Recently, I found myself reflecting on my challenges in navigating the turbulent sea of politics within a large organisation, when prompted about the specific culture there. I know many people there that seem to thrive but it was a challenging environment for me and some of my team.

It can be tricky to balance the need to “deliver” and make the changes that you’ve been hired to do, when the runway to build up the social capital needed to call out that the emperor is naked, is short. Especially if you are in support role, providing advice as opposed to having line role authority and accountability.

What I observed quite quickly was a huge amount of time, effort and money that  could have been avoided or saved by approaching some challenges based on relatively basic principles of systems thinking and complexity theory. Foundational aspects to me of Business Architecture.

Confirmation bias perhaps, but it fits a view I have developed over the years that many organisations somehow survive and “perform” despite themselves. It is most certainly not by deliberate design for overall organisational performance, that’s for sure.

I can’t help but wonder how many boards or senior executive teams (to the extent that they can be called teams…) would be judged as competent, if investors and analysts were fully aware of the ludicrous goings-on within these large organisations. The sheer amount of wasteful activities and pointless busywork that occupies the daily routines of their employees is utterly mind-boggling.

Three areas that in this case stood out like the proverbial canin appendage to me;

1. Prioritisation and resource allocation
2. Understanding of performance
3. Intervention design

1. Prioritisation and resource allocation: Funding is always scarce so you would think that there would be an appetite to make sure it was directed to where is would make a difference… (well, you’d like to think that at least but apparently not). Unclear prioritisation was par for the course, combined with a resource allocation system that didn’t consider either capacity to deliver on all “priorities” or the allocation of the constraining resources.

2. Understanding of performance :The performance dashboard of a key end to end process which showed it not performing as desired even though all sub-processes did… (no one wanted a bar of it…). The individual stage targets were met so bonuses were secured.

3. Intervention design: The rushed digital transformation, where the program of work targeted enhancing individual instances of business capabilities, all seeking to develop best in class solutions. A classic Russ Ackoff case of ‘the best car parts don’t make the best car – they don’t even make a car at all’.

Whilst this last example refers to a specific intervention it is one that permeates thinking across the board when it comes to organisations. The reductionist view that by getting the parts right we also get the whole right. Adam Walls as he so often does, pointed this out in a recent comment in a post about what Business Architecture is or isn’t.

“The problems starts at the top and permeates every layer of the organisation. Budgets cause competition for resources and personal politics impact the communication channels to such an extent that whole sections don’t work together. Add to this HR practices which focus on individual performance rather than cross business communication and we have dysfunctional silos which actively oppose each other.”

The thinking that influences the design choices that organisation make, quite literally create dysfunction from the start which circles back to my earlier point; organisations manage to survive despite themselves (even though the longevity and lifespan of many enterprises is shortening rapidly).

I suspect that the reception of my advice and concerns might have differed if they had come from an external advisor. That is also telling of what type of organisation you are dealing with. To what extent do they actually listen to employees? Many consulting reports just repackage the insights from employees that the organisations is hellbent on not listening to, because what would they know…

I didn’t survive in this instance, but as Professors Mats Alvesson and Andre Spicer make clear in their book “The stupidity paradox”, organisations must encourage people to be the devil’s advocate. Someone must argue for the opposite of whatever the official corporate line is. And let’s not forget Dr. Richard Claydon who taught me that irony can be an effective weapon. The message from these three is clear; organisations need a court jester, someone who can speak truth to power cloaked in humour.

Until we are willing to challenge the current paradigm of thinking nothing will really change and “transformations” will remain at the surface level doing sweet FA to move the dial.

The questions remain – who is ready to listen and who is bold enough to take action?

Clearly, this jester wasn’t amusing enough in this instance and is now on the lookout for a new court to entertain. So, if this was of interest and you know of a receptive audience, shout out.

Let’s share ideas and learn from each other. Who knows, your insight could be just the ticket for someone else. Go on, hit like, share, or drop a comment below.