Author Archives: Stefan Norrvall

Unknown's avatar

About Stefan Norrvall

Working to create better organisations.

The Illusion of Splitting Work and People Management

Posted on by
Reply

A few years back, I found myself in a large Telco navigating what was touted as an “agile” transformation. The premise was straightforward: decouple the management of work from the management of people. Delivery leads would oversee the day-to-day tasks, while “people managers” would focus on performance reviews, coaching, and professional development. The idea was that individuals would “flow to work,” being allocated to projects that matched their skills and aspirations, with their growth shepherded by someone not entangled in the immediate delivery pressures.

At first glance, it seemed like a progressive approach—flexible, empowering, and modern. But as the days turned into months, the cracks began to show. Let’s set aside, for a moment, the chaos created by shallow OKRs and incoherent prioritisation (leading to a whole bunch of partially supported projects instead of the critical ones fully supported). What became increasingly clear was something more structural: you can’t meaningfully separate the work someone does from the person doing it.

1. Accountability Gets Split (And Then Lost)

When the person guiding your work isn’t the one accountable for your performance, who actually owns the outcome?

  • The delivery lead sees the day-to-day results and struggles.
  • The people manager sits too far from the action to make a grounded judgement.
  • Each thinks the other has the handle on what matters most.

In practice, accountability becomes a shared illusion. Everyone is sort of responsible. Until something goes wrong—and then no one really is.

What emerges is a vacuum. No one owns the full person-in-role system. And that’s where performance problems, disengagement, and unmet development needs tend to fester.

 2. Development Without Context Isn’t Development

You can’t coach someone effectively if you’re not present in the conditions where they apply what they’ve learned.

  • A people manager, disconnected from delivery, can’t see how context shapes behaviour or performance.
  • A delivery lead, focused on outputs, might not be paying attention to longer-term growth, role fit, or learning loops.

The result? Feedback becomes generic. Coaching becomes abstract. And the person sits in the middle trying to reconcile two versions of what good looks like—one rooted in theory, the other in execution, neither aligned.

 Growth doesn’t happen in the abstract. It happens in real work, under real constraints. Managing that requires context and continuity.

3. Role Stress Goes Up, Not Down

Instead of freeing people, dual structures often leave them navigating a tangle of split expectations.

  • Conflicting priorities between “task” and “people” leads.
  • Unclear authority when guidance contradicts.
  • Emotional friction from trying to please both.

Over time, this creates exactly what Elliott Jaques described as role conflict. People spend more time managing the structure than doing the work.

 The structure becomes noise. It erodes trust, blurs accountability, and increases cognitive load—all in the name of agility.

 What Would Jaques Say?

Because I got the inspiration to write this from a post on LinkedIn questing if we needed hierarchy and I responded with some thoughts about Elliott Jaques’s work I wonder what he might have had to say. I imagine that he would offer a sharp and simple critique:

A role should have one manager.

That manager should be accountable for both the outputs of the role and the development of the person in it.

Not out of some love for command-and-control, but because coherent accountability enables clarity. And clarity enables real support. You can’t help someone grow if you don’t also see how they’re performing. And you can’t assess performance if you don’t understand the complexity of the role.

Noble Intentions, Flawed Design

To be fair, many of these structures come from good intentions:

  • Reducing bottlenecks in traditional hierarchies.
  • Sharing leadership across technical and people domains.
  • Creating space for peer mentoring and distributed learning.

But without a structurally sound foundation, they tend to deliver:

  • Diffuse authority
  • Unclear decision rights
  • Disempowered teams
  • Stressful ambiguity

And in complex work, ambiguity in structure rarely leads to innovation. It leads to drift.

Better Ways to Do This

To create adaptive, coherent organizations without fragmenting accountability, unify work and people management within structures that empower self-organization and local decision-making:

  • Single-Point Accountability with Subsidiarity: Assign one manager to oversee both role performance and personal development, ensuring clarity, context, and continuity. This manager holds full responsibility for the person-in-role system, drawing on specialists (e.g., technical coaches) for support without splitting authority. Empower local decision-making by granting authority to the lowest level with adequate information (subsidiarity), as local knowledge is critical for smart, timely adaptations in complex environments. Ensure local decisions align with global requirements—such as organizational goals, standards, or strategic priorities—through transparent communication and shared frameworks, maintaining coherence across the enterprise.
  • Porous Boundaries and Transparency: Define roles with clear purposes and decision rights, but ensure boundaries between teams are permeable to enable rich information flow. Break down silos by fostering open communication across and through organizational layers, aligning with market demands and customer value. Transparency builds trust, allowing teams to self-organize around shared goals without competing internal priorities.
  • Hybrid Roles for Requisite Variety: Equip technical leads to handle both delivery and development as hybrid “player-coaches,” supported by training to balance these responsibilities. This ensures managers have the contextual insight to coach effectively while maintaining accountability. Design roles to provide enough response variety to match the complexity of inputs, enabling teams to adapt dynamically to changing conditions.
  • Incremental Change with Humility: Approach change incrementally, monitoring feedback to detect unintended consequences and adjust course. Manager must embrace humility, recognizing the limits of control in complex systems. Treat “resistance” as valuable information, not a threat, and foster a culture of continuous learning to refine solutions collaboratively.
  • People-Centric Leadership for Self-Organization: Cultivate managers who trust in the workforce’s capacity to self-organize around meaningful work. Encourage employees to identify and solve issues that matter to them, as seen in successful bottom-up initiatives. Align efforts with a customer-centric purpose, ensuring all actions create value, and leverage informal networks to drive innovation and collaboration.

These principles create organizations that are adaptive yet coherent, empowering people to thrive within a unified framework that delivers value and fosters trust.

 Final Thought

You can’t separate people from the work they do. Attempts to do so—however well-intentioned—often leave organisations with structural ambiguity, role confusion, and diminished trust.

Agile may call it flexibility. But in complex systems, clarity is what actually enables adaptability. And the best kind of structure isn’t the one with the fewest rules—it’s the one where the rules are clear, coherent, and help people do their best work.

Yet another perspective on POSIWID and complexity

Posted on by
Reply

I recently reflected on Stafford Beer’s concept of POSIWID – “The Purpose Of a System Is What It Does,” explored in Harish Jose‘s insightful article, available here A Constructivist’s View of POSIWID.

While I find substantial agreement with the principles of POSIWID as put in the article, it also reignited a question that I’ve been grappling with that intertwines with my ongoing exploration of complexity theory:

Is complexity primarily rooted in our limited knowledge (epistemic), or is it an inherent characteristic of systems themselves (ontological)?

As I read it, POSIWID seems to favour the epistemic lens over the ontological.

Does constructivism have limits in organisational contexts?

While constructivism posits that the observer defines the system’s purpose, I wonder if this perspective can be both limiting at times yet also essential. When each individual’s perception potentially redefines a system’s purpose, aligning these diverse views towards a unified organisational goal can become a formidable challenge. This multiplicity of perspectives, though innovative, risks operational inertia without a structured framework for integration, something that perhaps becomes more important for organisations that favour more decentralised decision making approaches. However, the capacity to view systems differently seems crucial as it prevents organisational ignorance to weak signals, essential for strategic pivots and ongoing viability.

Navigating purpose and adaptability in systems design

Consider a teacup used as a penholder. This simple reimagination by an individual might highlight the flexibility of POSIWID. Similarly, the repurposing of a luxury ocean liner to a floating hospital during wartime exemplifies POSIWID’s adaptability—shifting from leisure to utilitarian roles under external pressures, not individual whims. These different uses or new purposes for something that was originally designed and produced with a different intent in mind also raises questions about POSIWIDs broader impact on organisational coherence.

If there is no shared understanding or agreement of the boundaries and purposes of our organisational systems, is there not the potential for utter chaos? Granted that the boundaries and purposes also have a temporal aspect to them and are (and should be) subject to change. But right now, would we not need agreement on the basics? Are we designing and producing containers for hot beverages, pen holders, or paperweights or as in the other example, are we building a floating hospital or a luxury ocean liner?

Man-made systems like the ones we have in commercial organisations are clearly designed with some intent (which at a high level is to produce goods and/or services). The boundaries of these systems must be agreed at least enough, with the stakeholders involved to corral a level of coherence in the actions these people take in the pursuit of delivering on that purpose.

Some stakeholders are tasked with the responsibility and granted the authority to ensure that systems achieve their intended purposes. However, it’s not uncommon for these systems to remain static despite significant changes in their operational environment that should prompt revisions and updates. Often, instead of a redesign that realigns with the evolving landscape, organisational systems undergo piecemeal disconnected adjustments, no doubt with good intent but often creating local optimisation at the expense of the whole. This incremental approach can result in a patchwork of functions and features—akin to a Frankenstein’s monster—that no one would intentionally design from scratch if the system’s purpose were kept in focus. Such scenarios underscore the need for a more strategic approach to system design and evolution, ensuring that adaptations are thoughtful and cohesive rather than reactive and disjointed.

There will of course be challenges to this and to address these, the boundaries may need to be adjusted to better deal with these, hence why the boundaries can’t be completely fixed or rigid.

You may of course argue (and I for one often do) that the stated purpose of an organisational system hardly does anything remotely close to what’s on the tin. In fact more often then than, not it’s seemingly doing the complete opposite and system owners/custodians are blind to it (or choose to ignore it). Systems for collaboration and teamwork reinforces silo behaviours and reward systems entrench local optimisation efforts by focusing on individual bonuses.

Whilst Beer may have advocated for a Constructivist view, he also developed the Viable System Model which contains systems with defined purposes for organisational viability. System 2’s purpose is to coordinate the operations of system 1 for example. A school using a timetable to coordinate teachers and classes with its scares resources like rooms and equipment could not work if some teachers saw the timetable as a too limiting and decided to operate outside of it. They would of course be allowed to think this and have views on it, but they would have to accept it as an official coordinating system and work within those boundaries or try and engage in a process of redesigning it make it work better.

It seems to me that while individual interpretations of a system’s purpose can and will vary, not all can dictate its operational use. Someone (group or individual) must be able to have a final say on this, at least to lock something in at a point in time to enable people to converge on an agreed purpose. And maybe it’s time we stop relying on single individuals to do this and embrace the collective wisdom available to us already.

This tension between fluidity and fixity in organisational systems leads us into the internal debate about complexity that I’ve been grappling with. As we navigate these challenging waters, we confront the dual nature of complexity. It is in these scenarios where I wonder if POSIWID, viewed through a purely constructivist lens, always prevails.

Epistemic vs. ontological complexity: A dual perspective

This brings us to the core of my internal debate about the nature of complexity. Viewing complexity as epistemic suggests it arises from a lack of knowledge about a system. This form implies that acquiring more information or increasing capability could reduce the perceived complexity. What one person perceives as complex, another might not, owing to differing levels of knowledge or cognitive capability.

In contrast, viewing complexity as ontological means that it is embedded in the very fabric of the situation, independent of our understanding. Recognising whether the challenges we face are due to unknown variables or the inherent nature of systems can significantly influence our management strategies. I’m here reminded of Boulding’s observation that “few errors are more costly than treating systems that possess a high level of complexity with models and methodologies that lack the appropriate sophistication” which I interpret as speaking to the ontological perspective. And is this not exactly what Cynefin set out to help with, make sense of the situation to hopefully avoid or at least minimise this costly error? Risk management also speak about this in terms of the distinction it makes between epistemic risk and aleatory risk which seems to speak to the same two perspectives being present.

Integrating two systems concepts: The Darkness Principle and The Complementarity Law

There are two other systems concepts that come to mind where I think both an epistemic and ontological lens could be applied, at least in my interpretation of them (happy to stand corrected as always).

The Darkness Principle posits that no system can ever be fully known, aligning traditionally with epistemic complexity, where the complexity arises due to what we do not or cannot know. However, this principle also underscores ontological complexity by suggesting some aspects of systems are inherently unknowable—not merely due to current knowledge gaps but because they are intrinsically beyond complete comprehension.

The Complementarity Law underscores the importance of integrating multiple perspectives to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of a system. It highlights that different viewpoints, stemming from varying levels of knowledge and different worldviews among observers, may reveal truths about the system that are neither entirely independent nor entirely compatible. This synthesis of conflicting or complementary models helps appreciate the inherent complexity of a system, not as a limitation of our understanding but as a fundamental characteristic.

Operationalising systems thinking

To manage these complexities, organisations can employ methods like Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) and Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to foster an inclusive dialogue that accounts for both epistemic and ontological dimensions. These are of course not the only ones by any means, just two examples that I picked as they tend to deal with the politics of organisations quite well. By incorporating diverse, often marginalised perspectives, CSH and SSM can helps define clear system boundaries and purposes, integrating different worldviews, to arrive at organisational systems that are both effective and have a positive impact on stakeholders, or at last minimise the potential negative impacts.

Embracing dynamic consensus in complex systems

My ongoing reflection draws me closer to a view that we need to view complexity from both an epistemic AND ontological perspective and that whilst POSIWID can be extremely useful it can also detract unless the organisation has good mechanisms in place to explore, test and either embed or reject the infinite POSIWIDs that exist. This underscores the need for a dynamic consensus approach in organisations, one that embraces the dual nature of complexity.

Bayer is a recent example but it’s interesting to see that they need to face collapse before finding the courage to explore this. It will be intriguing to see how the parts of Bayer may reinvent themselves if they now have increased autonomy to embrace and integrate multiple interpretations of POSIWID across its new decentralised shared ownership structure. Will they be allowed to take it into new directions that better align with the sentiments of the new team and how they decide to interpret and agree on their shared purpose?

BetaCodex Network have several other examples and Corporate Rebels are building up quite the library of progressive organisations embracing new ways to thinking and acting in this space.

Organisations must continuously review and adapt their systems to remain relevant and effective, ensuring these adjustments reflect a comprehensive understanding of complexity that bridges theoretical insights with practical realities. An individual’s viewpoint, through the lens of POSIWID, may be the spark that ignites a critical pivot, but it needs to be embraced organisationally through inclusive methods like Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) and Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to have a lasting effect. These approaches foster dialogue that accounts for both the epistemic complexities of diverse perspectives and the ontological complexities inherent in organisational systems.

By investing in decentralised decision-making models that leverage the distributed capabilities within the organisation, companies can better match their internal complexity with the variety present in their external environment. This dynamic consensus approach integrates theoretical principles with a pragmatic understanding of the multi-faceted nature of complexity, enabling sustainable decision-making and strategic coherence in an ever-evolving landscape.

What’s your experience?

The concept of POSIWID—The Purpose Of a System Is What It Does—compels us to reflect on our own organisational roles and the systems we interact with daily. It challenges us to question whether we’re merely accepting systems as they are presented or engaging with them to reveal and even redefine their purpose. As we conclude this exploration, consider how POSIWID has influenced your approach to systems in your workplace. Have you leveraged this concept to gain deeper insights into the systems you’re a part of, or have you noticed instances where the stated purpose diverges from the actual functionality?

Moreover, complexity in our organisational systems can be both a knowledge gap to bridge and an inherent aspect of the systems we navigate. It’s a dual challenge that tests our adaptability and demands a nuanced approach. Think about how you confront complexity in your environment. Do you tackle it by seeking more information and increasing your understanding, or do you accept some of its mystery as a feature of the landscape you operate within? Or perhaps you blend these strategies, recognising that some complexities can be unraveled while others must be managed through insight and experience.

Share your experiences, strategies, and the methodologies that have empowered you to navigate this terrain.

From the back office corner to the spotlight: elevating process to enhance customer experience

Posted on by
Reply

Think ‘process work’ is stodgy and bureaucratic? I’ll challenge you to see it as the secret cornerstone of exceptional customer experiences.

Let’s talk about a term that’s become almost taboo in some circles: process. Yes, that “dirty word” that, mention it in the wrong company, and you might as well have confessed to hating puppies. In my two decades of navigating the corporate seas, I’ve seen firsthand how the mere mention of process work can send a shiver down the spine of even the most stoic operations team. It’s a peculiar phenomenon, considering that processes are the skeleton upon which businesses hang their promises to customers.

Take a moment to consider the irony here. In our quest for division and specialisation, we’ve segmented our organisations into silos that often lose sight of the overarching goal: delivering stellar customer experiences. I once worked for a global organisation where, in a moment of what I assume was bureaucratic madness (or par for the course depending on how you see it), CX and process work were cleaved apart like some ill-fated Shakespearean romance.

The reasoning? Process work was deemed too “back office” or too technical with applications being integrated and not sufficiently customer-centric—a perspective as fascinating as it is flawed. Having sailed the oceans of process, service design, and CX, I’ve yet to meet anyone in the process domain who isn’t deeply committed to customer satisfaction. After all, if a process doesn’t ultimately serve the customer, what’s the point?

My musings on this topic were sparked over coffee with a friend, so it felt appropriate to use a restaurant analogy to depict the folly of what was happening. Through organisation design decisions we’d separated menu design (read: CX) from the ability to actually deliver the dishes (process work). What’s the use of a redesigned menu if the kitchen lacks the means to bring these culinary visions to life? This disconnect is detrimental to value creation.

And don’t get me started on the trend of digitalisation for its own sake. Being nudged towards an app to order a simple coffee, entering details more suited to a medical exam than a caffeine fix, feels less like progress and more like an obstacle course between the customer and their desired experience.

I can see a situation where, let’s call it CX is a separate function but it would only be if they were obsessed and specialised in research, analysis and hypotheses testing to feed these insights to the “process folks”. Like an essential connection to the ever changing operating environment to enable the process folks to make better decisions about how to enhance the customer experience

Organisations balance exploration and exploitation. The money today is usually in exploitation which for most places hinges on being able to deliver on a promise again and again to the same level of quality. For most organisation this is through process, one way or another Depending on the context the granularity of required process specification and level of step by step adherence will differ and that must of course the accounted for.

Yet, it’s not all doom and gloom. The evolution from rigid to adaptive process design, embracing flexibility and acknowledging the vast grey areas of operation, offers a beacon of hope. Adaptive case management has been around for a long time and we can take a less myopic focus on defining processes to the nth degree to show a path forward where a balance between efficiency and customer-centricity can coexist.

Here’s where we circle back to the crux of the matter: value. Whether a process impacts the customer directly or operates in the realm of compliance, its ultimate measure is the value it delivers—both to the customer and to the business. This brings us to the strategic principle of the “critical few,” where not all processes are created equal in their impact on customer satisfaction. Identifying and prioritising these key processes is where the true art of business strategy lies.

As we stand at the crossroads of tradition and innovation in process design, the mandate is clear. We must champion a holistic approach that recognises the intrinsic link between effective process management and unparalleled customer experiences. It’s time for businesses to take a hard look at their processes, asking not just how they can be more efficient and effective, but how they can more dynamically serve the beating heart of any business—the customer.

Innovative products like Apromore and Capsifi will no doubt tap into ways to utilise AI combined with some human ingenuity and creativity to reshape how we approach process management and business architecture in general in different ways, no doubt with a speeds that we now will think are impossible.

In the end, the message is simple yet profound: the future belongs to those who can reimagine process work as an integral, vibrant part of delivering exceptional customer experiences. Nobody should put process in the corner thinking it’s not integral to CX outcomes, lift her out and up in the air.

What’s your experience? Is process a dirty word in your organisation? Is it relegated to the corner or out on the dance floor?

How this frustrated enthusiast drowned in the sea of organisational stupidity

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Let’s be less stupid. Just fix the bloody work!

Posted on by
1

Fix the Bloody Work: A Decades Old Truth We Keep Forgetting

I recently came across yet another post lamenting why employees leave their jobs. The authors wrung their hands about inclusion, respect, support, and other HR buzzwords. But as always, they ignored the elephant in the room – the work itself.

This wilful ignorance triggered me. It brings to mind a quote from pioneering organisational psychologist Frederick Herzberg back in the 1960s:

“If you want someone to do a good job, give them a good job to do.”

How much clearer can it get? And yet 50+ years later, we seem no closer to heeding this wisdom.

Let’s take teachers as an example. A recent study found nearly half are considering quitting in the next year. Their #1 complaint? Unmanageable workloads.

But the calls are for more wellbeing programs and counseling. While helpful, these won’t fix the underlying issues.

As Desmond Tutu said, “There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.”

We need to go upstream to the work itself. Fix the badly designed, bureaucratic busywork that prevents teachers from doing what they do best – teach.

This isn’t just about retention. It’s about productivity, engagement, psychological safety, and organisational performance. Not to mention just being ethical and humane.

As managers, our role is to be obsessively user-focused. If the “user” is our employee, then we need to design their work experience for meaning, mastery, and autonomy. Clear the obstacles, remove the dysfunction, and let people thrive.

It’s common sense. But common sense is not common practice, as they say.

The truth is staring us in the face, just as clearly as when Herzberg said it in the 60s. The work itself matters. Purpose, challenge, impact – these are fundamental human needs.

Everything else is window dressing. Fix the bloody work. End of story.

As leaders, when will we start listening? Or better yet, when will we start acting?

Have you also experienced how dysfunction is allowed to grow in organisations over time, making it harder to just do the work that matters? Share your thoughts and frustrations in the comments!”

Ever feel like you’re in a Monty Python sketch when you step into your office?

Posted on by
Reply

Picture this: A corporation claims innovation is its lifeblood. Yet, it smothers creativity with a pillow of bureaucracy. It preaches agility but moves at a pace that makes glaciers seem like sprinters.

Isn’t it peculiar how the same organisation that prides itself on communication can’t seem to master the art of a simple, clear email?

And let’s not forget the adoration for buzzwords. ‘Synergy’, ‘disruption’, ‘leverage’. Peppered in every meeting, every presentation. Yet, the only disruption seen is the constant reshuffling of top management.

How about the paradox of hiring for diversity but promoting for conformity? The irony of espousing work-life balance while flooding employees with after-hours emails?

These corporate absurdities are as common as they are nonsensical. We laugh at them, and vent about them, but seldom challenge them.

But here’s the thing.

These absurdities are not the result of some cosmic joke. They’re products of decisions, policies, and cultures that prioritise the wrong things.

We can’t merely accept them as ‘part of the job’. We need to call them out, question them, laugh at ourselves for being so stupid, and if needed, fight against them.

Next time you face an absurd corporate practice, don’t just roll your eyes. Ask ‘Why?’

To stop the cycle of corporate absurdities you in the first instance need to spot them. How you surface and challenge them is where politics come into play and that’s perhaps a later section of the book where we help you find your way through that mess without losing yourself or your head in the process.

Ready to break the cycle and start asking ‘why’?

Chime in below with an absurd corporate practice you’ve spotted!

Let’s get the conversation started. Together, we can create better organisations.

Ever feel like you’re in a Dilbert cartoon while navigating the absurdities of organisational life?”

Posted on by
2

Is it ignorance, ego, self-interest, stupidity, incompetence, laziness, groupthink, lack of critical thinking, or perhaps a blend of all of the above that is behind the stupid stuff we see in organisations daily?

Am I gifted with a spider sense for spotting the absurdities that permeate organisational life? I often feel like I’m living a real-life version of a Dilbert cartoon.

Being acutely aware of my limitations I know that’s not the case. In every organisation I’ve worked in or with, there were a ton of people sighing in frustration about the latest great idea that came down from the top, so I know I’m not alone here. Cartoons like Dilbert and Comic Agile wouldn’t be so popular if they didn’t spot and make these absurdities explicit.

I’m an idealist at heart and I appreciate that can be a naive perspective at times but it keeps hope alive. We know there are better ways of doing things and even if we never reach the ideal they give us something to continually strive for.

What is emerging though is a view that having the capability to spot the irony of the disconnect between what is espoused and what people are experiencing in an organisation is a powerful perspective as long as you can laugh about it and expect it to be there.

Maybe all change programs should start by having a group of anthropologists, sociologists, and stand-up comedians do a deep dive into the organisation and kick things off with a stand-up performance for all staff calling out all the crazy absurd stuff that is happening.

Based on levels of laughter from the staff you have your roadmap for improvement.

It’s only from your current reality that transformation can emerge so having a deeper understanding of how people are experiencing the organisation today seems like a sensible place to start.

Caught yourself nodding in agreement? Then, why not share your comedic goldmine of organisational absurdities below?

Or better yet, how about hitting that ‘Like’ button or passing this along with a ‘Share’?

Remember, a good laugh shared, is a good laugh doubled!

The Frustrated Enthusiast

Posted on by
Reply

The updated name of my blog that I am hoping to reignite after many years of slacking off on the blog writing side. The name comes form my collaboration with Dr. Richard Claydon and his work on organisational irony when we ran free MeetUp sessions together in Sydney many years ago to test out some of his work.

Often labelled a cynic and troublemaker the frustrated enthusiast is desperately trying to change things for the better as they see the irony of organisational life. They call out the big disconnect between how things are talked about or positioned versus the reality of how things are being run in the organisation, trying to shift the system from the inside.

Frustrated because not much seems to change or it’s very slow. Enthusiastic about the potential sitting untapped inside most organisations and what might be, if we just did things differently.

I’ve often found myself labelled as a cynic or troublemaker calling BS on the stuff being proposed or being done. But isn’t it the troublemakers who are often the catalysts for change?

A book or blog series that chronicles the myriad of absurdities found across organisations is brewing in my mind. All the silly and outright stupid stuff I’ve seen working across all types of organisations and industries. I’ve got tons of stories myself but wanted to gather some additional ones to see if I could find a way to share them as patterns.

I’m looking for your tales of silly or outright stupid stuff that you’ve seen or been part of. I predict that there are some common patterns to be found and some real cracking stories out there. Some short examples of my stories are shared in the images below. Your stories matter. Whether trivial or complex, they can ignite change.

Don’t just spectate – participate! Air your views in the comment section or better yet, take the survey. Let’s expose the absurdities together.

Organisational Stupidity Survey Link g6zha4t9gsc.typeform.com/to/nAM4iUM…

Let’s shake things up!

Surfacing the hidden value creation networks in your organisation

Posted on by
Reply

Ever considered how to surface the value creation networks in your organisation?

Thinking out loud and wondering if there would be some way of connecting the power of organisational network analysis (ONA) with the rigour of the requisite conversation framework (RCF).

People, social beings as we are, need to connect and have conversations with others to do our work (at least that’s true for most roles).

I would assume that ONA can tell you who I am connecting with and through what channel (hopefully not linked to video surveillance of who I had a coffee with in the kitchen…) and these days AI may be able to work out if it’s a social connection or work-related.

But could it be further enhanced by being able to provide deeper insights into the nature of the conversations by anchoring it in something like the RCF to trace the value creation networks from idea/concept to delivery?

Don’t keep your thoughts to yourself. Like, share or even better put your thoughts in the comments.

Transformation: Strategy, where are you, we need to talk!

Posted on by
1

Ever found yourself in the middle of a “Transformation” project that left you scratching your head and wondering where the strategy had disappeared to? 🤷‍♂️

I’ve been there too, and in my experience, most of these so-called “transformations” were more like a masquerade ball for cost-cutting.

When you look under the fancy costume it’s just cost out and efficiency that matters. The relentless pursuit of efficiency often feels like watching a slow train crash – you can see chaos and destruction coming, and you’re left wondering, “Where’s the strategy in all of this?”

Strategy is more than lofty objectives and pillars that sound like they belong in an ancient temple. The pillars are usually stupid to argue against; improve customer centricity, get better at safety, grow market share, yawn!

We’re talking about real, meaningful changes that move the needle giving you an edge relative to other players in the game.

What’s missing is a shared understanding of the game plan. Who are the key players in this game, and how and where can we outmaneuver them? That’s where the real strategy comes into play.

Let’s borrow a page from Patrick Hoverstadt and Lucy Loh‘s book, ‘Patterns of Strategy.’ They define strategy as:

“Changing our fit with the environment to our advantage by concentrating power in time.” Sounds fancy, right?

But here’s the deal: Without strategic foresight (what’s changing in the environment), an understanding of our current state (what could this mean for us, how do our capabilities stack up), and our capacity for change (how can we respond or shape this, have we had success or faceplants in the past), our transformation efforts (what we’ll do and when) can feel as chaotic as a circus without a ringmaster.

The vision might talk about leading the pack, but all we end up doing is chasing incremental efficiency gains. Incremental won’t get us to the front of the race; we’ll just be stuck in the middle of the pack.

Let’s redefine strategy from a journey from A to B with no interference, to a more dynamic game working with the forces at play. Think of it as a chess game on multiple boards, where we’re not just making moves in random order but also setting the stage to influence the outcome.

A bit more detail on what Patterns of Strategy offers for you to match yourself against others in your environment in the images below, how do you stack up against others, are you stronger, weaker, faster, slower…?

Agree or disagree? Have a view on the tangled web of strategy and transformation?

Thoughts? Let’s unpack this together! Share where your organisation stands in its transformation journey. Is it coherent or fragmented? Like, comment or share.