Author: naomiorgdesign

Several people during the past week have asked me what I see as the organizational trends that are having an impact both on organization designs and on the Human Resource/Organization Development functions.

It's an interesting question that you can look at from a macro/global level, or at a single small organization in a specific market sector or geography. It seems that the people who were asking were more interested in what the macro level trends were that they would then be able to interpret and assess the impact of in their local markets.

But how useful is to know about a macro level trend? Everyone knows that rapidly advancing communication and collaboration technologies are having a major impact on organizational operations, but maybe that macro level statement is too general to be useful. Would it be more helpful to ask "Are there some specific communication and collaboration technologies that are having more of an impact on organizational designs than others". For example, is Twitter more of an organizational game changer than Facebook? Or Google more than Microsoft? Or Cisco's telepresence more than webcams on individual computers?

One way of thinking about this is to list macro trends and then to ask a series of questions about each. I have a trend list that I keep an eye on that comprises:

1. New business models: for example the rise of new conglomerates.
2. The shifting boundaries of organizations: where do organizational responsibilities begin and end?
3. Changes in ownership structures and governance models – for example the emergence of more joint state and public ownership
4. Challenges to western organizations from BRIC organizations
5. Technologies around collaboration and communication
6. Supply chain innovations
7. Sustainability discussions

Looking at that list suggests that other people would be keeping an eye on other trends. There probably isn't a list that would suit everyone. Why haven't I got anything related to finance and economics on the list, or legal and compliance frameworks, or new models of leadership? My list reflects my interests, the work that I do – which is mainly around organization design and change management. It seems to go without saying that beyond the potentially radical or transformational trends organizations are the incremental continuous trends looking at cost and efficiency savings, improving customer service, and ways of building creativity and innovation.

Five questions that I ask myself (in relation to organizations I am working with) when I see an article, or blog, or video that captures my interest and seems to be part of a trend:

1. Should I look at this more closely? Why/why not?
2. What risks or opportunities does this trend imply or suggest if we ignored it/if we investigated it?
3. How could I use this example to illustrate possibilities to the leaders in the organizations?
4. What is this article/blog/etc telling us about what's going on more generally in this field of play?
5. How/where can I find out more about it and similar related stories?

If you're interested in organizational trends where do you go for information? Sites that I look at regularly, and that discuss both continuous and radical trends include:

Techcrunch. It bills itself as a "leading technology media property, dedicated to obsessively profiling startups, reviewing new Internet products, and breaking tech news." A recent post there was headed E-Books See Triple Digit Growth As Paper Book Sales Dive, prompting me to ask what other businesses are doomed by e-methods of delivering products and services.

Fast Company that tells us it is "the world's leading progressive business media brand, with a unique editorial focus on innovation in technology, ethonomics (ethical economics), leadership, and design. Written for, by, and about the most progressive business leaders." A blog that caught my eye last week was about business models: Why Groupon And It's Clones Won't Last

TED Say it "is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. Our mission: Spreading ideas. We believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and ultimately, the world. So we're building here a clearinghouse that offers free knowledge and inspiration from the world's most inspired thinkers."

One of its themes is collaboration, and there is a medley of talks loosely related to the theme. Chris Anderson's talk on How web video powers global innovation is a good listen and learn for organizations.

RSA. "For over 250 years the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) has been a cradle of enlightenment thinking and a force for social progress. Our approach is multi-disciplinary, politically independent and combines cutting edge research and policy development with practical action. " A talk scheduled for May 11 2011 is called The future of power, Joseph S. Nye is talking on the topic How is power changing in the 21st century? How do the financial crisis, global epidemics and climate change affect an increasingly interconnected world? How can empowering others help us to accomplish our own goals? What are the resources that confer power in the global information age?

Strategy + business says that it is "an award-winning management magazine, published in print and on the Web for decision makers in businesses and organizations around the world. Our purpose is to illuminate the complex choices that leaders face – in strategy, marketing, operations, human capital, public presence, governance, and other domains – and the impact of their decisions." the Spring 2011 issue has an article on The Coming Wave of "Social Apponomics about "the secret to profitability on the Internet [that] has finally arrived in an innovative blend of social media, Web mobility, and creative e-commerce applications."

Stanford Social Innovation Review which tells us "Our mission is to share substantive insights and practical experiences that will help those who do the important work of improving society do it even better." I liked the report What's Next: Retailing with Heart on Panera cafes which are opening some branches that operate on the honor system of paying.

Any other thoughts and suggestions on where to look for organizational trends – let us know.

Every so often I read in Fast Company or TechCrunch or somewhere else, a list of useful websites someone has compiled in relation to some topic that they're interested in. Usually, reading these, I find one or two sites that I take a look at. One week, a few weeks ago, I notice that people were giving me links to websites that they'd come across. So below is a random list of websites that came my way one week in March!

The first came through my own website and is from someone at ExperiencePoint. He says that – "I am with ExperiencePoint, and we have a family of web-based change leadership simulations that I am hoping would be a fit within your work. They are engaging learning tools that can help build the change and innovation competency necessary to transform organisations. Executive education centres at LBS, Ashridge, Manchester Business School, Wharton, Duke CE, and others use them with world leading organisations."

Out of curiosity I took a look and liked what I saw so passed on the info + link to the leadership development person at work. She too was impressed and, I think, has contacted the company.

Then someone who was doing a presentation for us sent her slide deck via a website yousendit. It's a secure online file sharing software that allows you to easily send large files and email attachments which was a find for me as I often need to send large files to people and then end up coming back because they're too big for the recipient's mailbox.

Then another person doing an teleconf with presentation did it with joinme, which is a 'ridiculously simple' on-line meeting forum. "Get together, up to 250 people, without actually getting them together. Just click share to download and run the app and share your screen, instantly. No need for a plane, train, or sandwich platter. Just gather at join.me. So what is it exactly? It's an impromptu online meeting space, the opportunity to share your screen to collaborate, meet, train, demo or show-off, and the last two words in an invitation". It worked well so you may find me using that.

At somepoint during the week I was discussing customer satisfaction with someone and they recommended a website called communispace. This is a forum for connecting organizations with their customers with the stated goal of redefining "customer engagement and insight-forever changing what it means to engage and intimately understand your customers." Hmm – can this be done in government circles? Well, I took a look at it and government in relation to its customers did not pop up but what I did notice was a lot of references to managing online communities and I wondered whether managing communities of teleworkers (one of the pieces of work I'm involved in) was similar to managing communities of customers. So I'll investigate that further.

One that I really like the look of and will cast around for an opportunity to try out is Crowdcast which describes itself as "the leader in Enterprise Collective Intelligence." The British among us – noted in an Economist article I just read as being "grumpy and uncivic" will probably remark that they'd be hard-pressed to find any "intelligence" in their organizations, let alone "collective intelligence", but assuming that they could what happens next? Well Crowdcast "aggregates your team's intelligence to deliver insight and unbiased forecasts related to your projects and initiatives. We use a combination of prediction markets and discussion forums to highlight risks and opportunities earlier, enabling a more agile, efficient organization."

Finally, from someone I work with, came Ideascale another customer listening/engagement/satisfaction site. That tells us to "Collect ideas from your customers, give them a platform to vote, the most important ideas bubble to the top."

What I haven't worked out is how do you find these websites in the first place? If you want to send large documents, for example, how would you know to go to yousendit? How do you know that there is a really useful website out there for you? As a test I typed into my search bar "how to send large documents" ok – it came up with a bunch of websites that do that (including yousendit). I tried the same technique with "how to crowdsource" but didn't get anywhere with that search. However, "crowdsourcing websites" did produce several. But I couldn't get to 'communispace', in any general search term.

Maybe my method of listening out for what people mention, and noting down those I read about that sound interesting is as good a method as the search bar for finding helpful sites?

In a spirit of reciprocation one that I passed on last week – a colleague I used to work with who is now, as they say in the US, "in transition" (which means looking for a job) asked for suggestions on how to get into strategic consulting in the clean tech arena. I'm no expert on clean-tech but I did remember a course I looked at myself a while ago at the Said Business Schoool: the Diploma in Strategy and Innovation.

I think I'm sitting in my home office. It's actually the local coffee shop. I've just read an article titled Designing Your Own Workspace Improves Health, Happiness and Productivity. It tells me that "Studies have revealed the potential for remarkable improvements in workers' attitudes to their jobs by allowing them to personalize their offices." Why do I need to personalize my space? Well here's the answer: Because "When people feel uncomfortable in their surroundings they are less engaged — not only with the space but also with what they do in it. If they can have some control, that all changes and people report being happier at work, identifying more with their employer, and are more efficient when doing their jobs."

Oh, but my employer wants me out of the space for all kinds of reasons that add up to a whole range of cost and efficiency savings plus the noted productivity gains. (If you're interested, another article I read lists all the pluses of having a mobile workforce from both employee and employer perspectives). So, when I go to the bricks and mortar office where my employer is based I don't have an office. I am one of the growing band of mobile workers who books a hoteling space and sits as and where.

But here's my question: if I can't I personalize my offices – which today are:
• The coffee shop I just mentioned
• The train I will be traveling on to meet with a client
• The hotel space in the 'real' office
• My space at home where I do a lot of my work

will I be unhappy, less engaged, and less productive because I can't control my space? After all, I'm reading "If employees can have some control, [over their workspace] people report being happier at work, identifying more with their employer, and are more efficient when doing their jobs. Well, as a passenger, I don't have a lot of control over Amtrak. So what can I do to feel in control of my workspace – wherever it is – in order to be happy, productive, and engaged.

Thinking about this I realize that, of course, my back pack is my office space. How could I be so dumb as not to instantly know this? It reflects my work habits and personality – anyone could take a look at or in it and get an impression of who I am. So, here are my twelve tips for personalizing and feeling in control of backpack office space:

1. Get a good backpack (or wheely bag) that has pockets but not too many. I've found that a square backpack works best for me. It seems easier to find things in than the traditionally curved ones. One I like is by Kenneth Cole.
2. Do not to fling things randomly in the bag but to put the items back in their 'own' pocket. (I've learned this the hard way!) That way you won't be searching through a jumble of stuff when, for example, you need a pen because someone is about to tell you an address or important piece of info.
3. Have small baggalini's for stuff within the pockets. I now put my small travel mouse in a nylon bag because it kept falling apart when it was loose in the pocket. You can get little ripstop nylon bags in multiple colors which helps locate them in the depths of a black backpack.
4. Get a travel mouse – it makes life a whole lot easier than trying to work just with the laptop keyboard. Mine is a gigaware one and the receiver stores in the mouse so no fear of losing it – at least I haven't yet and I've had it several years
5. Carry a basic office kit of supplies: mine includes highlighter pen (you can get a nifty one that also has flags in it for marking pages. A pencil with eraser, small stapler, scotch tape, paper clips, small pair of scissors. I put these in a small clear box – rather like the pencil case I used to have at elementary school with compartments.
6. Pack a bamboo reusable cutlery set from To-Go Ware. Mine was a gift from someone so it's both a reminder of him and incredibly useful. It means I don't have to use disposable stuff, it's easy and light and come in a case made from plastic bottles – so sustainability all round.
7. Stick on each of the various tools of the trade that you need at all times: laptop, power cord, blackberry, notebook, mouse, ear-piece, etc. a sticker with your name and phone number on each item. I've had my power cord and my ear-piece returned when I left them places because the finder was able to contact me.
8. Tag the backpack with a luggage tag or identifier that really speaks you. Mine has just a simple red heart one but every time I pick up my pack I am reminded that my daughter gave it to me. You can also get photos made into luggage tags which is the equivalent of photo on desk. It's very easy when black backpacks are so lookalike to seize the wrong one from an overhead bin.
9. Always have a few documents or stuff in hardcopy to work on. If your battery fails, or your standing in a line or you have to switch off 'all portable electronic devices', it's a good use of time to be reviewing, researching, catching up on reading or whatever.
10. Develop the mindset of 'anywhere is my office'. Small personal touches – color of your luggage tag, pink crystal stapler, or silver rhinestone computer mouse (yes you can get these!) will help you feel you've personalized your space
11. Clear out the backpack every single evening. It's amazing how many items you can inadvertently collect in a day – business cards, napkins, receipts, pens, documents you don't need after the meeting you just went to. Don't let it get cluttered up.
12. Carry a couple of empty Ziploc or small plastic bags, and a ripstop folding nylon shopper, and a packet of travel wipes – they all come in handy. (Take my word for it).

Mostly I feel in control of my backpack as office space. Days it's not so good are when one of the zips gets stuck in a paper tissue, or when I accidentally put it down in a pool of spilled coffee (but hey, I have wipes!) or when I forget my rule of putting everything it's correct place and spend a long time searching for my locker key which has fallen to the bottom of the last pocket I look in. But oh well, bricks and mortar office life is full of small irritations and backpack office life is no different. For me the pluses of it totally outweigh the minuses of it. Give it a go sometime – you'll never look back.

NOTE: The piece I was going to post this week on useful websites I've come across will now appear on April 11.

The past week I involved both gathering and distributing resources – mainly book title, articles, and websites. There was no single event sparking this, rather each meeting (of which I had a minimum of five each day) spawned something to look up or pass on. So I thought I'd collect in one spot everything that I put in my gunny sack on during the week and see if there were any themes or patterns or whether it was just a random collection of stuff.

Articles
Note that I'm not employed by M cKinsey Quarterly and nor do I get a commission for promoting their articles but I did like four that passed through my in-box this week and I passed on the details to colleagues.

The first was on people and productivity called "Question for your HR chief: Are we using our 'people data' to create value?" Circulating this question to people has resulted in a conversation generated on how should and could we improve our methods of tying analytics and performance measures together in order to track, forecast, and look for patterns and themes that will inform how we make decisions. I'm also interested in how the organization can improve productivity (assuming we can get a handle on measuring the productivity of knowledge workers) and streamline processes. Interestingly someone in the organization has highlighted the 'cultural barrier that discourages sharing of data and using it to manage the business.'

Then there were three interviews with CEOs in very different industries, and in different countries, on leading organizational change. This seems to tie in nicely with the previous article as it is possible, likely even, that having good insight into any metrics and analytics would then enable us to change the right things to improve organizational performance and effectiveness.

"Flying people, not planes": The CEO of Bombardier on building a world-class culture
Pierre Beaudoin explains how a company driven by engineering goals learned to focus on customer expectations, teamwork, and continuous improvement.

Reinvigorating a corporate giant: An interview with the chairman of India's largest infrastructure company
A. M. Naik describes how he established a culture of value creation at one of India's leading companies.

Scaling up a transformation: An interview with Eureko's Jeroen van Breda Vriesman
A member of the executive board describes how the Dutch insurance group first transformed its health division and then started to roll out the changes across the entire company.

The final article that caught my eye this week was one in the Economist on Groupon Anxiety. Essentially this is about the viability of their business model which was the reason I paid close attention to it. I'm facilitating a session in May at the APDF Summit (Association of Professional Design Firms on Why Business Models Matter and Groupon is a good case example to talk about.

Books
Someone asked me to recommend a basic book on Organization Development for HR Pracitioners in China who are new to the concepts and thinking. This was a good challenge for me as there are hundreds of books available on Organization Development – indeed I am writing a chapter for one that is to be published later this year – but what is there for beginners that is easy to read and not daunting in the theory? One that meets the bill is The ASTD Guide to Organization Development. It is basic and there are better approaches to Transition Management than William Bridges – but that said, his approach is easy to describe and follow. Apart from that caveat it seems as if it will meet the bill. I'll find out soon as I am going to China to work with that group.

Linked to that piece of work I found the The Consultants Big Book of OD Activity that has fifty tools in it. Again this book is useful for beginners as it gives an idea of what tools are and how they might be used. Several of them are rather too lengthy and involved and having bought it I'm not sure it will be high value to me, as they are very US centric in concepts and values, but the tools are available to download online if you have bought the book. So the few that are useful I can easily get hold of.

An interesting conversation with a colleague about 'verbal tics' that she noticed people used – for example saying "I'm confused" a lot – led me to locate a book that I'd read an extract from several years ago You Are What You Say: The Proven Program that Uses the Power of Language to Combat Stress, Anger, and Depression . It seemed to reflect the idea that she had that you could give feedback and coaching support to people partly based on the language they used.

She, in turn, recommended to me Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln as giving an excellent insight into organizational politics. So that's now on my Amazon wish list.

Finally I attended the book launch of The Primes by Chris McGoff whom I used to work with. That was a fun event as I reconnected with a number of people who I'd been out of touch with for a while. The book is a lighthearted look at how to approach organizational strategy and change work by using 24 graphic concepts that are then discussed. The academic in me has some reservations about the approach but not everyone is an academic!

I see that I've now reached my word count describing the books and articles so next week's blog will be about the websites that came new to me this week. One pattern in what I've collected this week is immediately obvious to me – I give to others references to books and articles, and I receive from others useful websites. A second pattern, revealed by a quick glance down the websites list, shows that the ones I've collected are useful productivity and sharing enhancing things rather than information imparting sites. I wonder what I'll collect in the coming week?

Last week's memorable discussion focused on new business models. One person arguing hotly that there were no people with the skills and know-how to change legacy computer company business models into cloud computing business models, or how to change company IT departments running standard software and hardware into 'cloud' departments (or no departments).

This may or may not be true. That same day I'd been reading an article, The Business of Sharing, on the new business model of renting/sharing items. Organizations mentioned who used a renting model included Zipcar, Bag Borrow or Steal, Netflix, Rent that Toy, and TechShop. Couch Surfing and thredUP were discussed as sharing models.

These are all new, or newish, business models in the US, maybe less to do with cloud computing but all illustrating the point that there are, perhaps, specific skills to generate new business models. Taking the argument into the internet world I suggested that in the emerging markets there were skills available – not so, countered others. Their view was that the world of cloud was too new to have enabled people to develop skills necessary to build viable businesses.

OK – no point in arguing with a fixed view. But later in the day I turned to a previous article that I'd filed (I teach a course on business models on an MBA program and collect articles on new business models). It's called The wiki way: Two cyber-gurus take a second look at how the internet is changing the world

It is interesting because it takes the view that 'the web is the most radical force of our time' And in discussing the book "Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World" by Williams and Tapscott the article author endorses the book author's view, saying "they are surely also right to predict that it [the web] has only just begun to work its magic".

Both articles point to the notion that new business models are not an outcome of developed skills, rather as people have ideas about new or different ways of doing things and then try putting them into practice they develop skills to continue along the new path. It's rather like someone taking up running – they learn how to get better the more their running improves.

A legacy model does not have to wait to find in the market the skills needed to change it. Within any organization the skills exist to do things differently if the will and the power structures enable these to surface and act. One of my favorite books on this theme is Debra Meyerson's, The Tempered Radical

It struck me as I watched my colleagues not listening to each other but forcefully putting their views and over-riding anything that sounded different from what they were saying, that listening, reflecting, asking open questions, and allowing other views to surface might be the very skills needed to help change legacy business models to new business models. Technical skills in cloud computing could well be of at less value than interpersonal skills in helping people with the ideas surface new thinking and then helping them act on it.

Question: We are responsible for assisting government offices to design their organizational structure. The process is as follows:

1) Government Ministries/Department draw up their strategic plans

2) Once the plan has been accepted they start working how they need to adjust their organization design to ensure implementation of the plan. Some do Business Process Re-engineering and some don't because it is not a requirement.

3) When the request for structural help come to our Department, we tackle the request by looking at the following elements:

• Unity of command and direction
• Chain of command
• Span of control
• Division of work
• Standardisation

We do workflow studies and we use the norms to design positions on the structure.

The problem we experience with this approach is that it has not been agreed upon as a policy framework; the structural principles are being rejected as they do not address the strategic direction of Departments.

The question I am asking my colleagues and myself as a head of the Department is:

Are there other approaches to Organization Design that can solve the issues at hand? How do we ensure that we develop a policy framework and get buy in and build capacity of Departments to do their organization design?

Answer: Your current approach is 'Position Management' defined by one US government agency as "the assignment of mission functions to organizations in a manner which ensures legal and properly accomplished work load while making optimum use of human resources." Position management is only one aspect of an organization design and comes towards the end of the design phase. NOTE there are five phases in an organization design project: assess, design, plan to implement, implement, review and evaluate.

Unless you are able to demonstrate to the business managers that you are recommending certain structures and positions in a way that is a direct response to their strategic direction and plan you will not get their support. It may be too late for this year but your first goal must be to get involved with developing the business strategy with the line managers/heads of department. Here's a suggested way of approaching the issue. In terms of the five phases of the organization design methodology this falls in the design phase. You may or may not have the time/opportunity to go back and do any assessments – that might include a change readiness of the workforce to deliver the new strategy.

Step 1: Discuss the main themes of the strategy with the line manager. For example, one of the themes may be to "Reduce costs and tackle inefficiencies".

Step 2: In the same discussion find out how the manager is thinking of operationalizing this strategy. He may say that he is going to reduce headcount, or multiskill people, or merge two overlapping departments. Your job here is to act as a consultant and ask him, among other things, what is the new work flow going to be, what implications the operational plan will have on the workforce, and risks and consequences of his intended actions. You will go out of this meeting with a good idea of the ground that you would need to cover in a people plan for the manager.

Step 3: Develop a draft people plan to discuss with the manager, but keep it at a high level. Your plan will cover some themes like: maintaining motivation, teaching people to work in new business processes, moving people to new roles, laying some people off.

Step 4: Present the high level plan to the manager and show how your plan ties back to his delivering his strategic plan. Ask for his agreement to this plan. This gives you the go-ahead to do a detailed people plan and it is only at this stage that you start to think about the position management aspect. Here's an example of one element of a high level people plan

We are cost efficient and invest in what matters most to our customers

• Conduct regular organization reviews to identify areas for streamlining and improvement
• Deliver local change initiatives to meet cost/service quality targets
• Manage headcount effectively in line with business requirements eg deliver recruitment to meet volume/wastage targets, manage voluntary severance as appropriate
• Support the changes to the organization to achieve these successfully

Step 5: From the high level plan develop a detailed people plan with timeline that is synchronized with any other work that the manager is doing as part of redesigning to deliver his business strategy – for example he might be introducing some new IT software, or changing work flows. The people plan MUST align with this work. Suggest measures that will show him you are on track. You'll see that position management comes into play at this point.

Take the example of bullet 3 above in the high level plan example:

• Manage headcount effectively in line with business requirements eg deliver recruitment to meet volume/wastage targets, manage voluntary severance as appropriate

In a detailed plan you might be detailing actions around:

Future skills e.g.
• Identify future critical skill by level/family against different scenarios
• Assess the population against the requirement (skills audit
• Defind the skills gap
• Define what is trainable
• Define transition skill requirements

Numbers e.g.
• Identify headcount targets for Yr 1, Yr 2, and Yr 3 against different scenarios e.g. Scenario A re-engineer/automate; Scenario B relocate; Scenario C Outsource
• Identify future flexible resourcing requirements e.g. part-time, annual hours
• Identify manpower flows:
a) Natural flows (historical), Natural was wastage, internal organization flows
b) Identify induced flows required against each scenario and skill requirement. Number and skills to shed e.g. induced exit, redeployment, termination of temporary contracts. Number and skills to acquire e.g. based on volume, performance. Numbers to reskill/train
c) Identify manpower transition requirements including change programme resourcing

Position management
a) Develop a suggested structure and workforce positioning drawn from the information above
b) Check before implementation that the new structure and positions will deliver the business strategy (by doing walkthroughs of the work flow)
c) Manage the positions (position management)

Step 6: Present the detailed people plan – again showing how your proposal will deliver the strategy and giving information on how you plan to measure that it is actually doing so.

Once you have covered these 6 steps you are ready to do the planning to implement it.

Yesterday, in Richmond VA, I walked several times, to and from our hotel, past two statues – one the Reconciliation Statue, by sculptor Stephen Broadbent, part of the reconciliation project that emerged from apologies for slavery issued by officials in Liverpool, England, and Benin in West Africa.

The other, Thomas Crawford's statue in the Capitol's grounds of George Washington on horseback imperiously pointing a direction.

I'm not a great fan of tons of bronze cast into shapes and memorials but stuck in my memory are The Awakening (1980) which is a 100-foot statue of a giant embedded in the earth, struggling to free himself, located at National Harbor, Maryland, and Edith Cavell's statue in London's St Martin's Square that has words, Sacrifice, Humanity, Devotion, and Fortitude carved around the base.

During the evening these four statues seemed to collectively call up images of organization in my mind. I started to wonder if organizations could have a challenge around designing a sculpture that encapsulated their organization – not a branding logo, but a kind of bronze-cast description/metaphor of it.

I was mulling over the George Washington one – his imperious pointing finger annoyed me. I was reminded of Star Trek's Captain Picard and his phrase 'Make it So'. Both these are kind of typical leadership gestures of "follow me, I know best, oh and incidentally if we can't afford all the equipment for you, that I deserve as leader you'll be fine wading through mud and organizational chaos in pursuit of my dream for you. Further I don't have a clue how to implement my vision for you, but I'll leave all that to you and woe betide you if you fail."

Maybe this was unfair. I am not a George Washington scholar and was simply responding to the visual impact of the statue. I haven't seen many Star Trek episodes, and haven't read the Wess Roberts' book Star Trek: Make It So: Leadership Lessons from Star Trek: The Next Generation (and the Amazon reviews suggest it isn't worth reading anyway) but implied imperious leadership is not what gets an organization through the good and bad times: a point not lost on John Chambers, Cisco, who in his delightful 6 minute You Tube video clip Teamwork and Collaboration confides that he's 'a command and control guy', and struggles to be participative and collaborative in his new order of things.

The reconciliation statue really did appeal to me. Visually, it's very simple and dignified – just an outline of two people embracing with panels designed by schoolchildren around the hem of the couple, but it seems to imply respect, integrity, and people trusting in each other. It's very moving on the 'less is more' principle.

Organizationally it represents mutual support, the power of networks, a higher goal achieved for the benefit of all, and the acknowledgement and coming to terms with a legacy with the chance to move forward: a kind of inclusiveness based on mutual reliance, respect for what people can bring regardless of position in hierarchy, and sensitivity to each other's inheritances. Organizations that manage this are few and far between. (Nominations welcome).

The Edith Cavell statue I've written about before. The power of this statue is much less in the cast of Edith herself, but in the words carved in the pedestal. 'Fortitude, Sacrifice, Devotion, Humanity'. Worthy organizational values indeed. Maybe the 'devotion' doesn't play out well in a world where the average length of North American/European, CEO tenure is around 3 – 5 years, depending on whose figures you're looking at, and job mobility and 'transferable skills' are touted as success factors for today's workforce.

Indeed 'devotion' to an organization is one that in many cases has betrayed loyal workforce members (think Enron), but this could be because the other three values were not in place at all levels in the organization. I'd like to think that the four words could be applied fittingly to some organizations, perhaps leavened by the additional word implying 'fun' or 'great place to work'. Just the four suggest unremitting seriousness.

The Awakening is a wonderful sculpture and I was very sad when it was moved from one of my running routes where I saw it on a regular basis, to National Harbor – a place too far to run to, with difficult cycle routes, and impossible to get to on public transport. (I don't have a car). This statue typifies many of the organizations I work with. They are struggling to get out of the holes they have buried themselves in – by default or not paying attention, or numerous other reasons.

Suddenly they realize they are in deep difficulty and have to do something to extricate themselves if they are to survive. Recent weeks have shown several companies unable to do this – Borders being the latest. My suggestion? Miniature versions of the statue are cast in thousands, and given to all employees in large organizations to remind themselves of the need to stay continuously alert – a difficult call as everything needs to sleep at some point, but only for the healthy number of hours that rejuvenate rather than enervate.

With these for sculpted pieces in mind, and having just returned from seeing further sculptures at the Picasso exhibition I wonder what statue or sculpture is an organizational metaphor for you?

Having been well indoctrinated by David Allen (Getting Things Done), Stephen Covey, Time Management International, et al, at the end of each month I review what has happened in the way of meetings, ideas, books/articles recommended, and do something with them: file, trash …
February 2011 has proved a rich picking on many fronts. As I do the cull among the reminders to myself to pick up library books, and buy milk I find

a) Approaches from individuals in South Africa, India, Namibia, Saudi Arabia, Finland- all interested in organization design training
b) Contacts from people wanting to enter the field of organization design – Frieda, Emily, Laura, Helle, Tiffany (why all women?)
c) Several book and article recommendations:
d) A host of ideas to mull over related to new ways of thinking about organizations most captured cryptically in my Daytimer in a way that leaves me struggling to remember more of the context e.g. the collectively circled three words "serendipity, spontaneity, sublety",
e) Notes of meetings I've attended (I now find I have 8 standing meetings a week, each of an hour) and during the month I've run three workshops with an average of 12 people each, additionally I've met one to one with over 30 people, and made first time phone contacts with several others.
f) Notes about meetings I've attended e.g. why is 'reset' the word of the moment?
g) Many, many actions arising from the meetings that I need to do something with or about.

As I was doing the review I was wondering – again – about knowledge workers and how to measure their performance. Reviewing my month it confirms for me that one of my key roles is 'connector'. I know that I, like other change agent connectors, bring value to the organization. For example, this month,

• I discovered that several sets of people are more or less independently working on space utilization measurement and I put them in touch with each other, potentially saving duplication of effort.
• I suggested that we have should one website called Workplace Transformation rather than several different ones called Hoteling, Teleworking, with a view to making it easier for users to share and find content.
• I saw that some people anxious about rejecting the drive to telework and linked them to the inclusiveness work going on so they had a forum for making their voice heard thereby maintaining employee motivation and satisfaction.

But I am still wondering how to prove the value of this work to the organization (not that I've been asked to) because in a results only work environment I must be able to show results in a way that satisfies the differing interpretations of productivity and performance.

With this in mind I started to look more closely at the 'connector' role first popularized in Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point. He states – rather obviously – that connectors "know lots of people" but looking again at this chapter the actions he says connectors take are many of those that I take.

Looking further, in a white paper I found Innovation Roles: The People You Need for Successful Innovation
the authors taking both Gladwell's notions of connection and "Andrew Hargadon's view that "a key element of innovation is building bridges to connect distant worlds-industries beyond your own-to generate new products/services and building networks to connect people to create and distribute the new offering." (How Breakthroughs Happen) suggest that connectors have five characteristics each explained in more detail in their paper. They:

• Are a mile wide and an inch deep.
• Are one degree separated.
• Build networks.
• Jump the tracks.
• Skyscrape

Continuing the search I found Making Sense of Leadership. In this, the authors talk about "The Measured Connector:" "The phrase that summarizes the stance of the measured connector is "Get Together and Take Time to Focus on This." The key descriptors of the measured connector are:

Reinforces what's important and establishes a few simple rules
Calmly influences complex change activity through focused reassurance
Connects people and agendas
Focuses on connectivity"

As they describe it: the heart and soul of the measured connector role

"is an affirming and appreciative presence in organizational life. These leaders deeply value the creation of a shared understanding of purpose through collective sensemaking, believing that interconnectedness is extremely important. They think and feel systemically, thus combining a reflectiveness with an awareness of when action is necessary. They seek to bring disparate people together for a clear purpose, and value the synergy that results from this. Collaboration is therefore a key concern. "

So on a roll now I read Leon Benjamin's blog in which he proposes a new organizational role of a 'super connector' defined as a network not a person, but staffed by people with connector skills, whose sole responsibility is to create the same levels of connectivity, collaboration and productivity achieved by open source movements, conversational software and social media platforms.

It's a very interesting article concluding that "the Super Connector – can bring about profound measurable organisational benefits in revenue, productivity and the cost base" which he discusses further in a second article

So from these various sources, I now have some clues, pointers and ideas on how to prove the value of an individual connector role. My next step is to interrogate the academic journals and see what their take is on connector roles in organizations. In the next few days I hope to have a method for measuring my connector role productivity and results. Any further lines of enquiry on this would be welcome.

What is it about traveling that leads to loss of items? I've come to accept as inevitable that when I travel I lose stuff no matter how hard I plan to focus on returning with what I left with, plus with the items that I also seem to inevitably collect as I travel. It's not a zero sum game though, ten business cards does not equate to a pair of gloves, for example.

Once I read that leaving things behind is an unconscious statement that you want to stay in that place. But I don't think I want to stay in seat 64A of the train that goes from London to Newcastle – even if leaving my red scarf in the rack above the seat may imply that.

One thing that seems to contribute to the travel = loss of items is information overload. I'm juggling time zone changes, schedules, itineraries, suitcase, laptop, travel adaptors, documents, and other things in physical surroundings that are unfamiliar. It's hard to establish a routine or a habit when sleeping in four different locations on consecutive nights whilst trying to keep work commitments and the ideal of 'work is what you do, not where you are' giving the seamless customer service people expect when you're not on the road in the same way. Home based travel does not, in my case, lead to loss of items.

So, sitting on the LHR – Oxford bus, equipped with wifi I read, on-line, the McKinsey quarterly article Recovering from Information Overload , or 'attention fragmentation' as the McKinsey authors also call it, hoping to get some hints. It does note that the time honored, 'reserve chunks of time for reflection', and don't answer the phone or email for defined time periods is good practice but 'devilishly difficult to implement'.

Step in my brother who lives in Dallas, TX, but was traveling back from Barcelona (trade show) via London, on to Stockholm – meeting withsoftware engineers, and then back to Dallas. We met in Oxford at our mother's for a brief day before both hurtling on through check in lines. He had just lost his computer in Barcelona requiring hours of time and effort in the consequences of that.

His recommendation on travel loss and attention fragmentation was a book called 'We have met the enemy: self control in an age of excess', by Daniel Akst. When I get to the airport – I'm writing this on the airport bus again – I'll see if I can find it. Alternatively I could download it from this very bus seat to my i-pad and read it on that. (Note I have not put any items in the overhead rack). However, I have just fragmented my attention to see if that would be possible and the answer is no. I could download it to my Kindle if I had one but I gave it to a friend when I got the i-pad as I am having to get larger bags to carry increasing numbers of gadgets.

Back to the McKinsey article. I agree with the statement that 'multitasking unequivocally damages productivity', nevertheless the authors suggest that it's addictive and requires self control based around three principles: Focus, Filter, and Forget. (Small attention fragmentation to wonder why McKinsey writers are addicted to alliteration). I don't yet know what Akst's book recommends around self-control techniques but I'm guessing the recommendations will be similar to those for managing other types of addictive behavior – alcohol, smoking, and over-eating.

Hot on the heels of that McKinsey article I read (brief attention fragmentation to check if my i-pod that I'm syncing as I write this has completed. It has), I read an interview from strategy + business with Henry Mintberg. "Management by Reflection". The interview touches on the ubiquity of email, frantic overload, and so on but is more about how to help managers learn to manage effectively. Mintzberg suggests that "the most powerful way to learn is by reflecting on your own experience with colleagues." What he doesn't tackle is how to encourage managers to allow time to do this, although he notes that " My favorite thing, which we don't do enough, is to have what I call "white time." There's nothing on the schedule from 2:00 to 3:30. So some professor offers to give a lecture. And we say, "I'm sorry, that time's taken. We're doing nothing then."

That reminded me of an organization design program I was facilitating. I got fed up with the number of people spending a lot of time staring at their knees (on which rested their blackberries). I stopped the program and said "please put all electronic, electrical, input/output communication devices in the middle of the table". Obediently and in some bafflement all complied. I then said. "now stand up and walk out of the room leaving your devices. Come back in 20 minutes having done whatever you like, " which they did. At the end of the program on the evaluation sheet participants answering the question 'what was the most valuable part of the program' had almost all put as one of their responses – "having 20 minutes with no communication devices to do what I liked". One had elaborated – "20 minutes looking at the fish in the pond".

So what stops this deep need for managers to be reflective in order to perform better, and what can we do as organization designers to design in sufficient 'white space' and design out opportunities for 'attention fragmentation'?

It's something I'll be pondering on as I travel back to DC. Meanwhile the bus is about 5 minutes from Central Bus Station where I get off. I just have to make sure I leave the bus with all the things I brought to it. (And many thanks to my brother for running up to the Oxford bus station with the book I'd left in my mother's house!)

In several meetings this week a common problem emerged even though the topics of the meetings were completely different. Briefly they focused on clashes (and crashes) of one kind or another. Take this example:

We are introducing all kinds of software and processes designed to encourage employee collaboration – wikis, Interact, collaborative on-line events (like IBM jams), internal social media, blogs and so on. Simultaneously we are encouraging employees to contribute, make suggestions, participate, speak up and generally feel they have a voice that will be listened to. We're doing this in order to develop innovative and adaptive responses to organizational context changes and become more effective.

But we are not doing enough, for various reasons, to examine or change the formal systems and processes which bind people to legacy norms: linear progression through a multi-level grade system, annual performance appraisals to a set format, career movement within the current 'silo' that the employee is in, and controlling rather than collaborative management style.

Showing the will and providing some resources in the hope that effectiveness will be the outcome is not going to work when the bindings are too tight to allow movement. It's rather like telling someone that they must get to a destination in the fastest and most effective way using their judgment on what this can be but then restricting the route and the vehicle/method.

Another example is one where we are encouraging people to demonstrate that – at whatever level they are in the organization – they are still leaders. We run a weekly one minute video showcasing examples. Unfortunately the intention on this clashes with the reality that positional leaders want to be in the limelight and so block their subordinates from participating, even when the subordinate has been the one approached to participate. (We haven't got over the barrier of getting subordinates to just participate without seeking permission from their managers).

So here are two major clashes:

a) Clashes of structural intent: what we say we want – everyone collaborating and contributing in a flat organization, clashing with structure reality – you can only get your voice heard and acted on if you've got to the top of the structure

b) Clashes of leadership perception: what we say we want – to identify leaders at all levels in the organization clashing with leaders tightly holding on to their positional power.

Two more clashes occurred that I noticed also last week:

a) Initiating a 'good' notion that we want to become organizationally more capable at negotiating, putting across the view that everyone negotiates all the time to a greater or lesser extent (even for their place in the supermarket line). This is fine as it would enable us to have more effective interaction with our customers and suppliers, but we also have a system of checks and balances that encourage 'entitlement' thinking that causes people to hang on to what they want. A sad example of this was when one of the Union reps insisted that he have a car parking space when others were denied. (No mention of negotiation or representing his members on this one ).

b) Another 'good' notion that we would like people to value diversity in others, not just in at the visible level of ethnicity, gender, physical ability, etc. but at the style, perception and ways of thinking/operating level. This stems from the belief that a diversity of views encourages creativity and innovation. Indeed, Reckitt Benckiser is one of the companies that is successful in encouraging a diversity of view, even when this leads to conflict, believing that conflict can be creative and lead to good outcomes.

When in 2009 Reckitt Benckiser won The Economist's Innovation Award in the category Corporate Use of Innovation, one of the judges commented,"The company has demonstrated strong sales and profit growth, in large part because of the strength of its innovative and entrepreneurial corporate culture. Controversy is encouraged, bureaucracy avoided and performance rewarded. A diverse multinational workforce provides a wealth of perspectives on consumer behavior. The company has a talent for dreaming up products that consumers did not realize they wanted (and for giving them crazy names). Some 35-40% of its sales come from products launched in the past three years, which is a clear indication of its continued ability to dream up winning new ideas."

But in our case the organization, while very good at embracing traditional diversity is much less adept at valuing different style and ways of thinking attrributes.

So my question now is how do I help the organization manage what I now see as the intersection of good intent versus difficult reality: systems and processes change usually lags or stymies desired behavior change which, in my experience is one of the reasons why change fails, managers find it hard to give up positional power trappings and status symbols once they have them, another reason why change fails. It's rather like traffic police at a crossroads the rate of flow across the intersections have to be managed carefully to keep things moving. The flows have to be managed simultaneously and the intersection has to be kept clear.