Your monkey (inner chimp) does most, if not all, of your thinking for you.
When no one’s even heard of Deming, suggestions that psychology has relevance may fall on deaf ears.
Telling hundreds or thousands of people [something, anything] is never going to result in anything other than bitterness and conflict. And showing them will have about the same (lack of) impact.
Would you be willing to arrange things such that they might invite themselves to find out for themselves?
Psychological Safety – Oh! The Irony
The march of time seems to have judged “psychological safety” as a passing fad. Not that it’s an irrelevant idea – far from it.
I suspect psychological safety gained some acclaim because everybody wanted it for themselves. “Yes, please. I feel anxious, exposed and at risk when I speak out, so I’d really appreciate some psychological safety, thank you.”
We’ll skip over the unlikely prospect of any managers being interested in providing an environment of psychological safety (why would they need to do that?) and get straight to the irony.
I’ve spoken with some number of colleagues who all attest to feelings of anxiety, being exposed and being at risk of judgement by peers in the software community when they speak out about certain, possibly contentious or unpopular issues.
Aside : I suspect it’s more often fear of the consequences of speaking out that’s at the root of these anxieties, rather that fear of being judged per se.
The irony being, of course, that whereas individuals are fine with accepting psychology safety provided by others, they’re far less interested in extending psychological safety in turn.
What are you doing on a daily basis to extend psychological safety to others?
http://www.psychologytoday.com. (1 June 2015). Tired of Being Judged? Try This. | Psychology Today. [online] Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/longing-nostalgia/201506/tired-being-judged-try [Accessed 13 Sep. 2021].
Psychology? Psychiatry? Psychotherapy? Pshaw!
You can go many ways – how about if you go your own way?
I was reading the other day about how Elon Musk “reasons from first principles“. And I was thinking, “Well, d’oh! Doesn’t everyone do that? I know I do.” And then, upon reflection, I thought, “Hmm, maybe most folks don’t do that.” I certainly have seen little evidence of it, compare to the evidence of folks reasoning by extension, and analogy. And failing to reason at all.
Now, allowing for journalistic hyperbole and the cult of the celebrity, there may just still be something in it.
So, in case you were wondering, and to remind myself, here’s some first principles underpinning the various things in my own portfolio of ideas and experiences:
The Antimatter Principle
The Antimatter Principle emerges from the following basic principles about us as people:
- All our actions and behaviours are simply consequent on trying to get our needs met.
- We are social animals and are driven to see other folks’ needs met, often even before our own.
- We humans have an innate sense of fairness which influences our every decision and action.
Flowchain emerges from the following basic principles concerning work and business:
- All commercial organisations – excepting, maybe, those busy milking their cash cows – are in the business of continually bringing new products, or at least new product features and upgrades, to market.
- When Cost of Delay is non-trivial, the speed of bringing new products and feature to market is significant.
- Flow (of value – not the Mihaly Csikszentmihaly kind of flow, here) offers the most likely means to minimise concept-to-cash time.
- Autonomy, mastery and shared purpose affords a means for people to find the intrinsic motivation to improve things (like flow).
- Building improvement into the way the work works increases the likelihood of having sufficient resources available to see improvement happen.
Prod•gnosis emerges from the following basic principles concerning business operations:
- All commercial organisations – excepting, maybe, those busy milking their cash cows – are in the business of continually bringing new products, or at least new product features and upgrades, to market.
- Most new products are cobbled together via disjointed efforts crossing multiple organisational (silo) boundaries, and consequently incurring avoidable waste, rework, confusion and delays.
- The people with domain expertise in a particular product or service area are rarely, if ever, experts in building the operational value streams necessary to develop, sell and support those products and services.
Emotioneering emerges from the following basic principles concerning products and product development:
- People buy things based on how they feel (their emotional responses to the things they’re considering buying). See: Buy•ology by Martin Lindstrøm.
- Product uptake (revenues, margins, etc.) can be improved by deliberately designing and building products for maximum positive emotional responses.
- Quantification serves to explicitly identify and clarify the emotional responses we wish to see our products and service evoke (Cf. “Competitive Engineeering” ~ Gilb).
Rightshifting emerges from the following basic principles concerning work in organisations:
- The effectiveness of an organisation is a direct function of its collective assumptions and beliefs.
- Effectiveness is a general attribute, spanning all aspects of an organisation’s operations (i.e. not just applicable to product development).
The Marshall Model
The Marshall Model emerges from the following basic principles concerning work in organisations:
- Different organisations demonstrable hold widely differing shared assumptions and beliefs about the world of work and how work should work – one organisation from another.
- Understanding which collection of shared assumptions and beliefs is in play in a given organisation helps interventionists select the most effective form(s) of intervention. (Cf. The Dreyfus Model of Skills Acquisition).
Organisation psychotherapy emerges from the following basic principles concerning people and organisations:
- The effectiveness (performance, productivity, revenues, profitability, success, etc.) of any organisation is a direct function of its collective assumptions and beliefs about the world of work and how work should work.
- Organisations fall short of the ideal in being (un)able to shift their collective assumptions and beliefs to better align with their objectives (both explicit and implicit).
- Having support available – either by engaging organisational therapists, or via facilitated self-help – increases the likelihood of an organisation engaging in the surfacing, reflecting upon, and ultimately changing its collective assumptions and beliefs.
Dickens’ novel “Great Expectations” explores the idea that affection, loyalty, and conscience are more important than social advancement, wealth, and ambition. In passing, it also takes a look at continual (self) improvement through the eyes of Pip, the main character.
Pip has many “great expectations” of himself and his future. Dickens shows us how such attachment to the future can blind us and rob us of simple happiness, and how an attachment to the past can similarly skew our perceptions of ourself and others.
Expectations are very familiar to us in the world of software development. Expectations of others, and our own expectations, too.
In a very different book, “The Power of Now”, Eckhart Tolle also explores the question of “how do men know who they are?” and warns of the hegemony of the mind:
“Pain is inevitable as long as you are identified with your mind.”
~ Eckhart Tolle
“Unease, anxiety, tension, stress, worry — all forms of fear — are cause by too much future, and not enough presence. Guilt, regret, resentment, grievances, sadness, bitterness, and all forms of nonforgiveness are caused by too much past, and not enough presence.”
~ Eckhart Tolle
“Nothing out there will ever satisfy you except temporarily and superficially, but you may need to experience many disappointments before you realize that truth.”
~ Eckhart Tolle
We can treat our staff like kids or treat them like adults. It’s pretty much a binary choice – there isn’t much middle ground.
That’s a Great Idea But…
We’ve all experienced it. Someone comes up with a great idea for doing something different, and better. Everyone agrees it’s a great idea, and better. And yet nothing happens. Nada. Zip.
How to explain this near-universal phenomenon?
I choose to looks at the phenomenon in terms of loss aversion (and its kissing cousin, the status quo bias).
We human beings have an outrageous number of cognitive biases. One of the most powerful of these biases is loss aversion.
Loss Aversion and the Status Quo
“In a nutshell, loss aversion is an important aspect of everyday life. The idea suggests that people have a tendency to stick with what they have unless there is a good reason to switch. Loss aversion is a reflection of a general bias in human psychology (status quo bias) that make people resistant to change. So when we think about change we focus more on what we might lose rather than on what we might get.”
~ Shahram Heshmat Ph.D., Psychology Today
The notion that losses loom larger than gains, originally formalised by Kahneman and Tversky (1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991; cf. Markowitz, 1952, p. 155), has proven to have tremendous explanatory power.
In addition to basic examples, loss aversion can help to explain a wide range of phenomena, including the sunk cost fallacy, the attraction effect, the compromise effect, anticipated and experienced regret, and the status quo bias.
Needs and Relatively Ineffective Strategies
In my work as an Organisational Psychotherapist, I see, daily, folks’ reluctance to give up on their “established” strategies for getting their needs met in favour of new strategies offering more effective means for seeing those needs met. Often, MUCH more effective means.
Where does loss aversion come into it? Loss aversion explains the hold these “established” strategies have over people. The promising new strategy may look attractive, but the fear of not getting their needs met (in case the new strategy doesn’t pan out) hugely outweighs the promise of the uplift in effectiveness from the new strategy, if adopted.
“One implication of loss aversion is that individuals have a strong tendency to remain at the status quo, because the disadvantages of leaving it loom larger than advantages.”
~ Daniel Kahneman (Kahneman 1991)
We fallible humans cling to our established strategies for seeing our needs met for fear of losing out if we choose a different strategy, almost no matter how attractive that new strategy may be.
For me, this goes a long way to explain “resistance to change” – which may more usefully be called “attachment to the status quo”.
Psychology and neuroscience offers some suggestions how to remediate loss aversion and status quo bias. I may explore these suggestions in a future post (given demand).
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus And Giroux.
Rick, S. (2011). Losses, Gains, and Brains: Neuroeconomics can help to answer open questions about loss aversion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.04.004
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
Rosenberg, M. B. (2015). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. Puddledancer Press.
“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?
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.
What exactly is Discretionary Effort? ~ Jason Lauritsen (blog post)
How often do you get pissed off by interruptions and distractions? You know, when you’re zoned in on something, in a state of flow, and something happens to break the flow? Personally, when I’m writing code, I have to be in a quiet place, by myself or with my pair or mob, else I can’t get anything done for the continual distractions.
This is but one example of how easily cognitive function can be impaired.
Common sources of cognitive impairment:
- Distractions and interruptions
- Stress (specifically, negative stress a.k.a. distress) Cf Amygdala Hijack
- Tiredness, fatigue, lack of sleep.
- Shift patterns
- Noise and other forms of environmental stressors (lighting, odours, vibrations, exposure to particulates, elevated carbon dioxide, etc.)
- Physiological issues (such as colds and flu, hypoglycemia, aphasia, depression, dehydration, hypertension, obesity, trauma, diabetes, Parkinson’s, POTS, dementia, hypoxia, atrial fibrillation)
- Substance abuse (drink, drugs, etc. – short and long term effects, chronic and acute)
Wow. That’s quite a list. Seems like almost anything can impair cognitive function.
Why Does this Matter?
So why does cognitive function matter. What’s the connection with knowledge work? I’ll spell it out in case it’s not clear:
Knowledge work – such as software development – by definition involves working with our brains. If our brains are performing well (i.e. effective or relatively high cognitive functioning) then we can expect our work to go well, things to get done quicker, with fewer errors, and so on.
Conversely, when our cognitive function is impaired, our brains will take longer to accomplish tasks, come up with less effective solutions, commit more errors, and generally perform more ineffectively.
It’s also likely that with impaired cognitive function we’ll be less reflective, with less energy or capacity to spend on thinking about our work, our relationships, our behaviours, our practices, our customers, possible innovations, our needs and the needs of others, etc..
Does it sound to you like non-impaired cognitive function is something worth having? Something worth paying attention to?
So how many folks – managers, workers, organisations – pay any attention AT ALL to folks’ cognitive functioning in the workplace or whilst working? I’d suggest the answer is none, or as near none as makes no difference.
Which seems strange to me, if we truly seek our collaborative knowledge work (and workers) to be as effective as possible. Of course, that objective may be a false assumption. Maybe blissful ignorance and indifference is preferable to paying attention and taking action? Given the reluctance I’ve encountered when broaching this subject, I suspect blissful ignorance and/or indifference holds sway.
How does it go in your organisation?
I’m just back from presenting an interactive session at Testbash Dublin. I enjoyed conversations on the topic of the session – Organisational Psychotherapy – as well as conversations around e.g. #NoTesting. Indeed, I noted a common theme running through many of the sessions from the more seasoned testers presenting: a grumbling low-key disaffection with the notion of testing as a path to quality.
A number of folks engaged me in trying to better understand what I might mean by #NoTesting. Such conversations generally start out with “What do you mean by ‘testing’?”. My time in Dublin has allowed me to see through my discomfort in avoiding this question (yes, I generally choose to avoid it). I’m loath to get into semantic arguments from the get-go. I find they rarely lead to productive mutual exploration of such topics.
The bottom-line, is: It doesn’t matter one iota what I mean by “testing”. Whatever YOU mean by “testing”, that’s what I’m talking about when I mention #NoTesting. It’s an invitation for YOU to pause awhile to consider how life would be different if you stopped doing “testing” (whatever YOU choose to understand by that term) and did something else to address the same ends.
Ends Over Means
There’s an idea from therapy which might help you understand this perspective. In eg Nonviolent Communication (and some other therapies), human motivation is assumed to stem from attempts to get our needs met. That is, our behaviours and actions result from the strategies (means) we choose in order to meet our needs (ends). Any particular strategy affords us a limited palette of behaviours and actions. Aside: Often, we have little or no conscious awareness of either our ends or our chosen means.
“Testing” (whatever YOU choose to understand by that term) is a strategy you (or someone else) has chosen – almost always, implicitly – for getting your or their needs met. And other folks’ needs, too, in the general case.
There are always other strategies (means, options) for meeting folks’ needs. Yet rarely do these other strategies receive any consideration. Maybe some of these other options offer a way to better meet folks’ needs. How would we ever discover that, without considering them, becoming aware of them, exploring them?
So that’s what I’m talking about with #NoTesting (amongst a raft of #No hashtags) – an invitation and reminder to actively consider whether your default means (strategy) are best serving your ends (needs), whether your first and automatic choice of strategy is the most effective way to attend to your – and other folks’ – needs.
Beyond the Pale
Digital transformations, Agile adoptions, shifts in collective mindset, Marshall Model transitions and the like general proceed slowly, if at all. Why might this be? What slows or blocks the implementation of more effective ways working, more effective ways of meeting folks needs?
I have found that one of the biggest drags on implementing more effective strategies for getting folks’ needs met is the sheer inconceivability of the new strategies. Literally. unthinkable. And not only are these prospective, more effective ways of doing things inconceivable, they’re often also unmentionable, undiscussable and taboo, too.
Here’s a list of some of the kinds of new strategies I’m talking about:
- Using throughput accounting rather than cost accounting
- Delivering value as defined by the customer, rather than the supplier
- Defect prevention as a preferred alternative to testing
- Favouring slack and flow over utilisation and busywork
- Recruiting with humanity (conversations) rather than relying on CVs
- Funding new product initiatives incrementally rather than with a one-off budget allocation
- Incrementally trialling new product ideas in the market rather than one time “big launch”
- Attending to folks’ needs rather than acting as if we know what’s best for others
- Self-managing and self-organising teams
- Having teams “own” the product they’re working on, rather than a separate Product Owner
- Reducing or eliminating the command & control aspects of middle management roles
- Theory Y over theory X
- Adopting team-wide measures rather than measuring individuals
- Seeing people as emotional and social rather than logical and rational
- Eliminating extrinsic motivators in favour of cultivating intrinsic motivations
- Adopting whole systems measures rather than local measures
- Managing and optimising the whole business rather than managing and optimising each part
- Having folks set their own salaries and bonuses, rather than have remuneration decided by others
And so on…
Each of the above strategies promises to contribute to a more effective business, yet each of them is in itself often inconceivable, unacceptable, unthinkable and even undiscussable. In short, such new strategies are, at a given point in time, considered as beyond the pale.
The First Challenge
When considering Digital transformations, Agile adoptions, Marshall Model transitions and the like, our collective challenge, then, is to progressively broaden and deepen our tolerance and enthusiasm for discussing and embracing these new strategies.To move ourselves to a point where one, some or all of these new strategies is conceivable, discussable and acceptable. Only then can we begin to think about build a true consensus on a specific way forward.
And maybe organisational psychotherapy has a role to play in helping the organisation open itself up and start thinking and then talking about these “tough topics”.
Three Things That Do Change Thinking
Changing our behaviours is very difficult, particularly if we rely on thinking our way into new ways of behaving. Changing other folks’ behaviours and thinking, even more so.
We do not usually stop to analyse what we do. Instead our past experiences create predetermined neurologic pathways for behaviours that we repeat, even when those behaviours may not be in our best interests, nor effective in getting our needs met. Kahneman has written a whole book on this phenomenon (Thinking, Fast and Slow). Edward de Bono also explains it at length.
If we want to change behaviour, we need more than data, incentives and disincentives, and rational arguments. Our behaviours are driven by our beliefs. To change behaviours, we must first change beliefs. Change our thinking. So what kinds of thing DO change thinking?
Specifically, a changing environment. As our environment changes, we may change our behaviours, and this may lead to changes in thinking.
Change is a normative process. Which is to say, we are more likely to change our thinking if we experience things contrary to our current assumptions and beliefs. This is the realm of Cognitive Dissonance. And there’s a sweet spot: too shallow an experience may not trigger an appreciation of any difference, too deep an experience may cause trauma and rejection of the possible new ideas. To change behaviour we can first use experience to change beliefs; we must act. Experience generates feelings that inform future experience. The more positive the feelings and the more direct the link to experience, the more likely beliefs are to change. When beliefs change, behavior changes.
On rare occasions, we may come to suspect that our current thoughts, assumptions and beliefs are not serving us well, and intentionally decide to do something about that. One avenue for action may be to seek therapy.
There’s a Common Theme Here
Instead of thinking our way into new ways of acting, we must act our way into new ways of thinking. Of course, for most of us, that’s a new way of acting, so thinking ourselves into it isn’t likely to turn out well. How about just giving it a go?
The Power of Positive Deviance ~ Jerry Sternin et al.
19 things that don’t change thinking – Rethinking Services blog post
Curiosity – a first step to changing thinking – Rethinking Services blog post
The One Perfect Way to Develop Software
[Tl;Dr: Being a Master of the perfect way to develop software is more of a handicap than an asset.]
Let’s imagine you’ve received a Matrix-style download of all the knowledge and skills necessary for Mastery of the perfect way to develop software. And you’ve applied this knowledge, and honed the skills, in several or many software development endeavours. And have the results to prove it.
Then you join a new-to-you organisation, and a new-to-you team, where of course you want to share your profound, highly valuable insights, capabilities, knowledge and skills with your peers, with a view to you all basking in the sweet success of the One Perfect Way.
Setting aside secondary issues such as the probability that there is no ONE perfect way, and that software development per se is maybe not what our customers are really interested in, what could possibly go wrong?
I’ll leave this question hanging. If I receive some expressions of interest, I propose to return to it in a future post.
Tasks – or Deliverables
In most every development shop I’ve seen, folks’ planning vocabulary has been founded on the task as the unit of work. Long ago, at Familiar, we discovered that a different vocabulary offers some key advantages. Ever since then I’ve found that a planning vocabulary when deliverables are the default unit of work suit me much better.
Some Key Advantages
- Planning in tasks encourages (subconsciously for the most part) busywork (a focus on activity).
- Planning in deliverables encourages a focus on outputs (ands thus, closer to outcomes).
- Deliverables are closer to what stakeholders seek (i.e. having their needs attend-to, or even met).
- Tasks are generally one stage further removed from needs than are deliverables.
- Deliverables are, to a degree, ends in themselves – tasks are means to ends (and hence more disconnected from outcomes).
- I find it easier and more useful to quantify aspects of deliverables than aspects of tasks. YMMV.
Mayhap a focus on outcomes directly would be a further step in the right direction, but for most of the development groups I’ve seen, a single leap from tasks to outcomes might have proven infeasible.
May I invite you to trial a change of vocabulary, and of focus, next time you have the opportunity?
People are not like dogs. How often have you seen someone recommending the giving of praise as a way of raising morale, increasing engagement, making folks happier, and so on? The thing is, giving praise has a significant downside.
Eschew Praise and Compliments
“Compliments are often judgements – however positive – of others.”
~ Marshall Rosenberg
Rosenberg regards compliment and expressions of appreciation and praise as life-alienating communication. I share that viewpoint. Instead, he suggests we include three components in the expression of appreciation:
- The actions that have contributed to our well-being
- The particular needs of ours that have been fulfilled
- The pleasureful feelings (joy, delight, togetherness, w.h.y) engendered by the fulfilment of those needs
In other words, providing nonjudgmental feedback (in the positive case) consists of sharing:
- This is what you did
- This is how I feel about it
- This is the need of mine that was met
And in the negative case, sharing:
- This is what you did
- This is how I feel about it
- This is the need of mine that was NOT met
- (Optional) a refusable request seeking to get the unmet need met.
I’ve written previously about What’s Wrong With Judgment. This applies just as much to the judgments implicit in praise, and in other forms of judgmental feedback.
“the most salient feature of a positive judgment [e.g. praise] is not that it’s positive but that it’s a judgment; it’s more about controlling than encouraging. Moreover, praise communicates that our acceptance…comes with strings attached: Our approval is conditional.”
~ Alfie Kohn
Even warm and fulsome praise is likely to be received, albeit subliminally, as controlling and conditional. More useful then, might be non-evaluative (i.e. nonjudgmental) feedback. Researchers have found that just such a response – information about how someone has done, without any judgment attached – is preferable to any sort of praise.
Punished By Rewards ~ Alfie Kohn
Feedback Without Criticism ~ Miki Kashtan (Online article)
NVC Feedback – The Executive Advisory
Non-violent Communication: A Language of Life ~ Marshall B. Rosenberg
The Core Protocols ~ Jim and Michele McCarthy
What If #7 – No Work
One of my “giants” is the amazing Richard Buckminster Fuller. As it happens, the “Synergistic” mindset, the third of the four mindsets in the Marshall Model, is named for him and his work in Synergetics.
“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist…
The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”
~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Others, including e.g. Bertrand Russell, and Henry David Thoreau, have also remarked on the essential folly of working for a living. Indeed, some progressive municipalities are beginning to discuss, consider, even experiment with providing their citizens a stipend, sufficient to allow them to live and pursue their individual callings.
What if the whole notion of work, and the civic duty to work so beloved of the conservative right, is just a fiction conceived and maintained to hold us in thrall?
“The conception of duty, speaking historically, has been a means used by the holders of power to induce others to live for the interests of their masters rather than for their own.”
~ Bertrand Russell
Alternatives, might we but consider them, abound.
I myself am fond of the idea of play:
“Do nothing that is not play.”
~ Marshall Rosenberg
Marshall Rosenberg defines play as all those things we truly choose to do – actions we take for their own sake, and not because we are afraid of the consequences or hoping for some kind of reward.
What if we encouraged folks to “play”, rather than “work”? To do those things in which they find intrinsic joy and delight, rather than those things they “have” to do (to please the boss, to get paid, because they feel obligated, etc.).
What effect would that have on motivation? On joy? On engagement? On innovation? On delight, for everyone concerned?
Maybe you believe that folks, free from the violence of coercion, would just slack off? What might that say about your Theory-X vs Theory-Y orientation? About your assumptions regarding people and human nature?
How do you feel about the notion of replacing work with play? How far is it from e.g. Drucker’s widely-accepted perspective?:
“Accept the fact that we have to treat almost anybody as a volunteer.”
~ Peter Drucker
Henry Hikes To Fitchburg ~ D.B. Johnson
The Importance of Play (A Valentine for Marshall Rosenberg, part 2) ~ John Kinyon
Other Posts In This Occasional Series
What If #1 – No Management
What If #2 – No Process
What If #3 – No Telling
What If #4 – No Answers
What If #5 – Continuous Improvement Is Useless
What If #6 ~ Agile Nirvana
What If #8 – Agile Never Happened
The Antimatter Model
For me, the power of any model lies in its predictive ability – that’s to say, in its ability to help us predict what might happen when we intervene in the domains, or systems, to which it applies.
“Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”
~ George Box
For example, the Dreyfus Model helps us predict the impact and outcomes of training initiatives and interventions; the Marshall Model helps us predict the outcomes of our organisational change efforts and interventions.
The Antimatter Principle
The Antimatter Principle is a principle, not a model.
“Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.”
The Antimatter Principle proposes a single course of action (namely, attending to folks’ needs) is sufficient as a means to create a climate – or environment – that will lead to groups, teams and entire organisations becoming more effective at collaborative knowledge work.
The Antimatter Transformation Model
Confusingly perhaps (and my apologies for that) I wrote recently about the Antimatter Transformation Model. I’m rueing my calling it a model at all now, seeing as how it seems ill-suited to be labelled as such (having no real predictive element). Let’s set that aside and get on…
The Antimatter Model
In this post I present the Antimatter Model. This model serves to improve our understanding of how the Antimatter Principle works, to help share that understanding with others, and to allow us to predict the outcomes from applying the Antimatter Principle within e.g. collaborative knowledge work organisations.
The Antimatter Principle basically proposes a collection of positive feedback loops, akin to Peter Senge’s “Virtuous Spiral” systems archetype.
Virtuous Spiral 1
As people attend to others’ needs, they find joy in doing so. This is a typical human response to helping others, being part of our innate nature as social animals (cf Lieberman). This feeling of joy tends to encourage these same people to invest more effort into attending to others’ needs, increasing both the frequency and reach of such activities. And by doing it more often, they are likely to become more practiced, and thus more capable (skilful).
Virtuous Spiral 2
As those other folks see their needs attended to, they will likely feel an increased sense of wellbeing. Not least because they sense people, and the “organisation” more generally, cares for them. This is compounded by a further increase in their sensation of wellbeing as they see their needs actually met. This increased sense of wellbeing also contributes to an increased sense of community, and positive feeling about their social relationships – another key driver for us human social animals.
Virtuous Spiral 3
And as these other folks feel their wellbeing and social connections improve, our strong and innate sense of fairness raises individual cognitive dissonance levels, such that some might choose to reciprocate and attend to the needs of others, in turn. In other words, folks sense they are on the receiving end of something beneficial, and find themselves wishing to see others similarly blessed. And with the Antimatter Principle, they are automatically well-placed to act on this social imperative.
Virtuous Spiral 4
Further, the same sense of dissonance may encourage people to attend more closely, perhaps for the first time, to their own needs.
And the Bottom Line
And, finally, beyond the dynamics of the Virtuous Spirals improving the climate/environment of the workplace and organisation, actually meeting folks’ needs (customers, managers, shareholders, employees, wider society) with effective products and services is what successful business is all about.
The Antimatter Model predicts the following beneficial outcomes
- Folks discovering pleasure and delight in seeing others’ needs met – we often call this sensation “joy”.
- Improved interpersonal relationships and social cohesion – we often call this “community”.
- Improved self-knowledge and self-image.
- Reduced distress.
- Increased eustress.
- A progressively more and more effective organisation, business or company.
- Reducing levels of waste and increasing flow of value (i.e. needs being met).
- Increasing throughput (revenues), reducing costs and improving profits (trends).
I have yet to write about the risks implicit in the Antimatter Model. These include:
I will be writing about these risks – and ways to mitigate them – in a future post.
As folks start to attend to folks’ needs, social cohesion and the sense of community rises, folks find joy in attending to others’ needs – and in seeing others’ needs attended-to. Those actively and joyfully engaged want to do more, and those not (yet) actively engaged become curious and then, often, keen to participate themselves. Thus more people choose to engage, more needs get met, social relationships improve, and yet more folks may choose to participate. And so on.
And all the while, the needs of all involved – including those of the business – are getting better and better (more effectively) met, too.