary effort is not actually discretionary at all (although we do all have a choice in the face of workplace violence). Extrinsically-motivated extra effort is coerced, forced, obliged – or done for the reward(s), in which latter case it’s not “extra”, unpaid, effort per se.

So, real discretionary effort, much sought after as it is, is down to intrinsic motivation only. And as my popular post “Six FAQs” explains, we cannot coerce or force intrinsic motivation. We can but set up the conditions for intrinsic motivation to happen, and thereby hope for discretionary effort to emerge.

We can’t change someone else’s intrinsic motivation – only they can do that.”

And, by extension, we can’t increase someone else’s discretionary effort – only they can choose to do that.

So, if like so many other managers and executives, you’re aching for more discretionary effort, what will you do about it? What will you do about understanding the psychology behind intrinsic motivation, and about creating the conditions for intrinsic motivation to emerge?

– Bob

P.S. I’ve conscious chosen to NOT explore the morality – and rationally – of expecting employees to contribute “free” hours above and beyond their contractual terms of employment. I’d be happy to pen another post on the pressures of business, and in particular the pressure of the “runway” – a common cause of such urges for “Beyoncé time”-  given sufficient interest and demand.

Further Reading

What exactly is Discretionary Effort? ~ Jason Lauritsen (blog post)

Your REAL Job

Students of Ackoff and Deming will be aware of Deming’s First Theorem:

“Nobody gives a hoot about profit.”

W. E. Deming

This reminds us that senior executives are demonstrably less interested in the welfare of the organisations they serve than in their own well being.

“Executives’ actions make sense [only] if you look at them as taken in order to maximise the executive’s well being.”

~ Russell L. Ackoff

Of course, it can be career-limiting to bring this issue to general attention. As the well-known psychiatrist R D Laing said:

“They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.”

~ R. D. Laing

And yet, if we look at the implications for “doing a good job” – a preoccupation of many in employment, we can draw the following conclusion:

We’re doing a good job when we’re maximising our executives’ (our bosses’) well being. We’re not doing a good job when we ignore that in favour of focussing on e.g. making the company successful or profitable. This probably rings true with you if you but think about it, in your own context, for a few moments.

This underscores a hidden reality for many: our declared job is a FAUX job. Our REAL job is undeclared, unexamined, unspecified – and being good at THAT is therefore a matter of pure dumb luck and random chance. How often do you have a conversation with your senior executives about how you might contribute to maximising their well being? How can we attend to their needs – as folks that matter – without such a dialogue?

– Bob

Further Reading

Nobody Gives a Hoot About Profit ~ The W. Edwards Deming Institute Blog post

OP 101

This post attempts to set down the fundamental of OP – Organisational Psychotherapy. (For the details, or a lengthy tour through the subject, there’s a whole passel of other posts on this blog, plus my recent book “Hearts over Diamonds”).

Tl;Dr

The operational effectiveness of any knowledge work organisation is a function of its collective assumptions and beliefs about work. Significant improvements to organisational effectiveness requires a fundamental shift in these assumptions and beliefs. Organisational Psychotherapy makes this shift both feasible and economic.

The Basic Premise

The basic premise of Organisational Psychotherapy is that the effectiveness of any and all knowledge work organisations is a function of the collective mindset of the organisation. For significant improvements in the effectiveness of the organisation, the collective mindset has to undergo a step-change.

E = ƒ(Collective mindset)

Collective Mindset

In Organisational Psychotherapy, “collective mindset” (a.k.a. collective or shared memeplex) we mean “the set of assumptions and beliefs held in common by more-or-less everyone in the organisation”. Assumptions and beliefs concerning work, and how work should work (i.e. how work should be organised, directed and managed).

This set of assumptions and beliefs held in common are rarely held consciously, more often existing below the level of consciousness of the organisation and its individuals, both.

Culture

We often call the manifestation of the collective mindset the “culture” of the organisation – the typical behaviours and actions of individuals and groups driven, subconsciously, by their underlying, commonly-held, assumptions and beliefs.

The Performance Challenge

Many organisation may be happy with – or at least resigned to – their status quo. These organisations do not seek to understand the roots of organisational effectiveness. For the fewer number of organisations that do seek to improve their effectiveness, questions such as “what makes for increased effectiveness” and “what could we do to improve our effectiveness as an organisation” begin to surface.

The challenge, then, for this latter group of organisations, is to find some levers to pull, levers by which to affect the organisation’s effectiveness in the desired direction(s).

Some yet fewer number of organisations may come to understand the connection between their collective mindset and their effectiveness – current and aspirational. For these organisations, the challenge becomes:

“How can we shift our collective assumptions and beliefs in a direction – or directions – that support our aspirations for e.g. improved effectiveness?”

Organisational Psychotherapy

So to the main focus of this 101 unit:

How might those organisations that see the connection between their collective assumptions and beliefs, and their effectiveness, go about shifting those assumption and beliefs?

For individuals faces with this challenge in their daily lives (“How might I as a person go about having a happier or more productive life? How might I shift my assumptions about relationships, people, myself, etc. to see that come about?”), psychotherapy is one option they may consider, and thence embark upon.

So it is with organisations. Asking themselves the question:

“How might I as an organisation go about having a happier or more productive life, see improved effectiveness, performance, greater success?”

leads to the challenging question:

“How might I/we shift my/our collective assumptions and beliefs about relationships, people, myself/ourself, etc. to see that come about?”

At this point, Organisational Psychotherapy is one option the organisation may consider, and embark upon.

The Bottom Line

Until recently, organisations have not had the option of Organisational Psychotherapy. Even now it’s an option little known and still in its infancy. So organisations have been constrained to other options, such as tackling the above question “How might I/we shift my/our collective assumptions and beliefs about relationships, people, myself, etc.” from within their own resources, or with the aid of e.g. external consultants. Not being well-versed in the fields of Organisational Psychotherapy, psychology, sociology, group dynamics, etc., this path can consume much time and attention, many resources, inflate business and reputational risks, and generate high levels of waste and stress. Witness: the huge number of business books on organisational change, Digital Transformation, and so on.

Organisational Psychotherapists offers a degree of competency in these fields (psychology, sociology, group dynamics, therapy enabling reflection and leading to possible shifts in assumptions and beliefs, etc.) not natively present in most organisations. This competency eases the path to the kind of change (or shift) they seek, saving time (time is money), missteps, reducing the risks, and lowering stress levels for all involved.

A Request

Whether you have found this explanation of the fundamentals of Organisational Psychotherapy useful or useless, I would be delighted and thankful to hear your comments and questions.

– Bob

Beyond Command and Control – A Book Review

BeyondCommand&amp;ControlCover

John Seddon of Vanguard Consulting Ltd. kindly shared an advance copy of his upcoming new book “Beyond Command and Control” with me recently. I am delighted to be able to share my impressions of the book with you, by way of this review.

I’ve known John and his work with e.g. the Vanguard Method for many years. The results his approach delivers are well known and widely lauded. But that approach is not widely taken up. I doubt whether this new book will move the needle much on that, but that’s not really the point. As he himself writes “change is a normative process”. That’s to say, folks have to go see for themselves how things really are, and experience the dysfunctions of the status quo for themselves, before becoming open to the possibilities of pursuing new ways of doing things.

Significant Improvement Demands a Shift in Thinking

The book starts out by explaining how significant improvement in services necessitates a fundamental shift in leaders’ thinking about the management of service operations. Having describe basic concepts such as command and control, and people-centred services, the book then moves on to explore the concept of the “management factory”. Here’s a flavour:

“In the management factory, initiatives are usually evaluated for being on-plan rather than actually working.”

(Where we might define “working” as “actually meeting the needs of the Folks that Matter”.)

Bottom line: the management factory is inextricable bound up with the philosophy of command and control – and it’s a primary cause of the many dysfunctions described throughout the book.

Putting Software and IT Last

One stand-out section of the book is the several chapters explaining the role of software and IT systems in the transformed service, or organisation. These chapters excoriate the software and IT industry, and in particular Agile methods, and caution against spending time and money on building or buying software and IT “solutions” before customer needs are fully understood.

“Start without IT. The first design has to be manual. Simple physical means, like pin-boards, T-cards and spreadsheet.”

If there is an existing IT system, treat it as a constraint, or turn it off. Only build or buy IT once the new service design is up and running and stable. Aside: This reflects my position on #NoSoftware.

John echoes a now-common view in the software community regarding Agile software development and the wider application of Agile principles:

“We soon came to regard this phenomenon [Agile] as possibly the most dysfunctional management fad we have ever come cross.”

I invite you to read this section for an insight into the progressive business perspective on the use of software and IT in business, and the track record of Agile in the field. You may take some issue with the description of Agile development methods as described here – as did I – but the minor discrepancies and pejorative tone pale into insignificance compared to the broader point: there’s no point automating the wrong service design, or investing in software or IT not grounded in meeting folks’ real needs.

Summary

I found Beyond Command and Control uplifting and depressing in equal measure.

Uplifting because it describes real-world experiences of the benefits of fundamentally shifting thinking from command and control to e.g. systems thinking (a.k.a. “Synergistic thinking” Cf. the Marshall Model).

And depressing because it illustrates how rare and difficult is this shift, and how far our organisations have yet to travel to become places which deliver us the joy in work that Bill Deming says we’re entitled to. Not to mention the services that we as customers desperately need but do not receive. It resonates with my work in the Marshall Model, with command-and-control being a universal characteristic of Analytic-minded organisations, and systems thinking being reserved to the Synergistic– and Chaordic-minded.

– Bob

Further Reading

I Want You To Cheat! ~ John Seddon
Freedom From Command and Control ~ John Seddon
The Whitehall Effect ~ John Seddon
Systems Thinking in the Public Sector ~ John Seddon

#NoSoftware

I wrote a post some time ago about No Hashtags (hashtags on e.g. Twitter which use the #No… prefix). My tweets occasionally mention various #No… hashtags, including #NoEstimates, #NoTesting and #NoSoftware.

I’m thinking it’s about time I delved just a little into the #NoSoftware hashtag. Like most of my posts on Think Different, this one will be brief. #NoSoftware is a deep subject, upon which I could write a whole book, had I but the inclination (or demand).

To whet your appetite, and illustrate the possibilities of #NoSoftware, we need look no further than the story of Portsmouth City Council housing repairs, where an existing, expensive and inflexible IT system was switched off, replaced with manual controls, and only later some limited software support reintroduced, once the needs of all the Folks That Mattered had been fully understood and catered to.

Payback

Let’s start with the payback of #NoSoftware.

As Steve Jobs wrote:

“The way you get programmer productivity is not by increasing the lines of code per programmer per day. That doesn’t work. The way you get programmer productivity is by eliminating lines of code you have to write. The line of code that’s the fastest to write, that never breaks, that doesn’t need maintenance, is the line you never had to write.”

~ Steve Jobs

A pretty clear alignment with #NoSoftware (yes, I’m coming to that presently) wouldn’t you say?

Let’s just dissect that statement:

Eliminating lines of code we have to write

We’re not talking about writing denser code – cramming more functionality into fewer lines. Fewer lines of code means we’re done quicker, having spent less time, effort and money on the writing of code. That’s a saving in and of itself.

Never breaks

So the lines of code we don’t write means we don’t have to worry about their quality (no matter whether you use defect prevention or testing as your go-to strategy in that arena). More time, effort and money saved.

Doesn’t need maintenance

By maintenance here, I’m thinking about changes to the code occasioned by the changing needs over time of the Folks That Matter, or changes necessitated by changing technical environments. I’m not dwelling on remediation efforts (bug fixes to production code).

More Payback

But the payback of #NoSoftware doesn’t stop with the above aspects. In the bigger picture, it’s not just about writing fewer lines of code. It’s about eschewing software-based solutions more or less entirely in favour of considering the alternatives. More payback includes:

Happier customers

It’s an old saw that “folks don’t want an 8mm drill, they want an 8mm hole”. Similarly, folks almost universally don’t want software, they’re looking to have their needs met. And software for many of these folks has too many negative impacts to be their preferred option. Software is generally written to save (suppliers) costs, not to improve customers’ satisfaction. Most people hugely prefer to interact with other human beings, rather than a computer controlled by – generally lame and inflexible – software.

Opening the Door to Changing Thinking

Software systems as generally conceived, ordered and delivered institutionalise – or “lock-in” – the existing collective mindset. Once installed and paid for, the “sunk cost” fallacy undermines any possibility of changing the existing set of assumptions and beliefs about how the works works. In the vast majority of cases the software system locks the organisation even more tightly into its existing Command & Control (a.k.a. Analytic Mindset) ways of working.

#NoSoftware – Definition

When I use the #NoSoftware hashtag, I’m inviting folks to think again about what, often, are near-autonomic responses. In this case, the System One (cf Kahneman) response – “fast, instinctive, emotional, stereotypical, unconscious and automatic” – when faced with some needs of some Folks that Matter, to satisfy those needs with a software-based solution.

I guess some folks assume that I’m advocating zero software. A kind of Luddites’ heaven. This is not my position. In using the #NoSoftware hashtag, I’m basically saying

“Under some circumstances, maybe there are other, more effective means to meet folks’ needs than the default assumption/strategy that we have to do so via software”.

“How about we think about, talk about, and consider those various circumstances, and means?”

In this way, the #NoSoftware hashtag is a metaphor for

“Would you be willing to think again, and maybe join the search for more effective, relevant or alternative means of meeting the needs in question?”

Example

Some years past, I was working with a company that offered a software product to the corporate market. The product had been in the market for some years, and it was clear that one of the blockers to market penetration was the complexity of the problem and the challenges corporate customers faced in dealing with that complexity. The company chose to build more and more software into their product to help their customers handle the complexity. No one ever discussed the options of offering a consulting service and/or a managed service, using human expertise, to replace or augment their software product. Consequences were, customers remained challenged, and the company’s revenues suffered.

Blockers

As Upton Sinclair’s Dictum tells us:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

~ Upton Sinclair

How much more difficult, then, when it’s the revenues of a whole industry we’re calling into question. If the software industry changed tack and stopped writing software, what then? Financial ruin? World collapse?

There’s a multitude of smart people who currently waste much of their time – and lives – writing and delivering solutions to folks’ needs in the form of software. I suggest that to have this multitude refocus and retrain themselves to consider, and deliver, other forms of solution – solutions with less or no software – would make the world a better place for all the Folks that Matter. And “better”, as far as customers are concerned, would mean increased demand and more revenues for savvy suppliers.

Uptake

Like many of my invitations, I find #NoSoftware has few people willing to consider it as an alternative strategy to the status quo of just getting on with writing (more and more) software. I guess this signifies the general learned helplessness, and lack of engagement, autonomy and mastery, we find in most workplaces and employees today. So be it.

– Bob

Further Reading

Why Doctors Hate Their Computers – Atul Gawande
Forget your people – real leaders act on the system ~ John Seddon
Dangerous Enthusiasms: E-government, Computer Failure and Information Systems Development ~ Robin Gauld, Shaun Goldfinch

Why Reason When Faith is So Much More Comfortable?

I’ve become very bored trying to explain why Agile – even when practised as the Snowbird Gods intended – is a dead-end and why we might choose to bark up a different tree for progress in improving the effectiveness of software development organisations.

Firstly. No one seems at all interested in “improving the effectiveness of software development organisations”. Yes, there does seem to be some interest in being seen to be doing something about improving the effectiveness of software development organisations. Hence SAFe, DAD, LeSS – and Agile itself. None of these approaches do anything about actually improving the effectiveness of software development organisations, of course. But that’s not the point. Improvement *theatre* wins the day in just about every case. Irrespective of practices done “right”, or more often, done “in name only” (Cf AINO).

To actually do anything about improving the effectiveness of software development organisations requires we remove some fundamental system constraints, including:

  • Optimising parts of the organisation in isolation
  • Pursuit of specialism (vs generalists)
  • Control (as in Command & Control)
  • Annual budgeting
  • Extrinsic motivation
  • Ignorance of the special needs/realities of collaborative knowledge work
  • Separation of decision-making from the work
  • Decision-makers’ ignorance of and indifference to customers’ needs
  • Seeing performance as consequent on the efforts of individuals and “talent”
  • Discounting the paramountcy of social interactions and inter-personal relationships

And that ain’t gonna happen.

Second, improving the effectiveness of software development organisations kinda misses the point. In that software development is part of the problem. Making it more effective is just – as Ackoff would say – doing more wrong things righter.

Instead, a focus on meeting folks’ needs, or at least, as a minimum, attending to their needs, would serve our search for effectives rather better. And that generally requires less software, and placing software development last in terms of priority, way before understanding customers’ needs ( (and more generally the needs of the Folks’ That Matter).

Given that the software industry’s revenues are contingent on producing software (see: Upton Sinclair’s Dictum) that ain’t gonna happen, either.

Third, if we regard improving the effectiveness of software development organisations as our aim, and limit our ambitions to that part of the organisation concerned directly with software development (i.e. the IT department or the Product Development department) then, at best, we’ll only ever see a local optimisation. Which as Ackoff tells us, only makes matters (i.e. the effectiveness of the whole organisation) *worse*. To improve organisational effectiveness (not to mention supply chain effectiveness, customers’ effectiveness) requires us to consider the organisation as a system, and focus on the systemic relationships between the parts, rather than on the parts taken separately. And given that systems thinking has failed to gain much traction in over fifty years of trying, THAT ain’t gonna happen either.

I’ll just leave this here:

“If you could reason with Agile people, there would be no Agile people.”

It all looks a bit bleak, doesn’t it? Another method isn’t going to help much, either. Unless it addresses the three points outline above. As a minimum.

That’s why I have been for some years inviting folks to consider Organisational Psychotherapy as a way forward.

But reason, rationality, and a cold hard look at reality and the shortcoming of the status quo ain’t gonna happen. Until organisations see a need for that to happen.

– Bob

What Orgs Want

Offices

Or, more accurately, what organisations need. (Wants and needs are very rarely the same thing).

First off, does it make any sense to talk about what an organisation might need? Sure, we can discuss the needs of the various groups within an organisation – the Core Group, the shareholders, the employees, and so on. And the needs of the individuals involved – not that the subject of individual needs get much airtime in the typical organisation.

NB I recently wrote a post about the needs of some of these groups in “Damn Outcomes!”.

Back at the main theme of this post: what might be the needs of a given organisation?

Well, like individuals, we make sweeping generalisations at our own risk. At least for individuals, we have some guidance in the form of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

From the perspective of Organisational Psychotherapy, an organisation’s needs, whilst fundamental, rarely receive much overt attention. In the course of the therapeutic relationship, the organisation itself may come to a clearer awareness of its own (collective) needs. Those needs may even change and morph as they emerge, become more explicit, and become a valid topic for dialogue and discussion (i.e. ”discussable”).

But we have some basic options for consideration re: the possible needs of an organisation. I wrote about these options some time ago now, in a post entitled “Business Doctrine”. Extrapolating from that post, here’s some possible business (organisational) needs:

  • The need to create and keep customers (Drucker)
  • The need to supply goods and services to customers (serve the needs of the customer) (Drucker)
  • The need to provide a service (Burnett)
  • The need to provide a product or service that people need and do it so well that it’s profitable (Rouse)
  • The need to act as a nexus for a set of contracting relationships among individuals (Jensen and Meckling)
  • The need to optimise transaction costs when coordinating production through market exchange (Coase)
  • The need to serve society (McLaughlin et al)
  • The need to maximise the medium-term earning per share for shareholders (US business schools)
  • The need to make a profit so as to continue to do things or make things for people (Handy)
  • The need to make money (Slater)
  • The need to make a profit (Watkinson Committee)

Given the Rightshifting perspective that the purpose of any given business is more or less unique to a time, a place, and the people involved, we might reasonable say that the needs of any given organisation are also more or less unique to a time, a place, and the people involved.

Summary

To sum up: I choose to believe that organisations, collectively, do have needs. Each organisation is different – it has its own, different and sometime unique needs. The dialogue involved in surfacing any given organisation’s needs brings benefits in and of itself. Absent clarity on those needs, how can the organisation decide on its priorities, on what matters?

– Bob

Further Reading

The Future Of Software-Intensive Product Development – Think Different blog post

 

My Work

My work of the past ten+ years tells executives, managers and employees:

  1. What is the root of the problems in their organisation
  2. What to do about it (how to fix it)
  3. Why they won’t do anything about it

The Root of the Problems

The root of the problems in your organisation is the collective assumptions and beliefs (I generally refer to these as the collective mindset) held in common by all people within the organisation. Most significant (in the conventional hierarchical organisation) are the assumptions and beliefs held in common by the senior executives. In the Marshall Model I refer to the most frequently occurring set of collective assumptions and beliefs as the Analytic Mindset.

In knowledge-work organisations in particular, the Analytic Mindset is at the root of most, if not all, major organisational dysfunctions and “problems”.

What to Do About It

The way forward, leaving the dysfunctions of the Analytic Mindset behind, is to set about revising and replacing the prevailing set of collective assumptions and beliefs in your organisation with a new set of collective assumptions and beliefs. A collective mindset less dysfunctional re: knowledge work, one more suited to (collaborative) knowledge work. In the Marshall Model I refer to this new, more effective set of collective assumptions and beliefs as the Synergistic Mindset. Yes, as an (occasionally) rational, intentional herd, we can change our common thinking, our set of collective assumptions and beliefs – if we so choose.

Why You Won’t Do Anything

You may be forgiven for thinking that changing a collective mindset is difficult, maybe impossibly so. But that’s not the reason you won’t do anything.

The real reason is that the current situation (the dysfunctional, ineffective, lame behaviours driven by the Analytic Mindset) is good enough for those in power to get their needs met. Never mind that employees are disengaged and stressed out. Never mind that customers are tearing their hair out when using your byzantine software products and screaming for better quality and service. Never mind that shareholders are seeing meagre returns on their investments. Those in charge are all right, Jack. And any suggestion of change threatens their relatively comfortable situation.

So, what are you going to do? Just ignore this post and carry on as usual, most likely.

– Bob

Obduracy

I tweeted recently:

“The things organisations have to do to make software development successful are well known. And equally well known is the fact that organisations will absolutely not do these things.”

Here’s a table comparing some of the things we know are necessary for success, alongside the things organisations do instead.

Necessary for Success What Organisations Do Instead
Teamwork Heroic individualism
Primacy of people skills Primacy of tech skills
Self-organisation, self-management Managers managing the work(ers)
Systems view of the organisation Partition the organisation into discrete silos
Manage the organisation/system as an integral whole Manage each silo separately
Use systemic measures to steer by Use silo-local measures to steer by 
Relationships matter most (quality of the social dynamic) The code’s the thing (e.g. velocity)
Effectiveness (do the right things) Efficiency (do things right)
Zero defects (quality is free) (defect prevention) Testing and inspections
The workers own the way the work works Mandated processes and methods (management owns the way the work works)
Workers are generalists Workers are specialists 
Trust Rules, policies
Theory Y Theory X
Intrinsic motivation, discipline Extrinsic (imposed) motivation, discipline 
Everyone’s needs matter (everyone’s a customer and a supplier) Only the bosses’ needs matter (your boss is your only customer)
Explicit requirements, negotiated and renegotiated with each customer, just in time No explicit requirements, or Big Requirements Up Front
Incremental delivery against the needs of all the Folks That Matter, short feedback loops  Big Bang delivery, some or all constituencies overlooked or ignored, long or no feedback loops
Kaikaku and kaizen, to serve business goals Kaizen only, by rote
No estimates, flexible schedules Estimates, fixed schedules
Smooth flow (a regular cadence of repeatably and predictably meeting folks’ needs) “Lumpy” or constipated flow 
Work is collaborative knowledge work Work is work
People bring their whole selves to work People limit themselves to their “work face”.

Do you have any more entries for this table? I’d love to hear from you.

– Bob

The Big Shift

Let’s get real for a moment. Why would ANYONE set about disrupting the fundamental beliefs and assumptions of their whole organisation just to make their software and product development more effective?

It’s not for the sake of increased profit – Deming’s First Theorem states:

“Nobody gives a hoot about profits”.

If we believe Russell Ackoff, executives’ motivation primarily stems from maximising their own personal well being a.k.a. their own quality of work life.

Is There a Connection?

Is there any connection between increased software and product development effectiveness, and increased quality of work life for executives? Between the needs of ALL the Folks That Matter and the smaller subset of those Folks That Matter that we label “executives”? Absent such a connection, it seems unrealistic (understatement!) to expect executives to diminish their own quality of work life for little or no gain (to them personally).

Note: Goldratt suggests that for the idea of effectiveness to gain traction, it’s necessary for the executives of an organisation to build a True Consensus – a jointly agreed and shared action plan for change (shift).

Is Disruption Avoidable?

So, the question becomes:

Can we see major improvements in the effectiveness (performance, cost, quality, predictability, etc.) of our organisation, without disrupting the fundamental beliefs and assumptions of our whole organisation?

My studies and experiences both suggest the answer is “No”. That collaborative knowledge work (as in software and product development) is sufficiently different from the forms of work for which (Analytic-minded) organisations have been built as to necessitate a fundamentally different set of beliefs and assumptions about how work must work (the Synergistic memeplex). If the work is to be effective, that is.

In support of this assertion I cite the widely reported failure rates in Agile adoptions (greater than 80%), Lean Manufacturing transformations (at least 90%) and in Digital Transformations (at least 95%).

I’d love to hear your viewpoint.

– Bob

Further Reading

Organisational Cognitive Dissonance ~ Think Different blog post

Something’s Gotta Give

 

“The things businesses have to do to make software development successful are well known. And equally well known is the fact that businesses will absolutely not do these things.”

This reality puts us in a bind. We find ourselves in a position where we have to trade off successful development against conforming to organisational norms. We can have one – or the other. It’s not a binary trade-off, we can for example relax some norms and gain some (small) improvements in success. But by and large it’s a zero sum game. At least from the perspective of those folks that find value in everyone conforming to preexisting norms.

I don’t think many business folks realise this trade-off exists. Almost all the business folks I have met over the years seem unaware that their norms are what’s holding back their success in software (and product) development. I put this down to the absence of any real understanding of the fundamentally different nature of collaborative knowledge work (different to their experiences and assumptions).

Some of the Things

By way of illustration, here’s just a few of the things that are necessary for successful software (and product) development, that businesses just won’t do:

De-stressing

Removing stressors (things that create distress) from the workplace. These things include: job insecurity; being directed and controlled; being told where, when and how to work; etc..

Stressors serve to negatively impact cognitive function (amongst other things).

Trusting

Placing trust in the folks actually doing the work. We might refer to this a a Theory-Y posture.

Experimenting

Finding out through disciplined and systematic experimentation what works and what doesn’t. See: the Toyota Improvement Kata.

Being Human

Embracing what it means to be human; seeing employees as infinitely different, fully-rounded human beings with a broad range emotions, needs and foibles (as opposed to e.g. interchangeable cogs in a machine).

Intrinsic Discipline

Relying on intrinsic motivation to encourage and support a disciplined approach to work.

Meaningful Dialogue

Talking about what’s happening, the common purpose, and what the problems are.

Eschewing Numbers

Realising the limitations with numbers, dashboards, KPIs and the like and finding other ways to know whether things are moving in the “right direction”.

Prioritising Interpersonal Relationships

In collaborative knowledge work (especially teamwork), it’s the quality of the interpersonal relationships that’s by far the greatest factor in success.

Summary

If your organisation needs to see more success in its software (and product) development efforts, then something’s gotta give. Specifically, some of its prevailing norms, assumption and beliefs have gotta give. And given that these norms come as a self-reinforcing memeplex (a.k.a. the Analytic Mindset), a piecemeal approach is highly unlikely to afford much in the way of progress.

– Bob

Hearts over Diamonds Preface

In case you’re undecided as to whether my recently published book on Organisational Psychotherapy will be worth some of your hard-earned spons, here’s the text of the preface to the current edition (full book available in various ebook formats via Leanpub and in paperback via Lulu.


Will This Book be Worth Your Time?

To my knowledge, this is the first book ever written about Organisational Psychotherapy. Thanks for taking the time to have a look. This is a short book. And intentionally so. It’s not that Organisational Psychotherapy is a shallow domain. But this book just lays down the basics. Understanding of the deeper aspects and nuances best emerges during practice, I find.

This book aims to inform three distinct groups of people:

  • Senior managers and executives who might find advantage in hiring and engaging with an Organisational Psychotherapist.
  • Folks who might have an interest in becoming Organisational Psychotherapists themselves, either within their organisations or as e.g. freelancers.
  • Folks within organisations who might find themselves involved in some way in their organisation’s engagement with one or more organisational psychotherapists.

We’re all busy people, so I guess you may be curious, or even a little concerned, as to whether this book will provide a good return on the time you might spend reading it. I’ve tried to arrange things so that you can quickly answer that question.

I intend this book to be easy to understand, and to that end I’ve used as much plain English as I can muster. I guess some folks find the whole idea of Organisational Psychotherapy somewhat intimi‐ dating, and fear the ideas here will “go over their heads”. Let me reassure you that I’ve tried to make this book common-sensical, friendly and down-to-earth.

Foundational

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.”

~ Rumi

In writing this book, I’ve set out to define the emerging discipline – or field – of Organisational Psychotherapy.

In a nutshell, Organisational Psychotherapy is a response to the growing realisation in business circles that it’s the collective mindset of an organisation (often mistakenly referred-to as culture) that determines an organisation’s overall effectiveness, productivity and degree of success. By “collective mindset” I mean the beliefs, assumptions and attitudes that an organisation as a whole holds in common about work and how the world of work should work.

Roots

Organisational Psychotherapy leverages over a hundred years of research and experience in the field of personal psychotherapy, a field which has evolved from its roots in the Middle East in the ninth century, and later, in the West, through the works of Wilhelm Wundt (1879) and Sigmund Freud (1896). Research and experience which, in large part, can usefully be repurposed from the individual psyche to the collective psyche (i.e. the organisation).

In my career of over thirty years in the software business, I’ve run the whole gamut of approaches in search of organisational effectiveness, in search of approaches that actually work. It’s been a long and tortuous journey in many respects, but I have come to believe, absolutely, that success resides mostly in the relationships between people working together, in the web of informal customer- supplier relationships within and between businesses. And I’ve come to believe that organisational effectiveness mostly comes from the assumptions all these folks hold in common.

Given that, I ask the question:

“What kind of intervention could help organisations and their people with uncovering their existing, collectively-held, beliefs, assumptions and attitudes? With discussing those, seeing the connection with their business and personal problems and challenges, and doing something about that?”

The answer I’ve arrived at is Organisational Psychotherapy. And so, when I’m working with clients these days, Organisational Psychotherapy is my default mode of practice.

But this book does not attempt to make the case for my beliefs. It’s not going to try to persuade you to see things my way. Organisational Psychotherapy may pique your interest, but I’m pretty sure you’ll stick with what you already believe.

So, if you have an open mind, or generally share my perspective already, this book may serve you in getting deeper into the practicalities and benefits of Organisational Psychotherapy, whether that’s as:

  • a decision-maker sponsoring an intervention
  • a potential recruit to the ranks of organisational psychotherapists
  • an individual participating in an Organisational Psychotherapy intervention in your organisation

Relationships Govern Dialogue

A central tenet of Organisational Psychotherapy is that it’s the quality of the relationships within and across an organisation that moderates the organisation’s capacity for meaningful dialogue. As we shall see in more detail later, fragmented and fractious relation‐ ships impair an organisation’s ability to surface, discuss and recon‐ sider its shared beliefs.

Effective Organisational Psychotherapy needs a certain capacity for skilful dialogue within and across an organisation. Absent this capacity, folks have a slow, laborious and uncomfortable time trying to surface and discuss their commonly-held beliefs and assumptions.

In practice, then, any Organisational Psychotherapy, in its early stages at least, must attend to improving relationships in the workplace, and thus the capacity for meaningful dialogue. This helps the organisation have more open and productive dialogues – should it wish to – about its core beliefs and implicit assumptions, about its ambitions and goals, about the quality of its relationships and dialogues, and about its strategies for success. I wholeheartedly believe that:

People are NOT our greatest asset. In collaborative knowledge work particularly, it’s the relationships BETWEEN people that are our greatest asset.

Whether and how the organisation might wish to develop those relationships and dialogues in pursuit of its goals is a matter for the organisation itself. Without Organisational Psychotherapy, I’ve rarely seen such dialogues emerge and thrive.

The Goal

Improving relationships in the workplace, and thereby helping the emergence of productive dialogues, are the means to an end, rather than the end itself. The goal of all Organisational Psychotherapy interventions is to support the client organisation in its journey towards being more – more like the organisation it needs to be. Closer to its own, ever-evolving definition of its ideal self.

We’ll explore what that means in later chapters.

References

Lencioni, P. (2012). The Advantage: Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patterson, K. (2012). Crucial Conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. Place of publication not identified: McGraw Hill.

Schein, E. H. (2014). Humble Inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Red Lines

There’s been a lot of talk about Theresa May’s “Red Lines” in the media recently.

Every organisation I’ve ever known has had their own Red Lines – ideas, principles, practices and policies which are deemed unacceptable, beyond the pale. Many of these latter would make the organisation markedly more effective, efficient or profitable, yet are ruled out.

Here’s a list of such ideas, in roughly increasing order of benefit and unacceptability both:

Transparency of salaries
Attending to folks’ needs
Nonviolence
Restorative justice (vs Retributive justice)
Self-organising / self-managing teams
No estimates
No projects
No tools
No software
Defect prevention (ZeeDee) approach to Quality (vs Testing / Inspection)
Employees choosing their own tools, languages and development hardware
Employees designing / owning their own physical workspace(s)
(colour schemes, lighting, furniture, floor plans, drinks machines, games etc.) 
Employees choosing their own ways of working (methods, processes)
Organising to optimise Flow (vs costs)
Employees choosing their own working locations (office, cafe, remote, etc.)
Employees choosing their own working hours (incl. hours per day / week)
Employees forming their own teams
Employees guiding their own training and career, skills development
Employees hiring their own peers (and coaches)
Paramountcy of interpersonal relationships and social skills (vs tech skills)
Organisational Psychotherapy
Teams appointing their direct managers
Teams appointing their senior managers
“Open book” financials
Employees choosing their own salaries and terms of employment
Teams awarding themselves their own bonuses
No managers (alternatives to control hierarchies)
Fellowship (No positional leadership)
Do nothing that is not play

Where does your organisation draw its red lines – and how much more effective could it be if it redrew them?

– Bob

 

The Edge of Intolerable

In your workplace…

How tolerable is it to trust developers (and others) to manage their own time?

How tolerable is it to trust developers to talk with customers?

How tolerable is it for people to simply “play”?

How tolerable is it to trust people to do what they believe is best for the company and its present, and future?

How tolerable is it to have people set their own salaries, hours, locations, and tools?

How tolerable is it for people to choose who they’ll team with?

How tolerable is it for teams to choose where to focus their efforts?

How tolerable is it to spend time on improving the way the work works, on improving quality, on not shipping a product or feature right now?

How tolerable is it to use logic and data to direct efforts rather than rely on the opinions of the highest paid people?

How tolerable is it to ask these kinds of questions?

The Tolerability Envelope

If you’re looking to make a difference, ask not “What is the best we can do?” but rather “What is the best we can do that will be tolerated here? Where are the Red Lines?”

And to make a major difference, would you be willing to start a movement towards making more things more tolerable?

– Bob

%d bloggers like this: