Category: Uncategorized

I was intrigued to read that "Creativity can be enhanced by experiencing cultures different from one's own, according to a study in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin" particularly since I'd just had lunch with someone who'd returned to the US after living in Holland for seven years, whose daughter was just going off to live in Brazil, and whose son is trilingual – Dutch, Spanish, and English. Was this family, therefore, more creative than others who hadn't lived abroad? The research report suggested that it might be.

Researchers looked at students who had lived abroad and those who hadn't, testing them on different aspects of creativity. Relative to a control group, which hadn't experienced a different culture, participants in the different culture group provided more evidence of creativity in various standard tests of the trait. Those results suggest that multicultural learning is a critical component of the adaptation process, acting as a creativity catalyst. [The researchers made the suggestion that ]"it would be worthwhile to explore whether neurological changes occur within the creative process during intensive foreign culture experiences. [This would] help paint a more nuanced picture of how foreign culture experiences may not only enhance creativity but also, perhaps literally, as well as figuratively, broaden the mind.

In an earlier report of the studies the point was made that

This shows us that there is some sort of psychological transformation that needs to occur when people are living in a foreign country in order to enhance creativity. This may happen when people work to adapt themselves to a new culture

I've lived and worked in several countries – so I wondered whether I am more creative (but I don't have a control group to compare with). But I thought it would be fun to find out. I tried out the Creative Problem Solving self-test from Psychology Today that first asks

Are you a creative problem-solver? Do you typically approach a problem from many perspectives or opt for the same old solution that worked in the past? In his work on human motivation, Robert E. Franken states that in order to be creative, you need to be able to view things from different perspectives. Creativity is linked to fundamental qualities of thinking, such as flexibility and tolerance of ambiguity. The following test was developed to evaluate whether your attitude towards problem-solving and the manner in which you approach a problem are conducive to creative thinking.

And then explains the test: This test is made up of two types of questions: scenarios and self-assessment. For each scenario, answer according to how you would most likely behave in a similar situation. For the self-assessment questions, indicate the degree to which the given statements apply to you. In order to receive the most accurate results, please answer each question as honestly as possible.
After finishing the test, you will receive a Snapshot Report with an introduction, a graph and a personalized interpretation for one of your test scores. You will then have the option to purchase the full results.

I have no idea how valid or reliable it is but I came out with a creativity score of 90/100 and a 'snapshot report' that says:

Your responses indicate that you love to let your imagination run wild when problem-solving. You seem to realize that, while rules and conventions have their place in the process, they can be restrictive when coming up with innovative solutions. Therefore, although you may not immediately reject solutions that have worked in the past, you'd rather not have them be your only option. People who score similarly to you are "out-of-the-box" thinkers who like to toy with different ideas, pushing beyond the boundaries of standard ways of thinking and doing things. They aren't opposed to taking risks or testing solutions that are "off-the-wall" or that don't have a proven track record. Although there's generally nothing wrong with taking a more practical approach to problems (and in some cases, it may be the best option), using it as the only method does impose some limitations. By taking that step outside your standard way of thinking and expanding your imagination, you'll not only be able to increase your options but may end up uncovering ideas that had never crossed your mind before!

This sounds a little like a horoscope, but oh well. Also what crossed my mind were all the ten caveats about culture surveys that I'd just written about in my new book (coming out July 22 in the UK). I looked at these again and thought they were probably just as applicable to creativity surveys. (But I still liked the idea that I'm creative! And maybe the fact that I have experienced many different cultures does contribute to that?)

I'm involved in a head office move project. A lot of people are not thrilled about the move for various reasons that include concerns about threats to job security, loss of status (as people lose 'their' offices and space becomes shared,) need to learn new skills, change in culture, changes in communication norms, ability to make the change, shifts in influence and control, changes to commute route. Each of these concerns is also an opportunity – but somehow the opportunities get drowned out by the noise of the concerns. People don't think they're going to be 'happy' in the new space.

So I was interested to read a piece in the World Future Society email update on the economics and politics of well-being. This relates that:

A new survey will examine the need to look "Beyond GDP" in determining national well-being. The survey, conducted by GlobeScan, will be funded by Ethical Markets Media (USA and Brazil). The new survey is not a 'happiness survey' because as the Ethical Markets Media representative sugggests

'Happiness' measures [are concerning]as an alternative to GDP, because [they] can become politicized. Among the pitfalls of "Gross National Happiness" … is the inherent subjectivity of happiness.

A population surveyed may report high levels of happiness for many reasons. Some cultures seem to produce happier people than other cultures. [And] a community can report high levels of happiness while in danger from undiscovered contaminants in their water supply or radiation levels in their homes due to spent wastes mixed with cement in their construction.

Taking the view that employee 'happiness' is not what the client is after in the move, but that employee 'wellbeing' is a necessary aspiration I was pleased to learn that

A Kansas State University researcher says employers should be concerned about the well-being of their employees because it could be the underlying factor to success.

Thomas Wright, Jon Wefald Leadership Chair in Business Administration and professor of management at K-State, has found that when employees have high levels of psychological well-being and job satisfaction, they perform better and are less likely to leave their job — making happiness a valuable tool for maximizing organizational outcomes.

Happiness is a broad and subjective word, but a person's well-being includes the presence of positive emotions, like joy and interest, and the absence of negative emotions, like apathy and sadness, Wright said.

Wright said psychologically well employees consistently exhibit higher job performance, with significant correlations in the 0.30 to 0.50 range. Not only are these findings statistically significant, they are practically relevant as well, he said. A correlation of 0.30 between well-being and performance indicates that roughly 10 percent of the variance in job performance is associated with differences in well-being, while a correlation of 0.50 points to a substantial 25 percent of the variance.

In some of Wright's academic and consulting work, he has used a form of utility analysis to determine the level of actual savings tied to employee well-being. For example, in a sample of management personnel with average salaries in the $65,000 range, he found that being psychologically distressed could cost the organization roughly $75 a week per person in lost productivity. With 10 employees that translates to $750 per week in performance variance; for 100 employees the numbers are $7,500 per week or $390,000 per year.

An excessive negative focus in the workplace could be harmful, such as in performance evaluations where negatives like what an employee failed to do are the focus of concentration, he said. When properly implemented in the workplace environment, positive emotions can enhance employee perceptions of finding meaning in their work.

In addition, studies have shown that being psychologically well has many benefits for the individual, Wright said. Employees with high well-being tend to be superior decision makers, demonstrate better interpersonal behaviors and receive higher pay, he said. His recent research also indicates that psychologically well individuals are more likely to demonstrate better cardiovascular health.

Wright said happiness is not only a responsibility to ourselves, but also to our co-workers, who often rely on us to be steadfast and supportive. In addition, Employee well-being affects the organization overall. Studies have shown that after controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, job tenure and educational attainment level, psychological well-being still is significantly related to job performance, according to Wright.

The move then, behooves the client organization to pay attention to the psychological well-being of the employees. It is not enough to get staff and their stuff from A to B the organization's movers have to do it in a empathetic way that addresses concerns and presents the real opportunities.

Changing office space, for example moving to a different building, or refitting an existing building, is an event that is much beyond the relocation itself. Thought through carefully and aligned to working practices and the business objectives and strategy it can lead to major changes in the way work is done, the cultural norms and practices, and employee motivation and productivity.

Unfortunately many companies fail to see the opportunities, beyond 'getting rid of paper' – replicating in their new space the things they had in the old space but with newer furniture, different wall colors, and (in better cases) less paper.

One of the reasons for this is to do with positional power and feelings of 'entitlement'. Many senior people feel they are 'entitled' to a large office with impressive furniture, while the junior staff will do just fine in an 8 x 8' cubicle with high partitions – the ubiquitous 'cube farm' approach. This does not square with global trends that are forcing different working patterns, and require the ability to think of space in terms of working practices and not status.

In some professional areas: legal, HR – the demand for personal space ('my name on this door') comes from a perception that they do confidential work and need to own space in which to do it. When challenged with other options to do confidential work without compromising the privacy aspects – for example using private space, either at home or in the office, clustering with people also doing confidential work but where there is no breach of confidentiality if they are collaborating – say on legal cases, the argument becomes more personal.

An piece of research reported in Science Daily reports (in relation to production lines) that

Workers, who were performing similar tasks, were positively influenced by the performance on a fellow worker who completed his task more efficiently.

Schultz [the lead researcher] found that an individual's performance level may have a direct effect on what becomes "a good day's work" in that some members may change their work behavior to match the output of their co-worker.

Unlike the researchers who hypothesize that people copy behavior from others (which I wrote about on June 29 2010. This research

ties the results of their study to the principle of equity theory, or the idea that motivation comes from fair treatment — a good day's work for a good day's pay. "The workers may think 'we're not really connected, so I have no real reason to care about how fast you are working. But I'm a human being and I do care, and I do notice,'" said Schultz, who concluded that is possible for "people [to] change based on what they see."

Schultz also noted that the design of the workspace is equally important in influencing productivity, yet is an aspect that is ignored when designing new plants or redesigning workspaces. The key is to arrange the area so that workers are facing each other when performing their tasks, rather than facing away from each other, or in same direction. Allowing the workers to observe and monitor the speed of their co-workers is the necessary catalyst for the behavioural change to occur, he says.

"You don't have to say anything, you don't have to do anything, you don't have to put a flashing light over their head, said Schultz."Just make sure people can see each other and allow the workers to do what they would naturally do."

"You want your team to have not just good or average — or even great players — that can play well no matter where they are. To get that extra bit, you want to find the good or great players who will perform better around other great players."

Assuming generalization to office work (a good follow-on study for someone) the notion of cube farms, personally 'owned' offices, and space use based on hierarchy mitigates against learning, collaboration, and productivity. Would this argument sway someone who is desperately fighting for his own swish office in new space? Try it and see.

At the organization design training program I've been facilitating this week there's been lots of discussion on the politics of organization design. One person described at some length the blocking behavior of one the senior people and the difficulties in moving the work forward in this situation. He was looking for suggestions in how to work with people who were passive aggressive, confrontational, and plain stubborn.

A different challenge was presented to a manager working on a project involving a move from one head office to another. The new office has much less space, and the intent of the move is to introduce a new culture with collaborative working, flexible working, and generally different working practices, including people working in an open plan environment rather than having their own offices. This too has led to debate on the connection between status, hierarchy, and power, and the lengths people will go do to defend the office space they feel is an entitlement of their position.

These discussions called to mind various experiments and observations about social behavior. One for example, reported that fat friends make you fat:

Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a physician and professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School and a principal investigator in the new study, says one explanation is that friends affect each others' perception of fatness. When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad.

"You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you," Christakis said.:

Another asks the question "Does a messy neighborhood make a difference on how people act? The answer comes:

"It sure does!

Graffiti on the walls, trash in the street, bicycles chained to a fence, all resulted in a decline in how people behaved in a series of experiments.

A bit of litter or graffiti didn't lead to predatory crime, but actions ranging from littering to trespassing and minor stealing all increased when people saw evidence of others ignoring the rules of good behavior. "
Apparently, "the researchers were not surprised that people littered more in messy area, for example. But,"We were, however, surprised by the size of the effect."

Both these are examples of 'bad' behavior being copied or adopted. I wondered if there is research or examples of 'good' behavior?

In The Tipping Point, author Malcolm Gladwell discusses the idea that 'fads' are contagious. The NY Times reviewer of the book notes that :

Some of those he writes about fit snugly into the long tradition of crowd behavior: out-of-fashion Hush Puppies resurged into popularity in 1994 and '95; …Some of the other phenomena analyzed by Gladwell are a bit more unusual, including the decline in crime in New York City that began under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. But all of them can be taken as examples of how unpredictable people can be when they find themselves in the throes of doing what everyone else is doing at the same time.

Unlike previous observers of fads, however, Gladwell, a staff writer for The New Yorker, does not emphasize what they teach us about human irrationality. He does the exact opposite. Fads, he claims, are not really fads at all. They are illustrations of what he calls the tipping point, a term that he appropriates from the highly rational language of medical science, and that he defines as the one dramatic moment in an epidemic when everything can change all at once. Ideas and products and messages and behaviors, Gladwell writes, spread just as viruses do.

If these reports are correct that behaviors (good or bad) spread 'just as viruses do' – how does an organization designer introduce a spreading virus that encourages people in the organization to work collaboratively, stop feeling entitled to certain types of office space, and enjoy working for a project rather than against it? Unfortunately there is more written on the observable phenomenon that behavior does spread, and less on the how to initiate it spreading although Gladwell's book, as reported in the NY Times review, discusses some of the 'laws' of this:

• Law of the Few. An idea or behavior spreads because of the unusual qualities of a few key groups of individuals.
• The Stickiness Factor. All kinds of potential fads exist around us, but only certain ones take. At a time of message overload, finding a way to make something stick is part of making it survive.
• The Power of Context. One reason crime declined in New York is that officials put into practice the much-debated broken-windows theory, which held that if subways were cleaned of graffiti and windows were repaired, people would begin to obey the law. Altering the context altered the result. Gladwell offers another example: the Rule of 150. Groups smaller than 150 cannot influence many outside them. Larger groups tend to become impersonal. Knowing that, we begin to realize that one can create a large fad by first creating a series of smaller ones.

For organization designers following these three rules is worth a shot.

Still thinking about the distractions of gadgetry (BlackBerries, cell phones, computers …) that I wrote about the other day, I came across two methods of trying to deal with this. The first is mindfulness training
A paper from the University of Pennsylvania discussed a

study in which training was provided to a high-stress U.S. military group preparing for deployment to Iraq [and] has demonstrated a positive link between mindfulness training, or MT, and improvements in mood and working memory.

Remember working memory is the part that is impaired with the distraction of gadgetry.

The lead researcher, Amishi Jha, said that:

Our findings suggest that, just as daily physical exercise leads to physical fitness, engaging in mindfulness exercises on a regular basis may improve mind-fitness," Jha said. "Working memory is an important feature of mind-fitness. Not only does it safeguard against distraction and emotional reactivity, but it also provides a mental workspace to ensure quick-and-considered decisions and action plans. Building mind-fitness with mindfulness training may help anyone who must maintain peak performance in the face of extremely stressful circumstances,

This is good to know as an article in the Economist (Schupeter, Overstretched, May 22, 2010) makes the point that

unemployment is bringing another scourge in its wake-overwork. The Corporate Leadership Council, an American consultancy which surveys 1,100 companies every quarter, reports that the average "job footprint" (what a worker is expected to do) has increased by a third since the beginning of the recession. The Hay Group, a British consultancy which recently surveyed 1,000 people, says that two-thirds of workers report they are putting in unpaid overtime. The reward for all this effort is frozen pay and shrinking perks.

The result of all this is that people feeling overstretched, and stressed. "The Hay survey notes that 63% of workers say that their employers do not appreciate their extra effort. And 57% feel that employees are treated like dispensable commodities. Half report that their current level of work is unsustainable. … For their part, companies are beginning to notice the downside of all this overstretching. Absenteeism is on the rise. Low-level corporate crime is growing. Corporate loyalty is on the wane.

Mindfulness training has a well documented body of research showing its benefits. One of the key proponents of it is Jon Kabat-Zinn, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Center for Mindfulness. He has researched and written extensively on mindfulness, including a popular book Full Catastrophe Living, and on his website there is a downloadable one page Suggestions for Daily Practice.

The second suggestion to combat the stress of endless information streams comes as disabling software. In the Economist's June 12 Technology Quarterly there is an article Stay on Target that discusses the

new wave of dedicated software utilities, and special modes in word-processing packages and other applications, that do away with distractions to enable you to get on with your work …. you can procrastinate for hours, checking e-mail, browsing social-networking sites or keeping up with Twitter.

To deal with these distractions a number of packages are available.

Some programs fill the whole screen to keep disturbing alerts hidden; others disable specific websites, such as Facebook, or even cut off internet access altogether. The idea is similar to parental-control programs that prevent children from accessing inappropriate content: but these are controls that grown-up users deliberately impose upon themselves.

The writer of the article is particularly keen on a package called Freedom

[It] may be the ultimate tool to ward off distractions: the virtual equivalent of retiring to a remote getaway, or going on a writers' retreat, to get things done. Launch the $10 program and it asks you how long you would like to disable internet access for: you can specify anything from one minute to eight hours. A second screen asks if you would like local network access to printers and other computers, or none at all. The program requires that you enter your system password, and then neatly severs your information feed.

It's a very simple, but powerful idea as the website proclaims

Freedom enforces freedom; you'll need to reboot if you want to get back online while Freedom's running. The hassle of rebooting means you're less likely to cheat, and you'll enjoy enhanced productivity. Freedom does one thing and it does it exceedingly well: It helps you get work done.

So now I have two things to help me deal with work stress, mindfulness training, and Freedom. Both also useful to offer in the workplace to help people be calmer and more productive.

This week I've facilitated two different (public) organization design training programs. (CIPD and HR Society). Both times in the 'housekeeping' start-up to the program I've made the BlackBerry call as I don't like facilitating a program with people furiously working their BlackBerries on their knees. I give participants a choice. We can stop once an hour for a five minute BlackBerry break so they can feed their addiction, or we can stop at the scheduled breaks (about every two hours).

So I was interested to read Matt Richtel's article in the NY Times Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price. The article discusses the effects of constantly multi-tasking the information that comes to us in an endless stream on our various gadgets:

Scientists say juggling e-mail, phone calls and other incoming information can change how people think and behave. They say our ability to focus is being undermined by bursts of information.

While many people say multitasking makes them more productive, research shows otherwise. Heavy multitaskers actually have more trouble focusing and shutting out irrelevant information, scientists say, and they experience more stress.

And scientists are discovering that even after the multitasking ends, fractured thinking and lack of focus persist. In other words, this is also your brain off computers.

The article references the research of Dr Adam Gazzaley of the Gazzaley Lab. It is a "cognitive neuroscience research lab at the University of California, San Francisco focused on studying the neural mechanisms of memory and attention, how these processes change with normal aging and dementia, and how we might intervene therapeutically to alleviate memory and attention deficits."

Specifically the research is focused on

the neural process known as top-down modulation, which underlies our ability to exert conscious control over how we perceive our environment. It is this ability to selectively focus our attention, suppress distracting input and hold relevant information in mind that defines our conscious experience and serves as a critical crossroad between attention and memory.

The articles I skimmed confirm the NY Times report that multi-tasking appears to have a damaging effect on brain functioning.

The NY Times article has a link to a game that tests how well you filter out interruptions. (Perversely when I took this test I was much better at filtering out information when more was coming at me than when less was coming at me! Scoring 92% with six interferences – better than most. But only 83% with two interferences – slightly worse than most).

The game was devised by Eyal Ophir of Stanford University's Chime Lab (Communication Between Humans and Interactive Media) Lab. This lab researches the

fundamental relationships between humans and interactive media. We are interested both in advancing the overall understanding of human psychology and in exploring the practical implications of our discoveries.

I got distracted looking through the publications on their website by an article The Role of Psychological Ownership and Ownership Markers in Collaborative Working Environment which notes that

Though the theoretical and empirical literatures suggest that humans develop feelings of ownership toward non-physical entities such as ideas, words, artistic creations [18], so far, ownership of digital entities (digital ownership) has not been thoroughly studied within the context of Computer Supported Cooperative Work [6] Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), or machine-supported Human-Human communication.

I'd never considered the topic of digital ownership, though now I'm wondering what implications it might have for organization design. But to return to the BlackBerry/gadget discussion. The NY Times has another article on the topic An Ugly Toll of Technology: Impatience and Forgetfulness this one by Tara Parker-Pope. Again Stanford researchers are quoted

"More and more, life is resembling the chat room," says Dr. Elias Aboujaoude, director of the Impulse Control Disorders Clinic at Stanford. "We're paying a price in terms of our cognitive life because of this virtual lifestyle."

Parker-Pope offers another test – this one of gadget addiction. Answer these seven questions:

• Do you always check your e-mail before doing other things?
• Do you frequently find yourself anticipating the next time you'll be online?
• When you're online and someone needs you, do you usually say "just a few more minutes" before stopping?
• Have you ever lied about or tried to hide how long you've been online?
• Have you ever chosen to spend time online rather than going out with others?
• Does going online lift you from a depressed or nervous mood?
• Do others in your life often complain about the amount of time you spend using technology?

If you answered "often" or "always," technology may be taking a toll on you.

Help is at hand at netaddiction.com:

Founded in 1995, the Center for Internet Addiction Recovery has been devoted to helping those who suffer from Internet addiction. The Internet has impacted the world and provided many benefits to its users. At the same time the Internet has had negative ramifications. Some people are preoccupied with using the Internet, are unable to control their use, and are jeopardizing employment and relationships. The concept of "Internet addiction" has been proposed as an explanation for this uncontrollable, damaging use of this technology. Symptoms are compared to the criteria used to diagnose other addictions and research has characterized Internet addiction as an impulse control disorder most comparable to pathological gambling because of overlapping criteria.

In future training courses, as well as agreeing gadget breaks I may well point people in the direction of some of the research on the consequences of addiction, and for severe cases the net addict website.

At the organization design training program I've been facilitating this week there's been lots of discussion on the politics of organization design. One person described at some length the blocking behavior of one the senior people and the difficulties in moving the work forward in this situation. He was looking for suggestions in how to work with people who were passive aggressive, confrontational, and plain stubborn.

Similar situations people talked about related to managers intent on changing the organization chart relationships without thinking of the consequences and impact on other elements of the organization. They built on the list of blocking behaviors including refusal to listen or discuss, pulling rank (the client/manager saying 'this is what we're going to do'), and discounting alternatives.

Thinking over what they were saying and asking for I wondered what would help the organization design consultants in these types of situation. What sprang to mind was a piece I had come across earlier this year (stuck in one of my books but published in May 2006) about the practice of NaiKan (pronounced NYE-kon) "a little known practice of self-reflection, rooted in Zen Buddhism and developed in Japan in the 1940s". It's based around asking three questions about a relationship:

1. What did I receive from this person?
2. What did I give this person?
3. What troubles did I cause this person?

According to the article:

Naikan's power lies in the details – the good, the bad and the ugly truths that make up the mosaic of any relationship. But the focus is on the role you play, your actions and choices, and on what you received from the other person. What you discover can be surprising. "People are often in denial about their ability to cause trouble in the world," says New York psychologist, Wylie Goodman.

(The article doesn't go into detail but references the Todo Institute. Curious, at the time, I looked at their website and was sufficiently intrigued to sign-up for a one month self-reflection distance learning course to find out more. $80 plus the time involved seems like a good investment if it helps in difficult interpersonal situations. Along with the course comes the book Naikan: Gratitude, Grace and the Japanese Art of Self-Reflection. The course starts in November and it seemed a good way to end 2010)

Why I thought it might be helpful to the organization design consultants is because the three questions ask them to see things from the blocking person's perspective. How might it feel to have, sometimes unsolicited, expertise foisted on you by someone else in the organization? All the stuff about 'stakeholder engagement' is predicated on getting the stakeholders 'on board' but maybe they have legitimate wants, needs, and concerns, that the expert is over-looking or doesn't know how to handle in a way that finds the common ground, acknowledges the feelings, suggests other approaches, etc.

The way participants were describing the interactions sounded like:

• A locking of horns of expertise versus positional power. The expert is advocating something (an organizational design project) that is often seen as 'restructuring' with the inevitable trouble and difficulty it can cause. The stakeholders feel threatened rather than involved, and the spiral goes down from there.
• A language barrier – the experts organization design people talking in the language of socio-technical systems, stakeholder engagement, and appreciative inquiry and the perceived blockers talking in the language of business continuity, costs of downtime, and disruption to motivation and productivity. In this instance the participants simply don't understand each other.
• Territorial protection – the blocker defending the ideas, approaches, and departments that he/she felt were 'his', and the organization design consultant 'attacking' with the ideas, approaches, and organizational level mandate he/she felt were his. Here is a basic territorial protection tactic.

So if the Naikan three questions take you (the organization design consultant) part of the way in these difficult situations what else might help? Here are some suggestions:

• Communication: Learn the language and concerns of the person you think is the blocker and communicate/tell and sell in those terms e.g. through finance/cost
• Education: Discuss the risks and benefits in a variety of approaches so that they can make informed choices on good information
• Involvement: Include people in the process in a way – don't dismiss their capability. Remember "Real participation does wonders"
• Incentives: Offer both carrots and sticks making link to the person's personal or financial goals

Stakeholders who block are difficult but not impossible to deal with. Learning how to deal with them and recognizing the part you play in the situation is the challenge.

Yesterday I was facilitating the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Organization Design progam. One of the attendees asked what the difference is between a business model and an operating model is and where organization design fits into either. That's a good question. A couple of years ago I taught a 12 week course on the California College of the Arts Design Strategy MBA on Business Models and Stakeholders.

I started that course with the question 'what is a business model'. Harvard Business School (case study number 9-708-452, revised June 23 2008) has a module, Competing Through Business Models that answers the question, making the point that:

'while the expression 'business model' has been part of the business jargon for a long time, there is no widely accepted definition of what it means. Its origins can be traced back to the writings of Peter Drucker but the notion has gained prominence amongst both academicians and practitioners only in the last decade'

The authors of the case propose a definition of a business model:

A business model comprises i) a set of choices and ii) the set of consequences derived from those choices.

And suggest that 'it is useful to distinguish different types of choices and consequences. Choices are around policies, assets, and governance. Consequences are rigid or flexible.

Alexander Osterwalder, a consultant on business models, who wrote a paper 'How to describe and improve your business model to compete better has a similar view of what a business model suggesting that it is – the 'what and how' of a business.

'The business model of a company is a simplified representation of its business logic. It describes what a company offers its customers, how it reaches them and relates to them, through which resources, activities and partners it achieves this and finally, how it earns money'.

In a sense a business model is what someone seeking investor support to set up a company would describe in the business plan.

So, although two companies, for example two banks, may be in the same industry, compete in similar markets and appear to have similar cultures, they are almost certain to have different business models and it is this business model differences that in part accounts for them having different success levels. (The business exists in relation to the environment in which it is situated, and is not a self-contained system. It is subject to social, environmental, cultural, and economic influences coming from outside its 'borders').

Like the Harvard Business School, Osterwalder presents a graphic of a business model where boxes represent the 'what' of the organisation and require conscious choices and decisions to be made for each of them, for example the box 'competences, activities, and resources' requires choices and decisions around questions like "What are the main activities we operate to run our business model? On which key resources do they rely? To which value propositions, channels or relationships do they contribute?"

The arrows between the boxes represent the 'how' of the organisation and include both 'hard' things like IT systems or explicit policies, and 'soft' things like leadership style or speed of decision making. Again organisational members make choices and decisions around these. For example, the arrow from 'customer relationship' to 'offer' requires choices and decisions around soft questions like "How responsive will we be to customer feedback? Are we going to 'tell' the customer or are we going to make choices and decision by involving the customer? Will we treat all customers equally?' and to hard questions like 'What IT system is the best customer relationship management system for our purposes', 'What packaging shall we offer our product in? What price point should we offer at?"

Each of the choices and decisions made have consequences that make for, or sustain, business model viability. As the example of Domino's Pizza illustrates. In July 2009 Domino's reported that international same store sales (sales revenues of retail stores that have been open for a year or more) grew 4.1%. The international division continued its strong performance, posting its 62nd consecutive quarter of same store sales growth.

David Brandon, CEO said "I'm putting this quarter in the "win" column for Domino's Pizza. I'm proud of my team and our accomplishment of emerging as a leader during tough times. The predictability of our (business) model continues to be a plus in an unpredictable landscape."

In this case the choice to be 'predictable' yet remain competitive has a number of consequences – one of which is the requirement for continuous improvement.

In my view the business model relates to choices and consequences. The operating model refers to the way the model is 'driven' for example, by structure (relating to things you see on the organization chart), by system (SAP over Oracle), by job design, by skill levels of the workforce, and other elements of the design.

'Change management' is one of those phrases that is bandied about without much consensus on what it is, why you need to manage it, and how you would manage it if you could. In an attempt to clarify this for myself I started to look around for usable information. There is a lot of information. One academic article written by Street and Gallupe, A Proposal for Operationalizing the Pace and Scope of Organizational Change in Management Studies, is helpful. The abstract reads as follows:

Organizational change is an important construct for management theorists, yet organizational research is being hampered by inconsistent and incompatible operationalizations of the construct. This article presents a proposal for improving clarity about how the types and characteristics of organizational change can be operationalized and measured. In particular, the scope and pace of organizational change are examined and a common approach is developed to measure the impacts of these two factors on patterns of organizational change.

In brief, the authors present four types of organizational change:

• Ongoing adaptations and increments to work processes and social practices that are consistent with or support an existing frame of reference.

• Ongoing changes to work processes and social practices that are radical i.e. they become new frames of reference and are reinforced by emergent rules that replace an existing frame of reference.

• Sudden or planned time-bound specific changes that are consistent with or support an existing frame of reference.

• Sudden or planned time-bound specific changes that are radical i.e. they become new frames of reference and are reinforced by emergent rules that replace an existing frame of reference.

And describe how they validated these categories through their research. What they don't discuss is how they would then use this typology in organizations and what tools to 'manage' the types of changes would be helpful.

Nevertheless in a piece of work I am doing I used the four categories as a starting point for discussion. The people I interviewed on the changes going on in their organizations thought the categories helpful. They recognized the first category as 'business as usual'. Making the point that 'ongoing adaptations' to the way work is done are part of every line manager's responsibility. They felt managers should always be on the look out for ways of cost cutting and with this adding value. They conceded that this wasn't always done. For example, the common reaction when someone leaves is to find a replacement rather than thinking through ways of doing the work differently. But in organizations using six-sigma methodologies, DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) was used.

One of the people I spoke with gave a very clear example of the second category of change. She was engaged in changing the mindsets and ways of working of a well established long-service workforce from one of reactive responses to customer requests to proactive working with customers to meet their needs. She had initiated the process two years ago, not with any announcement of a change but with gradual, but planned, increments to things, starting with changes to the pay and reward systems, introducing messages and reinforcements to these about working with customers, coaching managers in ways of valuing customer feedback as a method for improving service, and so on.

A good example of the third category was given by someone in an organization where the manufacture of product lines was moved from two locations to one. It was a radical change but in the same 'frame of reference' the goal was to integrate the manufacturing process without radically altering existing infrastructures and ways of doing things.

Where people felt they needed the most help was in the fourth category of 'sudden or planned time-bound specific changes that are radical'. They made the point that it was the most disruptive, the workforce found it the most difficult to deal with, and it wasn't part of the day to day, so in that sense merited special treatment. This type of change usually impacted all elements of the organization (structures, processes, and people) and also required new knowledge/skills and technologies.

So that gave me a lead in to where to focus my energies in the toolkit I am working on. (Which will be available in the autumn/fall).

Someone last week sent me a link to Simon Sinek talking at the TED conference on the topic 'How Great Leaders Inspire Action'. I've just listened to it and discover that it's about the power of knowing 'why' you do something. Sinek has a website and a book devoted to the topic 'Start with Why'. He has taken a simple idea – the power of what, how, why – and converted it into a money-spinner.

Basically, he suggests that unless people know 'why' they do something, or belived in what they do they will get know where. His view is that it is not enough to know 'what' you do. To inspire followers you have to show your belief in 'why' you do it. Among the examples in the TED video are apple, the Wright brothers, and Martin Luther King ("who gave the 'I have a dream' speech, and not the 'I have a plan' speech").

I found the talk, website, (and free download book chapter) interesting on a number of counts

It endorsed my view that leaders don't know why: In my work with organizations one of sticking points in the organization design is always the first question I ask. 'Why does the organization exist?' (beyond making money). Almost no individual leader can answer it. And I've never met an executive team that can answer it with the same collective answer. If the executive team is twelve members invariably there are twelve different answers to the question 'why does this company exist? Or 'Why is this company in business?'

But without an agreed answer to that starting question it is impossible to design an organization effectively. Why? Because if you don't know what you're designing for, how can you design it?

It omitted any points related to workers don't know why either: Beyond leaders not knowing why their organizations are in business quite often workers don't know why they do the job they do (beyond making a living for themselves). They do not know where their piece of the work fits into the overall system, how it contributes to profitability, and what would happen organizationally – if anything – if their job did not exist. This does not produce a motivated,engaged workforce.

I talked the other day to a person who is in charge of hiring senior executives in her organization. Her side role is organizing a food drive (collecting food for homeless and destitute families). Her eyes shone as told me how she'd been down to the food center, met homeless people, seen their desperation and gratitude and how she 'really believed' the food drive would help. None of this energy was evident in her description of what she did to recruit executives – and she had no answer to the question 'why are you recruiting executives' beyond 'that's my job'.

It made me think that TED itself is a good example of organization that appears to know why it exists. From its website you learn that TED is a small nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading.

Chris Anderson, Chief Curator of TED, was recently named one of Fast Company's Most Creative People 2010. He says:

At TED, every time we've listened to radical openness, we've been grateful." … [He] has guided it into a newly global, open-source phase this year. Volunteers have translated thousands of videos into 76 languages and introduced TEDx, independently organized events that in the first year has produced an astonishing 500 gatherings in 70 countries and 35 languages. "Any business adviser might have told us 10 years ago, 'Oh, beware! You're going to dilute your brand,' " says Anderson. "TEDx has massively enhanced the brand by showing just how widespread this desire is to be stimulated and inspired .

Browsing their website I realized that many of their videoed talks would be a wonderful addition to the leadership development program that I'm currently getting involved in. Not only that the idea that the organization I am working with could run its own TEDx conference sprang to mind. Why would I get involved in orchestrating this? I believe the organization is in desperate need of showing it can have and implement new ideas that will make it successful.