Considering an Agile Transformation?

Are you pondering an Agile transformation for your organisation? Here’s the rub: at best, you’re merely going to catch up with practices from two decades ago. Agile transformation, in essence, is the process of transitioning an entire organisation from its existing approach to work, to an Agile approach. This could mean adopting Scrum, Kanban, or a hybrid of multiple Agile frameworks.

So, you’ve successfully transitioned to Agile. Congratulations, but what have you actually gained? It’s now the norm, not the exception. (And Lame Agile is the prevailing norm). Agile is the minimum, not the cutting edge. It’s high time organisations moved past Agile, seeking innovative, post-Agile approaches, such as “Quintessence“.

There’s no real benefit to running a marathon, only to realise you’re still miles and decades behind the frontrunners.

Get in touch if you’re curious…

Barriers to OP

Organisational psychotherapy, much like individual therapy, offers an avenue for addressing inherent issues and fostering growth. However, similar to individuals who resist therapy, organisations often shy away from organisational psychotherapy due to reasons that mirror individual hesitations.

One of the main barriers is the stigma associated with seeking help. Just as individuals may be apprehensive about perceived judgments when attending therapy, organisations often fear potential negative repercussions in public image. Acknowledging a need for organisational psychotherapy can be perceived as admitting that the organisation has deep-seated issues, a message many firms are reluctant to send to stakeholders.

Another significant obstacle is fear of change. People often resist therapy because they fear it might bring them to confront uncomfortable truths and provoke significant personal change. Similarly, organisations are typically resistant to substantial shifts that can disrupt established patterns, even when such change may be beneficial.

Finally, organisations, much like individuals, may lack insight into their problems or may underestimate the potential benefits of therapy. They may be locked into a particular mindset, denying the existence of an issue just as a person might not acknowledge their personal problems.

Just as these barriers can be overcome in individual therapy, they can also be addressed in organisational psychotherapy, but it requires a willingness to open up to the need for change and improvement.

Management Practices and Collective Psyches

At a glance, management practices seem to emerge from a combination of managerial experiences, organisational traditions, business school teachings, and so on. But if we delve deeper, we’ll find that these practices are rooted in the underlying assumptions and beliefs of managers and their colleagues. This deeper layer, what we as organisational psychotherapists term as the ‘collective psyche’ of the organisation, plays a crucial role in shaping its management practices, and in selecting which practices apply.

This collective psyche, composed of the organisation’s shared assumptions and beliefs, acts as the foundation for how an organisation operates and makes decisions. It’s not just about what is explicitly taught or conveyed; it’s the unwritten, unspoken ‘truths’ that permeate the organisation. It’s about how employees perceive the organisation’s goals, how they view their roles within the business, and what they believe to be the ‘right’ way to do things.

For instance, an organisation that collectively values innovation will likely adopt management practices that promote creativity and risk-taking. Conversely, an organisation that holds conservative beliefs may implement more risk-averse and hierarchical management approaches.

These assumptions and beliefs also influence how an organisation reacts to challenges and changes. The collective psyche can either facilitate adaptability and resilience, or it can lead to resistance and rigidity.

It’s important to note, however, that this collective psyche isn’t static. It evolves over time, shaped by experiences, leadership, external influences, and even the individual beliefs of employees. It’s a complex and dynamic construct, deeply interwoven with the fabric of an organisation’s culture.

Thus, while we may see management practices as coming from experience, training, and tradition, they fundamentally spring from the organisation’s collective psyche – its shared assumptions and beliefs. This understanding highlights the importance of aligning management practices with the collective psyche, as well as nurturing a healthy, positive collective psyche within an organisation.

It also explains the key benefit of #OrganisationalPsychotherapy – enabling organisations to surface and reflect on their all to often submerged collective psyche.

Drucker On The Collective Memeplex

Peter Drucker, one of the most influential management thinkers of the 20th century, had a lot to say about collective assumptions and beliefs in business. In his opinion, these elements are often deeply foundational to an organisation’s culture, influencing its strategy, operations and performance.

Drucker argued that the assumptions and beliefs shaping a business’s actions aren’t always explicit. They’re often unconscious, becoming part of the organisation’s culture. He referred to these implicit beliefs as the “theory of the business”. According to him, every organisation, whether it knows it or not, operates on such a theory.

For Drucker, this theory was essentially a set of assumptions about what a company gets paid for. It’s about understanding the reality of the business, its markets, its customers, its core competencies, and its societal role. These assumptions guide behaviour, decisions, and the direction of the organisation. They set boundaries and establish guidelines within which decisions are made and actions are taken.

However, Drucker warned of the dangers of clinging too tightly to these assumptions. He believed that businesses get into trouble when their environments shift but their theories of the business don’t. This, he argued, is why innovation and ongoing analysis are critical. Companies must continually question their assumptions, keeping them in line with changing realities.

He also believed that it’s important for these collective assumptions and beliefs to be shared across the organisation. If employees don’t understand or don’t buy into these beliefs, there’s likely to be confusion, inefficiency, and a lack of coordination. This can result in subpar performance.

In sum, for Drucker, collective assumptions and beliefs play a crucial role in shaping an organisation’s actions and performance. However, businesses must also be ready to challenge and adapt these assumptions as conditions change, ensuring that their theory of the business remains relevant and effective.

Effective Software Development

Everyone in the software industry (managers excepted) knows the following is true, yet nobody wants to talk about it:

Effective software development is entirely incompatible with typical (hierarchical, command-and-control) management.

After 50 years in the industry, I’d go so far as to say:

Effective software development is entirely incompatible with ANY known form of management.

Corollary

Place managers in charge of software development and it can NEVER be ANYTHING but ineffective (high costs, low quality, poor due date performance, lack of innovation, etc.).

NB Applies more broadly, beyond the domain of software development, too.

Reasons

The reasons for this incompatibility can be explained as follows:

1. Creativity and innovation: Software development is a highly creative and innovative process that often requires developers to think out of the box, experiment, and come up with novel solutions. A hierarchical management structure stifles creativity and inhibits the free flow of ideas, emphasising, as it does, strict adherence to rules and policies.

2. Responsiveness and flexibility: In the rapidly changing world of technology, software development teams need to be responsive and adaptable in order to respond quickly to changes in requirements, market conditions, approaches, and user feedback. A command-and-control management style, which relies on rigid plans and mandated approaches, tools, makes it difficult to impossible for teams to pivot and adapt as needed.

3. Collaboration and communication: Effective software development relies on close collaboration and communication among team members with diverse skills and expertise. Hierarchical management structures create barriers to communication, with information flowing primarily up and down the chain of command, rather than freely among team members.

4. Autonomy and motivation: Software developers tend to be highly skilled, motivated individuals who thrive on autonomy and the ability to make decisions about their work. Command-and-control management undermines their motivation by imposing external control and limiting their decision-making authority.

The broader point being made in the corollary statement is that traditional hierarchical management is never the best fit for software development, and that organisations might choose to consider alternative organisational styles and structures that are more conducive to the unique demands of software development.

This idea can indeed apply beyond the domain of software development, as many industries are increasingly recognising the need for more responsive, collaborative, and flexible management approaches to drive innovation and adapt to rapidly changing environments.

The Hidden Biases That Keep Us Hooked on Management

💡 Are you tired of relying on the idea of “management” as the default solution to organisational problems?

➡ The strong inclination towards management as a solution for organisational problems can be influenced by bias in a variety of ways. These include:

• Cultural bias: Western cultures tend to place a high value on individual achievement and personal success, which can lead to a focus on hierarchical management structures as a means of exerting control and achieving results.
• Confirmation bias: Organisations and individuals may be predisposed to seeing management as the solution to problems, leading them to selectively seek out and interpret information that supports this view.
• Limited perspectives: Management can be seen as the default solution for organisational problems due to a lack of consideration or awareness of alternative approaches or perspectives.
• Financial incentives: Financial incentives can create a bias towards management as a solution, particularly among those who stand to benefit financially from its implementation.
• Management industry: The management industry has a vested interest in promoting management as the solution to organisational problems, which can create a bias towards this approach.

Upton Sinclair’s dictum,

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

is particularly relevant in this context. Financial incentives and the influence of the management industry can create a powerful bias towards management as a solution for organisational problems, particularly when individuals stand to benefit financially from its implementation.

To address bias towards management as a solution, it is important to maintain an open mind, seek out diverse perspectives, and evaluate potential solutions based on their effectiveness rather than defaulting to a particular approach. This may involve exploring alternative management styles, such as servant leadership, or considering other approaches to addressing organisational challenges, such as self-organising teams, #Fellowship, and #NoManagement.

By remaining open to new ideas and approaches, organisations can avoid the limitations imposed by bias and better address their challenges and opportunities.

A New Era for Workplace Dynamics?

💡 Are organisations ready to break free from the constraints of conventional leadership and embrace a future where everyone’s voice is heard? Consider the transformative potential of a collaborative work culture.

➡ As business organisations evolve, those in positions of influence may choose to reconsider traditional notions of directing and guiding work. Embracing a paradigm shift away from conventional hierarchical structures will foster a more collaborative and inclusive environment, wherein everyone contributes to the decision-making process.

In this new landscape, individuals who previously held supervisory roles may choose to focus on cultivating collective intelligence and facilitating open communication. This will be achieved by encouraging people to share ideas, opinions, and feedback openly, while also being receptive to diverse perspectives. By fostering a culture of trust, respect, and empathy, those in influential positions can create a more empowering and dynamic work atmosphere.

To successfully navigate this transformation, those who once held command may choose to develop and promote skills in active listening, conflict resolution, and emotional intelligence. These capabilities will allow people to support and guide without exerting authority or control. They may also choose to embrace and promote continuous learning and adaptability, as these traits are crucial for thriving in a rapidly changing world.

Ultimately, the transition away from traditional management and leadership roles necessitates a shift in mindset and culture, wherein individuals focus on empowering others, fostering collaboration, and nurturing a culture of shared ownership and responsibility. By embracing these changes, organisations can unlock the full potential of their people, driving innovation and success.

 

How Peter Drucker’s Vision Has Yet To Transform the Workplace

💡 Imagine a world where creativity and collaboration reign supreme, where the collective minds of diverse individuals come together to generate ground-breaking ideas. Dive into the revolutionary perspective of Peter Drucker, the visionary who described a new way of collaborating that proposes we turn traditional work on its head.

➡ When it comes to Peter Drucker and his views on work and collaborative knowledge work, it’s really interesting to see how he differentiated between the two. Drucker is widely regarded as the “father of modern management,” and he had some pretty insightful ideas about work and the ways people collaborate.

In Drucker’s view, traditional work is more about performing tasks and following procedures. Think of an assembly line worker, a farmer, or a craftsman. They’re doing their jobs, completing specific tasks, and usually working independently or with minimal interaction with others. This kind of work focuses on individual productivity and efficiency.

Now, when we talk about collaborative knowledge work, Drucker had a different perspective. He saw this as a way of working that involves people coming together, sharing ideas, and creating new knowledge. It’s less about following a set process and more about being creative and adaptive in solving problems. In this type of work, the interactions between people are really important, and the goal is to combine their expertise and knowledge to create something new and valuable.

So, the key difference between the two, as Drucker saw it, is the way people work together and the focus on generating new knowledge. While traditional work is more about individual tasks and efficiency, collaborative knowledge work emphasises teamwork, creativity, and innovation.

Isn’t it fascinating how Drucker’s ideas from decades ago still hold up today? It’s like he had a crystal ball for understanding how work would evolve over time! Maybe his vision will one day come to pass.

 

Some Reasons Why You Might Choose To Pay Attention To My Works

Hey there! I’m Bob Marshall, the Organisational Psychotherapist, with a passion for helping organisations transform their culture and improve collaboration. If you’re wondering why you might choose to pay attention to my insights, just let me say that my unique approach can bring profound benefits to all kinds of organisations, especially those involving collaborative knowledge work.

My blog at https://lnkd.in/dytkA2A is packed with insights and stories from my five decades of experience. I draw on this experience, including founding Europe’s first 100% Agile software house and heading Falling Blossoms, the world’s first Organisational Psychotherapy provider. My posts highlight the importance of nurturing productive relationships and fostering a people-oriented culture.

One post that stands out is about the Antimatter Principle, which emphasises attending to folks’ needs to create a thriving, collaborative work environment.

Another post discusses Flow•gnosis, an innovative approach to developing software-intensive products and services.

When you read my posts, you’ll also learn from my decades in both technology and business, including roles at Sun Microsystems, and many other organisations, large and small. This deep understanding of the tech landscape allows me to provide invaluable counsel and therapy to ambitious, progressive technology and digital business organisations.

Moreover, those who have worked with me have nothing but praise for my approach and the results it has brought to their organisations. Time and again, I’ve helped clients create a more humane, people-oriented, and productive work environment that has led to outstanding success.

As the author of “Hearts over Diamonds”, “Memeology”, and “Quintessence”, and the originator of Rightshifting and the Marshall Model, my posts regularly and freely share the foundational knowledge that has contribute to the success of so many of my clients. So, if you want to see a real difference in your organisation, don’t miss out on the wisdom and insights shared on my blog, books, white papers, etc.

Join me on this transformative journey towards elevating your organisation’s performance, and also creating a meaningful, fulfilling work environment that nurtures innovation, everyone’s personal growth, and long-lasting success. Get down with the opportunity to be part of a paradigm shift that’s redefining the way businesses thrive!

🔔🔔🔔🔔

Don’t miss out on the latest insights and strategies for transforming your organisation and its culture! If you find this post valuable, make sure to follow me on LinkedIn, and don’t forget to ring the bell 🔔 to receive notifications whenever I share new content. Ready to unlock your organisation’s full potential? Take action now and reach out for a chat, or visit my blog more transformative ideas. Together, let’s embark on this journey towards unprecedented success! 🔔

Collaborative Knowledge Work and Management: A Mismatch Made In Hell

Hey there, have you ever heard of the phrase, “the best kept dark secret in the tech business”? It’s a term that’s been circulating around the industry for a while now and it’s all about how management is totally incompatible with collaborative knowledge work.

It may seem like a shocking statement, but when you really think about it, it makes sense. Traditional management styles are all about hierarchy, control, and rigid processes, while collaborative knowledge work thrives on autonomy, creativity, and flexibility. When you try to force these two worlds together, it inevitably leads to frustration, burnout, and failure.

The reality is that most managers in the tech industry are steeped in old-school management techniques that were developed for manufacturing and other industries with repetitive processes. These techniques simply don’t work in a knowledge-based environment where the work is complex, dynamic, and constantly evolving.

Traditional management needs rethinking and sidelined to suit the context of collaborative knowledge work. This means empowering employees, encouraging experimentation, and creating a culture of trust and transparency.

So, what do you think? Have you noticed any clashes between management and collaborative knowledge work in your own experiences?

Candidate Experience: Ignored by Executives, Crucial for Company Success

Research suggests that many senior executives may not be fully aware of the recruitment experience from the candidate’s perspective.

For example, a 2018 survey by Talent Board found that while 82% of HR and recruiting leaders felt that their organisation provided a positive candidate experience, only 49% of candidates agreed with that assessment. Similarly, a 2019 survey by CareerArc found that while 60% of employers believed they were providing a positive candidate experience, only 29% of candidates agreed.

These findings suggest that there is a disconnect between the perceptions of senior executives and the actual experiences of candidates. Executives may not be aware of the specific pain points that candidates experience during the recruitment process, such as a lack of communication, lengthy application processes, or bias.

Ultimately, the attitude of senior executives towards the candidate experience can have a significant impact on the recruitment process and the organisation’s reputation as an employer.

What Is Puzzle Management?

“Puzzle management” refers to an approach to problem-solving that involves breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then identifying and addressing the root causes of those smaller problems. This approach is also known as “root cause analysis” or “issue tree analysis.”

The term “puzzle management” appears to have originated in the business world, and specifically in the context of manufacturing and supply chain management. The Chinese appliance manufacturer Haier is one company that has been credited with popularising the concept of puzzle management, which it has used to streamline its production processes and improve the quality of its products.

Haier’s approach to puzzle management involves creating a detailed map of the production process and identifying all of the potential points of failure. By breaking down the process into smaller pieces, the company can more easily identify the root causes of any problems that arise and take corrective action to address them. This approach has helped Haier to improve efficiency and reduce waste, while also improving the quality of its products.

Puzzle management can also be applied to software development companies. In this context, the approach might involve breaking down a complex software project into smaller modules, each of which can be developed and tested separately. By identifying and addressing the root causes of any issues at the module level, developers can avoid larger problems down the line and ultimately deliver a more robust and reliable software product.

Aside: We might choose to regard Goldratt’s Current Reality Tree (CRT) approach as a system-wide version of puzzle management.

Overall, puzzle management is a useful approach to problem-solving that can be applied to a wide range of industries and contexts. By breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable pieces, organisations can more easily identify and address the root causes of those problems and ultimately improve their performance and outcomes.

Hearts Over Diamonds: The Fundamentals of Organisational Psychotherapy

Are you tired of working in a toxic work environment that is draining your joy and hindering your career?

Want to be part of a positive and inclusive culture that promotes growth and well-being?

Then look no further than Hearts Over Diamonds: The Fundamentals of Organisational Psychotherapy.

In this foundational ebook, you will discover the power of Organisational Psychotherapy in transforming corporate cultures. With the right tools and techniques, you can understand how to change collective assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors that have been hindering your career development and your success. By shifting focus to everyone’s well-being, you can be part of a supportive and nurturing work environment that fosters growth and collaboration for all.

The benefits of implementing Organisational Psychotherapy are numerous and far-reaching. From increased job satisfaction and reduced turnover, to improved communication and better problem-solving skills, you’ll be better equipped to face the challenges of today’s fast-paced business environment.

Don’t wait any longer to be an active and informed player in revolutionising your organisation. Get your copy of Hearts Over Diamonds today and start your journey to a healthier and more productive career.

Take a look Now!

https://leanpub.com/heartsoverdiamonds

Say Goodbye to Dysfunctional Management: Time to Adopt a New Approach

Dysfunctional management is a growing problem in modern businesses, but many organisations still choose to pretend that it does not exist.

Management is often seen as the solution to complex problems, but the reality is that it is not always effective. In fact, research has shown that a significant percentage of management practices are dysfunctional, and the impact of this dysfunction is both quantifiable and significant.

According to Prof. Gary Hamel, a leading expert in management, only 10% of management practices are considered effective, while the remaining 90% are dysfunctional. This dysfunction is characterised by a lack of creativity, a lack of accountability, and an inability to lead effectively. In addition, many management practices are based on outdated assumptions and are not in line with the changing needs of the workforce.

The impact of dysfunctional management is significant, and can be seen in the form of low morale, high turnover, and reduced productivity. A study by the Harvard Business Review found that companies with high levels of employee engagement and low levels of turnover outperformed their peers by up to 147%. In addition, companies with engaged employees were found to be 21% more profitable than those with low levels of employee engagement.

The concept of management itself is also questionable, as it is based on the assumption that managers are better equipped to lead than other employees. However, this is rarely the case, as many managers are not trained in leadership or do not possess the necessary skills to effectively manage their teams. As a result, many organisations find themselves struggling to achieve their goals and to maintain their competitive edge.

Given the problems associated with dysfunctional management, it may be time to consider abandoning management entirely. Instead, organisations could adopt a different approach, such as the SAS (Special Air Service) approach used by the British Special Forces. This approach emphasises fellowship, collaboration, flexibility, and adaptability, and encourages individuals to take ownership. By adopting this approach, organisations can ensure that their employees are engaged, motivated, and committed to achieving their goals.

In conclusion,let’s not pretend that dysfunctional management does not exist. The impact of this dysfunction is quantifiable and significant, and it’s well past time for organisations to consider alternative approaches. By adopting alternative approaches, organisations can build a culture of collaboration, creativity, and accountability, and can ensure that employees are engaged and motivated. It is time to abandon management and embrace a new, more effective approach.

Revolutionise Your Software Development: Ditch the Foxes and Embrace a Collaborative Approach

The issue of putting managers in charge of software development is a thorny one that has long been agonised over in the tech industry. The metaphor of “foxes in charge of the henhouse” is often used to describe this situation, as it implies that managers, who may not have the same level of technical expertise as developers, may not be able to fully understand or appreciate the needs and challenges of the development team. And indeed may “eat” the chickens. This can lead to a number of problems, including poor communication, lack of trust, fear, productivity-lowering stress, and ultimately, a lack of success in development efforts.

It can also cause frustration and resentment among developers, who may feel that their managers do not value or even understand their expertise and contributions.

The solution to this issue is to adopt a more collaborative approach, where managers and developers work together as a team to achieve common goals. This approach can help to build trust and understanding between managers and developers, and can lead to more effective working.

Another alternative is a servant leadership style, with developers leading the development efforts, and managers providing support and guidance as needed. This can help to ensure that the development process is driven by the needs and expertise of the developers, rather than by managers who may not fully understand the technical and interpersonal challenges.

A third alternative, and the preferred one, is to eschew managers entirely, in favour of developers and etc. self-organising and self-managing themselves.

In summary, putting managers in charge of software development can lead to a number of problems, including poor communication, lack of trust, distress, and ultimately, a lack of success in the development process. Alternatives such as a more collaborative approach, where managers and developers work together as a team, or having developers in charge of the development work themselves, can help to mitigate these problems and lead to more effective development efforts. It all boils down to: what development culture can you accept? And how important is it to the organisation to have the development efforts firing on all cylinders?

Management Is The Root of All Evil In Software Development: Agile Experts Speak Out!

The original Snowbird agile people, a group of software developers who gathered in Snowbird, Utah in 2001 to discuss the challenges of software development, clearly believed that management was a key part of the problem.

However, they were hesitant to vocalise this belief outright, at the risk of alienating their clients in management positions. Instead, they came up with a set of 4 values and 12 principles that would serve to quietly sideline or obviate management’s role.

The 4 values of the Agile Manifesto, which the snowbird agile people proposed, are:
• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
• Working software over comprehensive documentation
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation, and
• Responding to change over following a plan. T

These values are in DIRECT OPPOSITION to traditional management practices, which prioritise processes and tools, comprehensive documentation, contract negotiation, and following a plan.

The 12 principles further emphasise the importance of individuals and interactions, working software, customer collaboration, and responding to change.

These principles include: delivering working software frequently, welcoming changing requirements, delivering working software throughout the project, and providing face-to-face communication.

By emphasizing the importance of individuals and interactions, working software, customer collaboration, and responding to change, the snowbird agile people were effectively sidelining the role of management in software development.

They were obliquely saying that management should not be the driving force behind software development, but rather that the individuals doing the work and the customers they are working for should be the ones driving things.

In addition, the snowbird agile people believed that traditional management practices, such as contract negotiation and following a plan, were often detrimental to software development. They believed that these practices led to rigid, inflexible projects that were unable to adapt to changing requirements.

By emphasizing customer collaboration and responding to change, the snowbird agile people were effectively obviating the need for traditional management practices.

In conclusion, the original snowbird agile people believed that management was a key part of the problem with software development, but were too wary to say it out loud. Instead, they came up with 4 values and 12 principles that served to sideline or obviate management’s role in software development.

These values and principles emphasized the importance of individuals and interactions, working software, customer collaboration, and responding to change, and effectively put the power of software development back into the hands of the individuals doing the work and the customers they are working for.

Highlight Problems, Avoid Solutions

It’s wayyy easier to provide solutions than to help folks find their own solutions. What are the consequences of this observation?

• For consultants, trainers, pseudo-coaches and others whose income depends on selling “solutions”?
• For folks seeking long-term, permanent solutions to their problems?
• For folks who choose to hire consultants or other experts to solve their problems for them?
• For folks habituated to delegating the finding of solutions to their problems to others?

Voltaire asks us a rhetorical question:

“Is there anyone so wise as to learn by the experience of others?”

~ Voltaire

I’ll not be offering any solutions to this conundrum. I am available help you along the path of finding your own.Do get in touch!

#IANAC (I am not a consultant).

– Bob

Further Reading

Rother, M. (2010). Toyota Kata: Managing People For Continuous Improvement And Superior Results. Mcgraw-Hill.
Marshall, R.W. (2021). Memeology: Surfacing And Reflecting On The Organisation’s Collective Assumptions And Beliefs. [online] leanpub.com. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub). Available at: https://leanpub.com/memeology/ [Accessed 16 Jun 2022].

Quickie: Why Are Toasters Like Employees?

This is my DeLonghi four slice toaster. It’s been doing sterling service in my kitchen for the past seven years. If you’re looking for a toaster, you could do a lot worse.

Only last week I (finally!) discovered the “bagel” button. Which turns off one element in each slot so as to toast only one side of a bagel, burger bun, etc.

What’s this anything to do with employees?

It strikes me we often treat employees like I have treaded my toaster. We overlook some of the things they can do, really useful things, through familiarity and/or lack of attention. Their talents in some areas go begging because we’re habituated to seeing them in only one light. We succumb to the functional fixedness bias (not limited to objects, methinks).

Aside: FWIW I’ve never used the “defrost” or “reheat” buttons either. I guess my toaster is currently quietly looking for a new, more appreciative boss.

Quickie: Clarity – Who Needs It?

How many managers seek and drive clarity? And how many need and revel in obfuscation?

Quickie: Stop Hiring Managers

Stop hiring managers. They’re all dead wood now.