Category Archives: Leadership

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.

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.

The often misguided pursuit of organisational democracy part 2

Posted on by
Reply

Like I said in an earlier comment on LinkedIn, the previous post was an exploration where I’m in a way playing the devil’s advocate for something I philosophically believe in.

What we all too often see though, in our search for balance, is that we tend to overcorrect and end up in in the shadow side of what we aimed for. Like the cycle of centralisation and decentralisation that most organisations go through with a seemingly regular cadence.

Too constrained to operate effectively we let the boundaries of decision making expand to the point where it gets too much. We feel anxious that too much autonomy was provided. Feelings of loss of control or coherence emerge and then instead of a carefully thought-out way to address the shortcomings, we snatch it all back and clamp down on the decision-making boundaries to regain control (even if as usual, control is an illusion).

I posed a question if our pursuit to democratising organisations risk overcorrecting to the extent where they become cooperatives or where the negative aspects become prominent. I have no doubts about the many positive outcomes that can come from it as well.

However, like any approach to organisational governance, it may also have potential downsides, including slower decision-making, confusion over responsibility, potential for conflicts, dilution of expertise, risk of populism, efficiency trade-offs, and overwhelming employees with decision making requirements.

Perhaps some follow-on questions are:
1. how do we best mitigate these downsides?
2. how does an organisation prevent any changes to democratise itself from falling back into the dictatorship or oligarchy that preceded it?

There are surely many organisations that have gone down that path as well.

It’s important to balance the desire for democratic principles with the need for clear accountability, effective decision-making processes, and respect for expertise (in the right context).

I know there is a big “anti-manager” sentiment here as well, but I think it at times confuses symptoms with causes. Lots of managers lack the required capabilities and authorities to be successful in their roles and the organisational systems aren’t designed in ways that are coherent, so their organisation has sets them up to fail. We then complain about their behaviour which was entirely predictable given the environment they are in…

Is an alternative to a participative democratic organisation a well-designed managerial accountability hierarchy, with capable people in roles? Where roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and people are promoted based on their merit – their skills, abilities, and achievements – rather than their seniority or other non-performance related factors.

Is there a balance between top-down decision making and bottom-up input? Maybe there is room for both a meritocratic system and democratic elements within the same organisation?

The often misguided pursuit of organisational democracy

Posted on by
2

I’ve been wrestling with a growing disillusionment recently, one that has been gnawing away at my longstanding enthusiasm for reshaping and refining organisations. The culprit? A prevailing trend that advocates for every business to morph into a democratic entity. Yes, you read that right: I’m wondering if democracy in the workplace, is something to pursue as a universally good thing – I know how triggering this might be for some. As the great poet Kanye said, “Haters start your engines, I hear ’em gearin’ up”. 

On the surface, it’s an appealing concept, isn’t it? Embracing equality, promoting everyone’s voice, and embodying the very emblem of fairness we so highly esteem in our societies. This is where the enticement ends and the misalignment with reality begins.

Why have I landed here you might ask? Seeing how our democracies are creating tribes of us and them, seemingly incapable of collaborating on anything, I fail to see how that would be an improvement on where we are today. It seems to me that we’re missing the important aspect of context and purpose.

Organisations are not political systems in the same sense that a nation state is. Now now, of course I know that organisations and organisational life can be highly political and survival is often based on how well you can play the game of politics rather than an idealistic meritocracy. Gareth Morgan’s metaphor of organisations as political instruments is an apt perspective here. And of course, there are some examples of companies where aspects of corporate democracy have worked. I am not disputing that. But is this really a viable option for most and is it something they need to strive for? I doubt it. Commercial organisations are complex structures of human interaction geared towards achieving very specific objectives; in a nutshell they are there to produce goods and/or services in some way or another – a very specific context – and a very different one to running a nation.  

While both are systems of governance that involve the coordination of people, teams, departments, etc, their purposes, structures, and the nature of the relationships they involve are fundamentally different.

A nation-state exists to provide security, uphold laws, safeguard citizens’ rights, and facilitate societal welfare. It’s not about producing goods or services for profit, but rather about ensuring the wellbeing of its citizens. Moreover, citizens do not usually choose their nation-state; typically, one is born into it and is subjected to its laws by default, and they can’t opt out in the same way as they can leave an organisation. 

Contrast this with a commercial organisation. These are purpose-built entities designed to deliver goods or services (for profit). They have a strategic focus aimed at generating value and growth (not making the argument here that growth is necessarily always good, but it’s still a driving force in our short-sighted mindset that dominates corporate decision making). Employees voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement with an organisation, exchanging their knowledge and labour for compensation. They also have the freedom to exit this agreement, under most circumstances, and seek employment elsewhere.

Trying to apply democratic principles universally across these vastly different contexts can lead to incongruity. Democracies (in theory) work in nation-states because they ensure that all citizens have a say in the laws and policies that affect them, a necessity for upholding justice and societal cohesion. However, businesses aren’t designed primarly to promote social equity or uphold civic rights; they’re designed to produce goods or services effectively and efficiently. 

This isn’t to say employee participation and input shouldn’t be encouraged, but I wonder if instead a more balanced approach might be more effective. This would involve a mix of top-down decision-making, where people with the most knowledge and experience make certain calls, and bottom-up input, where employees have a say in decisions that directly affect their work and well-being. 

An even simpler example of how governance systems need to be matched to context is your family. If we ran our family as a democracy my wife and I would be outvoted by our four children all the time. No set bedtimes, ice-cream for breakfast, no screen time limits etc. We also don’t run it like an organisation with role descriptions, annual performance reviews and employment contracts that can be terminated for poor performance. 

What we do have are agreed boundaries, and we set out these decision making limits for the kids (age appropriate). These boundaries are also flexible rather than rigid to allow for contextual circumstances.  We also speak with them around how these boundaries may need to change as the kids grow and require more autonomy, freedom to explore, fail and learn, and a have safe place to come back to regardless of how they have performed or what they have done. The same can probably also happen in an organisation. if something isn’t working, explore alternatives and make it safe to return back to where you were if it isn’t working as intended.  

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting that we maintain or try to get away from the all to common dictatorship model where decisions are made unilaterally from an ivory tower. But let’s not swing so far in the other direction that we attempt to put every decision up to a vote. A successful organisation requires a delicate balance of autonomy and collaboration, clarity about authority limits and the associated accountability, a blend of clear direction with space for innovation and emergence.

Let’s stop obsessively trying to democratise all aspects of our organisations and instead focus on creating environments that respect the complexity and humanity of our teams – some may be more democratic than others – it all depends on the context and what’s suitable as an appropriate governance structure there. 

After all, isn’t our shared aim to create organisations that are not only successful and effective but also fulfilling and humane places to work? Isn’t the ultimate goal to fashion organisations that inspire us and where we find joy and growth, rather than deplete our energy and passion, diving us rather than uniting us?

The walking dead, the cynics, the courageous few, and organisational CPR

Posted on by
Reply

My most recent collaborator Dr Richard Claydon wrote another great post the other day on how art (in this case TV shows) reflects the fears of society. In his post, which I encourage you to read, not only because he is a good writer, but this post might make more sense if you do.

I recently heard a story of a former colleague’s exchange with a senior partner from a global consultancy. My colleague asked, in earnest, what underlying theories the company used to inform their practice. The partner looked perplexed by the question, so after some clarification the partner said; oh, we use international best practice.

What on earth does that mean? You copy what others are doing without knowing why, and because many are doing it there must be value in it? Well, there is one born every minute they say, and you can make a lot of money from selling snake oil or success recipes. You clearly will not make a lot of cash offering services that involve telling people inconvenient truths.

Nonetheless, there is nothing like a monumental challenge to get you motivated. Richard and I connected as we are both on a quest to do our bit to shift management practice from pseudo-science, anecdotal evidence or “best practice” to a foundation of sound theory. There is plenty of good stuff out there, both past and present. It is, however, not easy to package it up into a three or five step process that guarantees success.

The reality is that transforming an organisation will be messy, it is unpredictable, we will not have all the answers up front, and it will take a lot of work. It is hard to get people to queue up for that type of show, even more so when they also have to play a part in the performance.

an-inconvenient-truth

Richard and I have both been labelled as highly cynical and pessimistic but nothing is further from the truth, we’re what Richard calls, frustrated enthusiasts. We care deeply about the state of organisations and how the people in them feel about work and subsequently themselves. Richard’s research clearly shows that organisations stand to learn a lot by embracing the cynics and ironists. They are the ones who care enough not to become part of the walking dead. They are the survivors who fight back.

The employee engagement percentage is reportedly at 13% globally. The low engagement levels, however, are self-created, and the cure is not about fixing the people, it’s about working on the environment in which they work. Something we’ve known for a very long time but struggle to put into practice. Instead, we are creating the walking dead in our organisations by the constant dumbing down of work due to rules, policies and other constraints in attempts to standardise and control behaviour.

Healthy_org

The picture above represents a healthy organisation. Think of an ECG monitor and you get the metaphor. There is an abundance of life; people have the freedom to work out how to go about their work within clear boundaries. The goals or objectives can at times be hard to define or might change along the way, which is why it is not a standard shape. In a complex environment, this is situation normal.

Unfortunately most organisations look more like the image below. Through policies, rules, standardised work practices, ERPs, etc., the organisation has flat lined, creating an army of the walking dead. The end state is a defined shape, to represent an assumption that we always can identify the end and work towards it.

Dead_org

So how do you fight off the walking dead without losing your head during the process and without compromising your morals? How do you re-energise an organisation and bring its people back from the land of the walking dead?

Well, that’s the million-dollar question, and this is the point where we should outline a five-step process for success. Please note that any attempt to successfully fight zombies or the walkPogoing dead by attacking individual zombies is doomed to fail. The people on your side that fall in the fight will join the other side; you are fighting a losing battle. Finding the source of the problem and dealing with that is the aim. The realisation of what the source is for many organisations is illustrated well in Walt Kelly’s Pogo cartoon.

Many leaders will only see one way out, which is to copy what others do or what worked in the past (which rarely makes you a leader in any field). Others find themselves where two roads diverge; do what everyone else does, or something different. Few have the courage to take the road less travelled, but for them, it will make all the difference. Travelling on this path takes not only courage but also stamina and openness to unlearn and learn.

We don’t have a five-step success plan for venturing down the road less travelled. What we do have though are some thoughts and considerations on how you could go about this.

  • Identify your cynics and ironists. They will be essential to locate, not only because they sit on a world of knowledge about the many ways in which your organisation trips itself. But they also care enough about the organisation and its people to work with you on changing it. For some, it will be an opportunity to put into action things they have thought about for a long time. This is also an opportunity to map the informal networks of the organisation to get a feel for who is connected to whom and where the key influencers are.
  • Understand the current mythologies of your organisation. You need to know what the current beliefs are in the organisation, concerning the behaviours that are seen as positive or negative on the values continua. I’ve written briefly about the values continua previously; you can find it here. Mythologies are not about individual views; it is about the shared mythologies, the shared beliefs that create social cohesion amongst groups in the organisation. Understanding the present reality for people in your organisation is essential as it is from here, and only from here transformation can begin.values_continua
  • Conduct a Systems & Symbols Audit. You need to lift the covers and look deeper into the fabric of the organisation to identify systems and symbols that reinforce either positive or negative behaviours. The underlying assumption here is that systems drive behaviour, so this provides valuable insights regarding possible intervention points. Questions to consider include:

System Questions

  • To make sure your head stays connected to your neck and to maintain your morals, understand that it is in the social dimension where it is won or lost. The technical elements are usually the easiest aspects and sometimes they are irrelevant on the whole. Good social process is something that will carry you a very long way. People can deal with many things if they feel that they way they are being treated falls on the left hand side of the values continua. If you are leading transformation and don’t live in the future, you are likely to fall short or your intent. Behave as if your organisation had already transformed, live the behaviour you feel represent the new. That requires self-awareness, self-reflection and a certain level of maturity. Of course, you will fail at times but it is important to role model behaviour as people pay more attention to how you behave than what you say, just like your kids.
  • Engage the whole organisation in an ongoing conversation about what the future can be and how to make this happen. All the answers for how to create a positive future for your organisations are already contained within it. The challenge is how you allow the creativity and ingenuity of your people to get out and get their ideas into action. Successful change is co-created, not implemented by edict from the top. Take the time to develop a connection with people to understand their needs; the ideas and strategies to meet these needs will flow almost as they had a life of their own once the needs are clear. There is a range of helpful techniques for facilitating large groups sessions, for example, World Café or Open Space Technology where good social process is at the centre of the design.
  • Acknowledge that some challenges will be in the complex domain and other will be in the complicated domain. In the context of organisations, these are not words to be used interchangeably, even though in everyday life this might be the case. Think carefully about how you might approach a complex challenge differently to a complicated challenge.

An excellent example of the power of social process is David Marquet’s book Turn The Ship Around. David takes control of a Nuclear Submarine and the story is a classic one – take a bunch of people labelled poor performers and turn them around to become the top team. The interesting thing to reflect on is that David achieved this using the same technology as all other similar class submarines, he did not get some special funding to do this so the only area he worked on, and relentlessly so, was on social process. Essentially the story is one about how good social process can be the difference that makes a difference.

I’ve deliberately stayed away from referencing much theory here but rest assured that there are strong theoretical underpinnings to these thoughts and considerations. When people tell me that they don’t have time for theory or their senior executives don’t have time, they just want something practical, I shake my head and sigh. All our actions are informed by theory, i.e. we hold some view about why this action will or will not be useful in this situation. The difference is if the theory that you are applying is useful or not. We would like to help you make better decisions by grounding your thinking and decisions in theories that truly are useful.

I invite you to get in touch if you are willing to explore how we can enrich the life of the people in your organisation.