Month: September 2014

I'm often asked what I recommend as sources of info on organisation design. I've compiled the list below for those interested in exploring some of the theories of organisation design, getting in touch with practitioners, and staying up to date on trends, new business models, technologies, and so on that have an impact on organisations. It represents some of the stuff that I've found or am finding useful. It's not an exhaustive list nor do I endorse any of the products, services, or content represented on the websites listed. NOTE: A variant of this list will appear in the second edition of my book Economist Guide to Organisation Design coming out early next year

Books
Block, P., Flawless Consulting: A Guide to Getting Your Expertise Used, 3rd edn, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2011.
An introduction to becoming a consultant, taking the reader through the key principles in a lively, straightforward, practical way.

Brynjolfsson, E. , MacAfee, A.The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies W. W. Norton and Co Inc. 2014
Reports on the effects new digital, robotic and other technologies that enable completely new ways of working and interacting will have on organisations and society.

Drucker, P.F., The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done, HarperCollins, 2002 edition.
A book that is as vivid in its recommendations today as when it was first published in 1967. Some things stay the same, such as not enough time, difficulty in making decisions and making effective contributions.

Hatch, M-J, and Cunliffe, A. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives Oxford University Press, 2013
Easy to understand discussion and analysis of theories of organisation with practical examples and clear explanations.

Kahneman, D. Thinking Fast and Slow. Penguin Books, 2011.
A fascinating read on the way we consciously and unconsciously think. And the effect of this on the way we make choices, judgments, and decisions.

Morgan, G., Images of Organization, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, 2006.
A more academic book, this is a fascinating survey of looking at organisations through different lenses: as psychic prisons, as political systems and as machines, among others.

Pentland, A. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread. Penguin Books, 2014.
An analysis of how ideas spread, using techniques from big data interpretation and organisational mapping technologies.

Peterson, C. A Primer in Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Describes the growing field of positive psychology in an engaging and practical way

Scott, W.R., Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 5th edn, Prentice Hall, 2003.
An overview of key aspects of organisational theory. This is more a textbook than a "how to" book, giving insights into how and why organisations have evolved in the way they have.

Senge, P.M. et al., The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, Doubleday/Currency, 1999.
A readable and sensible look at methods of helping organisations develop by providing the conditions for individuals to develop.

Stacey, R. Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity , 6th Edn., Financial Times/Prentice Hall, 2010
Explores organisations and strategies as designed through discussions and stories rather than rational approaches.

Waber, B. People Analytics: How Social Sensing Technology Will Transform Business and What It Tells Us about the Future of Work FT Press, 2013
How new techniques in analytics and sensing can give insights into the way work is done and how people interact to do the work.

Staying in touch: newsletters, blogs, journals and video
Fast Company
Provides print and digital channel news and information on how companies create and recreate themselves, how they innovate and compete, and how they introduce new business practices.
Website: http://www.fastcompany.com

Techcrunch
TechCrunch leads in information on technologies – new products, start-up companies, breaking tech news, and insider info. It offers many tech related info-services through multi-channels.
Website: http://techcrunch.com/

Harvard Business Review
A monthly and on-line general management journal with articles, related blogs, podcasts, video, webinars and newsletters.
Website: http://hbr.org/magazine

Journal of Organisation Design
A somewhat theoretical/academic peer reviewed publication but with some practically relevant articles on all aspects of organization design
Website: http://www.jorgdesign.net/

McKinsey Quarterly
A quarterly print and digital journal of business management strategy articles, surveys and interviews, covering global business strategy, management and economics with additional newsletters, video, surveys, and commentaries.
Website: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/home.aspx

MIT Technology Review
Provides information on the way technologies are shaping the world. Offers features, news analysis, business reports, photo essays, reviews, and interactive digital experiences
Website: http://www.technologyreview.com

Quartz
A digital international news guide on all things related to the global economy and global business.
Website: http://qz.com/

Science Daily
Breaking science research news and articles on technology, climate, neuroscience, health, and other topics many of which are related to organisation design and work performance. Channels include daily newsletter, articles and video.
Website: http://www.sciencedaily.com/

Strategy + Business
A periodical for leaders and managers on topics related to strategy, operations, human resources and things relevant to keeping an enterprise going.
Website: http://www.strategy-business.com/current_issue

Wired
A monthly print and digital journal focusing on the effects of computing and technology on business culture, the economy and politics with podcasts, games, opinion and video.
Website: http://www.wired.com

Organisations and communities
Drucker Institute
Provides information, resources, ideas, and connections on methods of improving organisations in line with Peter Drucker's theories.
Website: http://www.druckerinstitute.com/

European Organisation Design Forum
A community of organisation design practitioners in various chapters throughout Europe. Holds an annual conference.
Website: http://eodf.eu/

Institute for the Future
IFTF is an independent, non-profit research organization that researches and supports organizations in reflection and practice on the futures they want.
Website: http://www.iftf.org/home/

Organization Design Forum
An international professional association for those interested in organisation design, dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of the organisation design through expertise, education and resources.
Website: http://www.organizationdesignforum.org

Plexus Institute
A non-profit organisation providing an introduction to complexity science with webinars, regular conversations, and insights on applying complexity theory.
Website: http://www.plexusinstitute.org

Royal Society of Arts
Its purpose is to develop and promote new ways of thinking about human fulfilment and social progress to bring '21st century enlightenment'. Take a look at their Animates.
Website: http://www.thersa.org

Sante Fe Institute
An organisation devoted to creating a new kind of scientific research community, emphasising multidisciplinary collaboration in pursuit of understanding the common themes that arise in natural, artificial and social systems.
Website: http://www.santafe.edu

Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
Offers research, consultancy, evaluation and professional development work to support change and learning, as well as publications in the fields of inter-organisational relations, the emergence of the knowledge society and problems of organisation, particularly in the delivery of public policy.
Website: http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.php

What are your organisation design info recommendations? Let me know.

I'm involved in a project to drive service up and costs down. Part of the 'costs down' bit is reducing the numbers of people in the workforce and simultaneously reducing the costs of the estates portfolio – we're looking for fewer, cheaper buildings. It's a common enough scenario and one faced by many organisations. The UK Post Office is a case in point. Since 1981 the number of post office branches has dropped from around 23,000 to its current 11,500, with, I'm assuming a simultaneous drop in the number of directly employed staff and the number of subpostmasters (97% of all post office outlets are sub post offices, run by private business people: subpostmasters).

The Post Office issues an Annual Report and their website presents their Strategy 2020. In these documents you'll find clear information on their plans which includes reducing their estates by putting more post office branches in shops, developing their digital services, having longer opening hours in many of their extending their product and service range, and so on. Their three values: Care, Challenge, Commit, underpin and inform the way they do things. There is a clear and strong story to tell on where they're trying to get to and how they're going to do it. What's not presented is the behind the scenes work that has gone on to get to this believable 'good news' story.

I haven't been involved in the Post Office redesign and transformation but it's clear that it hasn't been the smooth ride that the glossy documents present. A Sunday Times report says that:

Humility and patience were certainly in demand last year [2013] as the Post Office's management fought an epic tug-of-war with its unions. The Communication Workers Union called no fewer than 12 strikes, saying staff felt "alienated" by a programme of cuts and branch closures and describing the board as out of touch. The National Federation of SubPostmasters, which represents the Post Office's 8,000 independent store managers, criticised a multimillion pound bonus pot set aside for executives as "morally reprehensible". The strife threatened to derail Royal Mail's float. It ended in April only when the two sides agreed a pay rise of up to 7.3% for the company's foot soldiers. Even after the ceasefire, the Unite union attacked the company's "flawed" strategy and said its 93m GBP operating loss this year painted a "sorry picture of mismanagement". "A union has a lens to look through, which sometimes is different from the one we look through here," Paula Vennells, CEO, replies mildly. "We sat down and worked hard — literally, retail is detail. We worked through different jobs, working hours, pay scales and we managed to change the way some post offices work so we could take staff hours out and create a fund to give people a pay rise."

The kind of picture perfect presentation v the messy reality and muddling through is common to all organisation designs and transformations. But for some reason the messy reality of arguments, different perspectives, coalition building, and power plays are not usually revealed in the case studies and reported as an integral part of the path to get to the glossy document – perhaps one reason why the TV drama House of Cards is so wonderfully addictive because it shows totally believably the 'tale of high-level government dysfunction populated by double-dealers who hold their aces under the table'. And why 'The Office' TV series has such enduring appeal as it hilariously exposes the emotions and behaviours anyone who has worked in an office experiences.

The more I see 'transformation' efforts in play, the more it seems to me that organisation design is all about these human interactions and behaviours and hardly at all about the numbers, formal strategies and plans. It's about how people express and act on their perspectives and how they interact as they do this. Chris Rodgers calls this the 'muddling through' approach which he is firm is 'the only thing that they [leaders] can do, given the social complexities of everyday organizational life.'

In one of last week's meetings I saw this muddling through in play. Up to now some people have been 'fretful' – there hasn't been a good enough story to tell about a) what the estates/workforce target is that we have to meet by the given date and b) how we would achieve it if we did know. But in that meeting a numbers guy presented 'the facts', expressed in financial terms, gap to close, numbers of staff employed how many could be affordable, and so forth. There followed a discussion on 'the way forward' which was supported by a planning 'framework', and the glowing results of a pilot study. A write-up of the meeting could indicate (indeed has) that we were conducting a formal, rational analysis of these facts, conducting step-by-step decision-making, with fully aligned agendas and the 'next step' is to seamlessly translate these decisions into programmable action 'on the ground'.

But another cut on this would give a very different interpretation, one of vigorous discussion involving different interests, strong individual beliefs about the 'right' way to proceed, various coalitions lining up on the agenda items, competing values, a variety of negotiating/influencing styles, the value placed on previous experiences, roles the individuals played – and switched from/to, the way points of view were expressed – the linguistic tics, the body language (in this case lots of crossed arms and some leaning back in chairs smoothing hair), the interplay of the different intentions and interactions resulting in something that was unpredictable in advance – even though we had formal 'desired outcomes' (but not 'undesired outcomes').

What I'm wondering is how these dynamics can be 'used' more effectively in our work on 'the story' of the emerging transformation. As I said earlier, Chris Rodgers suggests that 'despite the formal rhetoric, rituals, and routines of organization, based on assumptions of scientific rationality, predictability, and control, managers still spend most of their time doing the only thing that they can do: They muddle through.' He sees the need to this muddling through with 'purpose, courage, and skill'. It's an intriguing proposition. Can these qualities be learned or taught? Although we have emerged from the meeting with the glossy email write up what's hidden is the messy reality of it. Discussing the purpose, courage, and skills that were, or could be, displayed in the meeting and learning more about their complex interplay might make for a 'better' outcome.

Is this just wishful thinking? Does the gloss express the 'real' organisation emergence, or do we have to look behind the gloss to enable different possibilities and organisational forms to emerge? What's your view? Let me know.

What I've found in the organisation design work that I do that there's a great desire from stakeholders to map the current, 'as-is' state and define the end 'to-be' state. It seems to provide some kind of comfort level they know where they are – admittedly, sometimes worth finding out, and they agree where they want to go. Then we work out the gap closing activities. It is beautifully structured, and you can see lots of images with various models for doing this as-is to to-be work here.

For a good while I did this activity with my clients until I realized that spending time on it was not that useful. We seemed to get mired down in 'swim lanes', semantic arguments (aka wordsmithing), and developing chunky plans that now bring the Peter Drucker quote to mind. "Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work." We often seemed to shy away from the hard work bit.

Then I discovered a different tack on the as-is/to-be approach: the maturity model. Indeed, I'm currently working with one now. It describes the outcomes of the organisation reaching 'maturity' once it has reached level four in each of the attributes of leadership, values and behaviours, roles and structures, capability, planning, and governance. (For images of various maturity models look here). We're using it to help our organisation transform from being 'analog' to being 'digital'.

This model was discussed in a recent workshop (which I wasn't at) but subsequently one of the participants emailed me saying:

Whilst the end state [of the model] probably defines what an ideal organisation might look like (whether that be a digital organisation or not). I can't tell if it's the right roadmap for us. For example, does this model take into account the fact that we are attempting to evolve to a digital organisation, whilst having to maintain a huge legacy infrastructure at the same time? And if it does, what are the constraints/dependencies for each of the roadmap characteristics? Is it right that we remove all silos (probably), or is it appropriate to keep some in place? Is 'leadership by everyone' the right model in all circumstances? How do we ensure we take everybody to the 'behaviours' that are appropriate for them in their particular circumstance rather than a 'one size fits all' approach?

I think this is a pretty good challenge – is a 'maturity' model useful or as effective (or ineffective) as as-is/to-be activity. I'm not sure and am tempted to retreat to my 'all models are wrong, some models are useful' position – a topic of a recent blog of mine – but maybe that's a cowardly response.

So taking another look at both models I had two reactions. First they have a place helping people reflect on and discuss the way the organisation could/should move – which is exactly what happened in the workshop I just mentioned. The participants used the model as a basis for discussing the validity of the 'end state' it implied.

That's a double-edged sword. It's great to have the discussion but to take the view that what is described as 'to-be' or 'mature' is the end state is not sensible and maybe that's where both the 'to-be' and the 'maturity' models fall down. They imply that something stated will actually happen and take it as a target to achieve. This is unrealistic. Organisations are in a constant state of flux. There is no way that a much worked on 'to-be' state will be achieved in the way predicted or desired. The only known end state is death of the organisation or organism – a topic I also wrote about. Failing that, the described state should be views as a direction rather than as a target and should come with a statement to that effect.

My second reaction was to see a paradox in the 'maturity' model we're working with. Actually, it describes a direction towards 'immaturity' in organisational terms. We're attempting a direction from analog(ue) to digital that requires us to organize like a start-up . Writing about this Eric McNulty observes that:

Although established companies can't afford to tear themselves down and start all over again, they can use the principles in the book [Startup Leadership] to analyze vulnerabilities, guide reorganization, collaborate, innovate, and become more nimble in the face of fast-changing conditions. How? Here are a few tips:
1. Never assign anyone to a job at which they are unlikely to succeed.
2. The success of a reporting relationship is the responsibility of the supervisor.
3. People who do not trust each other should not work for each other.
4. How responsibility and accountability are delegated shapes both culture and performance.
5. Do not design your organization around certain individuals or personalities.

Writing in a similar vein from a different perspective Nilofer Merchant, author of 11 Rules for Creating Value in the Social Era, notes that :

The companies thriving today are operating by a new set of rules -— Social Era rules. Companies like REI, Kickstarter, Kiva, Twitter, Starbucks -— they get it. They live it. And to them, notions like distributing power to everyone, working in extended community to get things done, or allowing innovation to happen anywhere and everywhere are, well, ridiculously obvious. But too many major companies -— Bank of America, Sports Authority, United Airlines, Best Buy, and Walmart to name just a few -— that need to get it, don't..

What's interesting about her list is that the companies she mentions as thriving today are much younger than the companies she suggests are not thriving. So as I said, perhaps old established, mature organisations need to be working towards gaining the characteristics of immature start-ups?

Another way of looking at this idea is to think that old established organisations are working to 'analog' patterns of structure, leadership, etc. and that younger organisations are working to 'digital' patterns. There's a useful graphic in a white paper Building a Digital Culture that shows the attributes of each. Note that by adding in two steps between the left hand side of 'analog' and the right hand side of 'digital' you could have an almost perfect immaturity model! (But don't feel obliged to do that.)

If long established organisations should be heading towards the attributes of a young/immature organisation what is the best method for heading there? It's not through a blueprint of a 'to-be' state with a structured 'roadmap' for getting there. I like the thought, again from Eric McNulty, that it is through seeking to 'establish and continually refine clarity in three critical areas: purpose, values, and performance', using 'social' techniques like crowdsourcing both to develop and then keep these attributes living, honed, and demonstrated.

The organization I'm working with has a purpose and a set of organisational values – in need of refreshing but the crowd could do this. It does have performance standards – which need moving on from an analog world to a digital world. (Watch the video 'Neuroscience shows why numbers based HR management is obsolete'). And, as importantly has a good set of guiding principles designed to head everything in the same transformative direction.

What better way to answer the questions posed in the email I received (quoted above) than to immediately start using the tools and techniques of the start-up immature 'social' organization: collaborating, giving everyone a voice, testing and learning in a continuous improvement cycle, setting new rules around performance and expectations, trusting each other, and so on. Wouldn't this be a better way to go than to spend time developing vision statements, roadmaps, detailed project plans, with a select few and then urging people to 'buy-in'?

What's your view on the 'to-be', maturity and immaturity approaches? Let me know.

.

I've just read a book review of a new book called Happiness by Design. One of the author's rules for designing happiness is to become a neophile – a lover of new activities. So I'm on the right track because this week I began a new activity. (Regrettably after my recent trip to Senegal I abandoned my previous new activity – learning French). My current new activity is Kanban. It's a method of visually organizing workflow activity and tasks and is adapted from one of the many tools of the lean/Toyota just in time system of manufacturing.

For several weeks I've been observing how it works before deciding I should give it a go because I think it may be useful in organisation design work. I see it in daily operation at the 9:15 a.m. 'stand-up' (an agile technique) where the Kanban board is in use. It's a focal point for discussion on project progress (or not) and leads to the next step in the plan. At least that's the theory and it seems to be working well enough.

The method as I understand it is: people sit in project-related meetings with a pad of Post-it notes each. As the meeting progresses they furiously write stuff down but only one item per post note, in big writing, often they looked almost pained (the Kanban look?), sometimes they use different coloured pens – in the same meeting – so coding the notes in some way. There's an element of multi-tasking going on: speaking in the meeting, writing on Post-it notes, choosing the colour of the pen for each note, keeping the right expression. Not so good for happiness as according to the happiness book multitasking makes you less productive.

What's impressive is the rate of eating through Post-it notes. In one meeting one person can get through almost a whole Post-it notes pad single handed. The following day the various project people come to the stand up with previous days collected Post-it notes and read out theirs and then there's a solemn discussion and the note gets added to the board in one of the many columns – backlog, doing, done, date, etc. or not. The notes that don't get put on the board are folded into little squares or oblongs. I think that bit is just a ritual before putting them in the bin/trash. But I do need to find out if it's a required aspect of the Kanban methodology. Sometimes the notes flutter down from the board to the floor. Perhaps they are weightier ideas or tasks?

Now, having learned a certain amount by observation I've decided to have a go myself – but not at work, at least until I get more proficient. I'd like to leap in at the 'expected performance' stage and not at the 'must improve' stage. I need to practice and 'get with the programme' because this might become 'the way we do things' and not 'just another initiative'. I can't afford to sit back and see if it's a passing fad. The bandwagon is enticing.

Also it might contribute to my happiness as it's a new activity, and additionally it could rank me higher on the 'team player' scale. I'll be seen to be embracing change and not resistantly sticking to old-fashioned ways like 'to-do' lists, Getting Things Done, or project plans on Gantt charts in Microsoft project. So there are lots of reasons to give it a go. Even better I might feel and be more organized.

As I'm writing this it's day four of the try-out. Already I've learned a lot. In my investigations I've found several schools of Kanban – there are different methods each with their own approach, language, ten top tips and so on. As with anything I've ever tackled as a newcomer I find that there's an entire world of specialism out there devoted to it. Just look at the number of Kanban Pinterest sites, Youtube videos, books, images, slideshares, blogs, training and software.

From what I can gather, the physical world of whiteboard and Post-it notes is more effective than the virtual world. But I've also plunged in with Trello as a software version – I just have to make sure that my physical and virtual boards stay the same or I'll get confused. Also there is now an element of duplicative working but that's just for learning till I work out which I prefer. The advantage (potentially) of Trello is that I can get it on any device – smartphone, laptop, home/work. Except I can't. There's no Trello app for a BlackBerry so I'm wondering if I become such an aficionado of Kanban that I'll swap my BB for an android phone. My work laptop doesn't allow access to most of the web – so a couple of obstacles there but the theory is OK. Also, Trello has many competitors so how do I know I've picked the right one to try?

Next thing – the standard Post-it notes size seems to be the 7.5 cm squares, or even the 7.5 x 12.5 – but they're too big for my liking. My eco-sensitivity creeps in. It's a waste writing one idea on that size of paper. After the first two days I opted for 5 x 4 cms (small) – also I can fit a lot more on the board. And that was another decision. I looked on Amazon for whiteboards – as they seem to be the board of choice for experts..There are many whiteboards to choose from, and then you need to buy the markers and cleaner fluid. So setting up the board is an investment. I need to work out a measure of whether it is worth it. What are the success indicators? Remember it has to be better than what I currently do to stay organized which is a combination of the TMI method I learned years ago when that was the bandwagon to jump on, and the David Allen Getting Things Done method; a somewhat more recent bandwagon.

The Kanban method I've picked to try out is Personal Kanban.This defeats the object somewhat as the idea of a Kanban board is that it's collaborative: teams look at it either in real or virtual space. But remembering the Joan Armatrading song – Me, Myself, I maybe the projects associated with my different roles will act as a proxy team collaboration. I think that'll work as it involves trade-offs, prioritization and a lot of practice on the two rules of personal Kanban:

1. Visualize your work
2. Limit your work-in-progress

The first step after buying the board, pens, Post-it notes and cleaning fluid, was to rule up the whiteboard into 3 columns – backlog, doing, done. I'm doing fine on the 'visualizing my work' – looking at it today I see the board is listing heavily to the left. Everything is in backlog except, 'write blog' which I've just moved to doing – a very satisfying visual and definitely shows adherence to rule two – limit your work in progress. At the same time that is a bit alarming. It seems that the last three days all I have managed to do is pick up work (I guess I could put that in the 'doing' column?) rather that actually do any work. Well that is something I've learned – to start saying no to picking up stuff and instead start doing it and hopefully it can then get to the 'done' column. I'm not clear why the 'done' column is necessary unless it's a signal to give oneself a pat on the back or some other form of reward. Also I see I'm not quite clear on what goes on a Kanban board and what goes on a 'to do' list and whether purists would have a view on this. (Oh, they do – here's an example).

But now I've completed the blog I can test out the 'done' column and go off for a glass of wine. What method do you use to organize yourself and your work? Let me know.