Stupid Human Tricks and System-antics

In David's recent PureSchmaltz blog post Going Organic, he fleshes out a notion he calls "management-ism", and recommends the ethic of "working the system so the system can work" - something that often feels like benevolent subversion.

In the comments responding to the post, Glen Alleman, a frequent commenter and sometimes harsh critic of David and my work, comments "The notion that systems work themselves is held only by those with no understanding of the theory of systems. But once understanding is in place, systems can be made to serve those who devised them."

This elicited my own comment on his comment that "It is always useful to remember that we humans are shaped by the systems in which we find ourselves - often inadvertently. So, once THIS understanding is in place, people can be made to serve the system. And, it is always best, in my humble opinion, to design the system with humility and awareness that I am likely to become co-opted regularly by that which I create."

As each of us work the system so it can work - both for our greater, common purpose and for ourselves, we shift the system ever so subtly (or not so subtly). And the system changes and grows, these changes effect each of the agents - or humans, in the case of these systems in which we live, work, and have our being. And the recursive cycle continues.

When we stay modestly awake to this dynamic in the system, and of the dynamics of the system working on ourselves, we might be able to affect real change. This awareness of the nature of the system is part of what Maturana calls "radical acceptance". It combines with our focus on purpose and intention for ourselves and for the common, broader purpose and demonstrates the fully human ability to create lasting systemic change.

When we lose addressability to this dynamic and go into the normal trances of life and work, we can (usually later) discover the surprisingly inhuman actions we may have inflicted on others, and which we put up with being inflicted on ourselves. Such is the subtle "Master / Slave" dynamic that can lead us, no matter how well schooled in the theory of systems or practiced in the application of systems into feeling like we have no control, no influence, and no latitude at all. Or leaving us looking to a manager for direction or railing against a manager for what they never could have known enough to direct. Or railing against the creator of the system as if the originator is really the ultimate creator of the system in which we are engaged - as a community - in co-creating every moment. Whether or not we are awake and aware of what we are doing.

Such is yet another of what I generously call a "Stupid Human Trick". And remind myself again that no matter how conscious and capable I feel, I will succumb to the co-opting effect of all of the various systems in which I live, work, and have my being.

Mapping Relationships

David's been blogging at Pure Schmaltz about the usefulness of (and some techniques for) mapping the relationships needed to make work work well.

Lately there has been a lot in the trades about social network mapping. I find all of it interesting and my inner data geek really is fascinated by the methods for tracking email or other communication in an organization. A piece of me wants to pull out and dust off the old data gathering / research chops and get to work selling companies mapping packages. And, an older, wiser me realizes the folly in this.

Folly? Huh?

Okay, if what you want to do is spend a lot of time and money (and the time and money of a company) mapping things, then go for it. It would even be interesting and provide some insights. However, as interesting as this would be on a large scale, the sort of mapping that is most useful can be done in the small and on the fly.

Besides the time and money spent, in the shifting sands of our organizations how likely are you to wind up with a map of current reality? More likely, you'll get a gold-plated, out-dated map of how it used to be - interesting for archival purposes but not terribly useful in navigating your work today. Unless you are in a pretty stable environment with meantime between reorganizations of more than twelve months, by the time large scale mapping studies are done, the map is likely to be pretty much useless for day to day work. Anyone who has tried to get from point A to point B using an outdated map (one in which they have a heavily investment) knows, you might be better off having no map at all.

Although we've not called it social network mapping, the techniques we've taught for years for dealing with the human elements of work certainly seems to fit the description. My favorite technique is subculture mapping.

In subculture mapping we consider the patterns within the organization and its sub-organizations - down to whatever is the relevant group size. We look for the over-riding patterns of group dynamics and ask "What does safety seem to entail for this particular group?"

• Do members flee into the safety of following a strong, charismatic or, perhaps, autocratic leader?
  
• Do members flock into a clan or clique that, from the outside, can seem impenetrable but feels perfectly rational and well functioning inside?
  
• Is this an every wo/man for him/herself chaotic culture - with management and organizational structure showing little effect on the way things get done?
  
• Is the predominant metaphor competing - with safety defined as being on the winning side of skirmishes and battles and besting your opponents?
• Oh yes, I must include the illusive, textbook, congruent culture in which safety is in speaking up, doing the right thing, balancing interests, and pursuing results through rational and explicitly agreed upon process. (Warning: if you think you are inside a congruent organization check from someone outside your group)
  

To be clear, each of these types can accomplish great results - none is better or worse, more or less functional. And, if you approach one of these organizations assuming it will act like a type other than it is, you are likely to leave with disappointed expectations.

Within each type of organization, there are more and less useful and effective ways of approaching getting work done, seeking support or resources, and feeling accepted and valued. Recognizing what you're working with is the first step in devising useful strategies. In our workshops we spent a bit of time reflecting on what we know about the do's and don'ts of working with each type.

And I've never seen anyone, after a bit of reflection, who couldn't pretty accurately size up the 'type' of various groups. And, I've not met anyone yet who, when comparing notes, couldn't come up with a half a dozen more useful strategies for getting things done with /within that group.

If you've got a giant budget, go for the study. If you just need to get work done, take a look at what is there. As Yogi Berra said "You can see a lot by looking!"


More on other strategies for understanding relationships more usefully in future posts.

Shifting Metaphors

These days, every time I get in front of a group, the topic of shifted metaphors comes up. Inevitably, whether at a gathering of Agile practitioners in San Francisco, a Stanford class of Program Managers looking for ways to better integrate their programs, or Austrian executives and consultants looking for ways to be more effective, the topic comes up.

It starts with someone mentioning their current intractable challenge: BUILDING an organization, IMPLEMENTING a change, BROKEN DOWN operations, quests for EFFICIENCY, or failed attempts to make things run like CLOCKWORKS.

At that point we bring up what seems so obvious - that they are approaching what seem like essentially human challenges as if they were simple mechanical problems.

I ask, "Do we work in an essentially mechanical organization infested with pesky humans? or Do we engage in an essentially living organization that uses mechanical tools to work better?"

The distinction is very important. Perhaps the most important distinction there is for those who want to really become effective and bring out the generative best in their organizations.

Our day-to-day language implies that we are operating in an essentially mechanical system. We measure performance and goodness based on mechanical standards of efficiency and productivity while getting stumbled up by the very elements that can provide the real solutions to our questing - generative productivity that delivers returns only seen in the organic world. Consider the kernel of grain that, if planted, tended, and harvested with consciousness and care will yield a hundred-fold return. Consider the germ that, once it finds a receptive place to lodge, rapidly replicates and infects the host.

Such are the potential yields of a shifted metaphor.

Understanding this distinction, and mindfully using the distinction appropriately allows individuals, groups, and organizations to leverage the principles of living systems, and for individuals to exercise the essentially human elements that unleash the full power within the system.

This is NOT to suggest that if you are, indeed, operating in an essentially mechanical operation - a production line is one example - that you try to reform it into something it is not. However, you might discover that those pesky human elements are the ones that most need tending to ensure that the living elements of the system are interacting with the mechanical elements to produce the highest value results. And those highest value results are ALWAYS measured in human terms - if only in terms of the biggest bonus, the nicest house, the flashiest (or most fuel efficient) car, or the biggest portfolio.

Generative projects, growing and learning organizations, and thriving and engaged workers require this one small shift. Interested in learning more? Stay Tuned.

Magic!

Last week's Mastering Projects Workshop was, once again, magical! What started as a group of strangers rapidly coalesced into a community of interest. When we finished we were walking on a cloud, finishing each others' sentences, and, the best thing of all, had reached our collective objective and each of our individual objectives for the journey.

For more about how the week progressed, check out the Mastering Project Work Yahoo group at MasteringProjectWork@yahoogroups.com. A short registration is required to take a peek at our remarkable, brief journey together. And, honestly, as much as we try to explain, and as hard as you look and try to understand, as with all magic, if you weren't there, you may never be able to understand.

Have you ever engaged on a project that turned magical? If so, you'll be able to relate and fondly reflect on that certain something that happened together. And you'll understand that feeling of magic.

How can you make magic happen on every project and initiative you engage with? How can you turn your difficult assignment into something remarkable? How can you take a disparate group of strangers (who may have worked together for years) and transform them into a real community in only three short days?

Drop us a note and find out how you can learn the secrets of how to bring the magic alive for you and your organization!

Human Centered Project Design

Last week at Stanford we again saw the subtle and pervasive impact of shifting the metaphor for our collective efforts from mechanical / industrial to living / human systems. We pose the fundamental question:

Are we pesky humans infesting a machine-like organization
or are we humans working (and thriving) within living organizations
that use mechanical support for our generative, creative, and productive efforts?

This cuts to the core of True North's distinctive difference. And what a difference it makes!

If you are interested in learning how this shift in perspective can infect every project you touch, we invite you to join us this fall in Spokane and Portland.

Mastering Projects Workshop

Human Centered Project Design

Portland, OR November 13-15, 2007 (Sign up by October 15)

Download Registration here

Are you getting the best from the human elements of your project?

Join the hundreds of project managers that have learned the True North secret to tapping the human elements of their projects - aligned expectations, successful communication, political support, and real motivation - to deliver exceptional results with greater engagement, confidence, and satisfaction.

Designed from best practices of innovation-oriented projects, Mastering Projects amplifies the effectiveness of any development or project management method. Learn why Nike's product developers, the New York Stock Exchange's system developers, and Los Alamos National Laboratory's research scientists all agree that Mastering Projects delivers more capability with the essential people-side of leading initiatives.


In just three days learn to:

• Design stronger, more flexible project structures
• Use organizational politics to your project's advantage
• Refocus energy and action within shifting goals and pressing urgencies
• Maintain the engagement, motivation, and confidence of your team, your sponsors, and your customers.

Learn how to leverage the people issues that make or break project success.

Sign up today!

Interested in what the human perspective of the Mastering Projects Approach could do for your organization and your projects? Call us and discover how to design breakthrough results into every project and key initiative. For special team discounts or to bring True North's Human Centered Design on-site, email us or call 509.527.9773.

True North pgs, Inc. is a pioneer in applying leading edge dynamic human systems theory and practice to the organizational problems of innovation and projects. True North helps organizations realize breakthrough results from projects and initiatives by designing and leading more satisfying, more engaging, and more innovative efforts.

True North principals, David Schmaltz and Amy Schwab bring over fifty years of practical, hands-on project experience and over twenty-five years of work with dynamic human system theory and practice. Whether assessing a struggling initiative, facilitating a project start-up, or preparing sponsors, leaders, and teams for challenges beyond any they've experienced in the past, Amy and David deliver rapid results. Amy and David have personally helped transform difficult, complex, and very human projects including ERP implementation, business process reengineering, fast time to market product development, information systems and technology, research and development, and organizational development.

Learn how your organization can benefit from the True North difference today.

Good to Great Decision Making

I just ran across a great article from a June 2005 Fortune magazine interview with Good to Great and Built to Last author Jim Collins. Collins went back through his research to see what it says about decision making and leadership. Here are the key points from the interview:

• What isn't very important -- who is. Over and over Collins makes the point that it isn't terribly important what a leader (or project manager) does while it is terribly important how that leader works with people and who s/he works with. Welcome to community -- real community -- relationships, humans, and their aspirations.

• Being clear about who one is. He talks about how this applies to companies -- know what your real mission is, and what you are uniquely positioned to do, and then do it regardless of what anyone else says. It also applies to humans and to projects. "Who are you and what do you burn for?" is the key question. Some who read The Blind Men and the Elephant were taken aback by this notion -- as if it isn't very important instead of absolutely essential.

• Saying "I don't know". Asking questions is more important than appearing to know all of the answers. You couldn't possibly know. Tied to this is asking first, not posing your opinion and then asking for reactions.

• Gather all points of view and then make the decision. It isn't about consensus (at least not most of the time). It is about opening up the conversation to gain the wisdom of those around you to inform the decision and nurturing constructive conflict.

• There are so many decisions to be made that it doesn't matter if you get many of them wrong. How you adapt to how it is different than you expected is what matters more than getting it right the first time.
  

I was reminded of this article when encountering yet another group of project managers in an organization seeking salvation in their methodologies and applying them as if they were prescriptive magic pills that would make everything okay. Here's why that doesn't work.

• They tend to focus on what -- what to do, how much it will cost, what workers, and treating those workers like objects rather than real people. Even the so-called 'human-centered' methods often relate to humans as 'whats' not 'whos'.
  

• They don't ask "What are we best at?" "What are we really up to?" and "What do we want?" They silently assume that this either is really clear and everyone sees the same thing or that this doesn't really matter (after all, we're only dealing with objective, verifiable whats). This misses or down-plays the important influence of context and intention.

• They try to answer all the questions at the beginning (as if this were possible) and focus on reducing things into a totally known set of whats. This obscures the fact -- the feature of creating new things -- that much depends upon much and, when doing something really novel, thinking that we have the answers blinds us to the real unknowns.

• They pose a recipe, instead of seeking a heading. They promise certainty instead of exercising resilience. They focus on authority instead of relationships and influence. They wind up delivering a fragile sort of certainty that blinds them to reality and leaves them over-responsible for reconstruction when the collision shatters their brittle certainty.
  

Thanks Jim Collins for the great reminder!

Thinking about Design Thinking (and Doing)

When I meet someone new, especially a potential client, there is one question that always comes up and, as simple as it seems, has been very hard to answer.

"Just what do you do?"

Sometimes I talk about our adaptive approach to projects and initiatives, sometimes its about helping people innovate well together. Up until now, I've not been satisfied with either my response or with the puzzled looks on the face of those seeking clarification.

I think I've 'got it'!

Our good friend, Bill Burnett, who is executive director for Stanford University's world reknown product design program, recently cut through the haze when he told us, "You guys are all about Design Thinking!" He's right. And, Bill is, after all, one of the best qualified in the world to make this call!

David met Bill years ago when Bill designing products at Apple. David was called in to consult on a product design effort that was widely expected to fail. What really happened instead was an award winning PowerBook computer, and a model design effort that laid the foundation for Apple's success in laptops. Bill has become a good friend. A couple years ago, after The Blind Men and the Elephant was published, he invited David, as visiting author, and me, to co-teach his design class session where we played with the context to create a visceral 'out-of-the-box' experience.

So we trust Bill's nose - his credentials are impeccable, and his friendship is genuine.

We've spent a lot of time over the last few years trying on various labels to try to explain to prospective clients what we do and how we do what we do - this dance between the medium in which new things happen, the things that result (new products, new projects, organizational innovations), and the stuff people do to make those results occur (often expressed as methods, or processes). Because we bring a different mindset to these dimensions of getting things done - acknowledging how things are so we can work within that environment to create the results that are needed - we too easily get lost trying to explain an approach and a mindset that produce results that still amaze even us.

Design thinking - and doing - is a very apt way of expressing the way we approach our work and how we teach others to approach their work. Design thinking is an intentional approach by which individuals can effect change in whatever context they find themselves. The outwardly observable behaviors and processes are emergent from a set of principles and mindsets that are fundamental to design thinking.

Design thinking is applicable in all facets of organizational life. Capable executives might recognize what they do in the description of this term - observing what is going on and finding ways to step into the slipstream to let the current carry them along towards success. Savvy managers and leaders in all areas of an organization know these keys to success - and how to dress up what they have learned works in the common parlance of process, productivity, and efficiency. However, they are always clear that the description is not really what happens - it is only a politically correct representation - absolutely necessary and necessarily incomplete. Most often tacit knowledge.

My current project will be about observing these principles differently, distilling them into a language of design thinking in order to share them with our community in our new Design Thinking Series.

In the True North Design Thinking Series we will help executives and leaders, teams and work groups, projects and business initiatives, and individual contributors learn about Design Thinking and how they apply it to their situations. Whether framed as a workshop, an executive retreat, a strategic planning session, team building, or training session, the design thinking series will help leaders, teams, and organizations develop the capability to innovate intentionally.


Stay tuned for more details or contact us to learn more.