Showing posts with label arie de geus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arie de geus. Show all posts

leadership




One point that group development theory (discussed in stages of the group) largely ignores is the possibility of dispensing with a leader or, at least, dispensing with a permanent leader. In the Red Stripe team, as in many others, it would have been possible to rotate the position of team leader weekly or monthly, either randomly or by election. The team could also have elected its leader (perhaps after the first month when things had settled down a bit and people had got a good sense of each other’s strengths and skills and personalities). I think this would have required Mike not to stand for election, otherwise he would almost inevitably have been confirmed in his role, both because of his senior status in the Economist Group and because it would be a perceived slap in the face to vote for someone else.


When he talked to me about this point at the end of the six months, Mike observed that ‘there were more people that wanted to be led, rather than lead.’ But isn’t that normally the case? As Gerard Fairtlough might say, that’s what the ‘
hegemony of hierarchy’ does for you.

When I asked Javier, the team coach, about this team leader issue, he noted that the team inevitably brought with them the impression of The Economist Group’s organisational structure and their status within it. (I couldn’t help thinking of the expression: ‘bears the impression of the last arse that sat on it…). For the project founder and champion (and CIO) to have been anything other than the team leader would have been ‘cosmetic’ and the natural order would have reasserted itself when the team found itself under pressure, said Javier. And, as for having no leader, he felt that one was needed to move the team forwards in order to meet its deadlines.

I mention this issue because it’s now widely accepted that organisations should be flatter and less hierarchical, that power should be diffused and devolved and more networked, if they are to be able to respond fast enough to the pressure for continuous change and improvement. In all that has been written about the deficiencies of command-and-control driven organisational structures, there is a clear sense that self-organising teams or workgroups operate best when they use heterarchical or co-operative or 'female' modes of operation. These can include:
  • Consensual decision-making rather than ‘orders’ imposed from above
  • Job roles and tasks within the group being rotated or changed to meet current requirements
  • Persuasion and engagement replacing the wielding of power and authority
  • The selection of leader(s) by the team, rather than having them imposed.
Javier may be right that ‘the natural order’ would have reasserted itself under pressure. Arie de Geus says something similar when he talks about the reality of decentralisation and empowerment:

Few dare to risk the accompanying loss of control. Most of those who dare
will show their fears in a crisis. They will recentralise quickly, pulling power
back into the centre and into the top. After all, beneath the rhetoric about
empowerment, most managers trust themselves infinitely more than they trust
anybody else.

But Arie’s aspirational conclusion is rather different:

To behave with ecological concern often requires a leap of faith: you will
be better protected by harmony and flocking than by territoriality and force of
will.

Dilemmas

Electing and/or rotating the team leader is ‘fairer’, more democratic and likely to bring a wider range of different talents to the task. But it’s also likely to be inefficient at times and may be no more than window dressing.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits:
Ducks: Pedro Simões
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

flocking

Stewart: 'I'm going to work from home tomorrow, unless anyone has any objections.'
Joanna: 'We'll miss you.'


On the way home from hearing Javier talking about people's need to flock from time to time, which he related to the tensions that can build in the course of one family Christmas dinner, never mind over six months in a cockpit, I was reading Arie de Geus's The Living Company. I've already quoted him talking about flocking as a prerequisite of organisational learning. In the same chapter he quotes Allan Wilson's suggestion that accelerated evolution takes place intragenerationally in certain species when three characteristics are present:

  • Innovation - the capacity to invent new behaviour

  • Social propagation - the capacity to transmit skills through direct communication rather than genetically

  • Mobility - the capacity to move around as individuals, to come together into flocks, and to move as a flock.
[Pinta digression

Allan Wilson - in the article linked to above - neatly explains the whole blue tit/milk bottle thing if you've ever wondered.]

Arie then makes two key assertions. The first is that, 'no one can "command" a bird to flock in a certain direction, because the travel pattern of the flock emerges from its own movement.' We all know that choreographing directional flocking in geese or fish is hard. But the idea that the next movement emerges from the current one is less obvious. In an innovation team, as in all things, it may be helpful to start from movement rather than from stasis.

The second is that 'human organisations have resources for evolution'. No quibbling with that. But he expands on this by saying, 'surely, corporate life is not a Greek tragedy in which the outcome is hardwired into the characters by the Olympian gods, and the play can climax only in its inevitable tragic ending'.

To take his second assertion first, I'm not so sure. The error, fatal flaw or hamartia, that leads Oedipus unwittingly but unerringly to the awful climax of killing his father and marrying his mother, is still used in contemporary psychotherapy when talking about the scripts that people act out in their lives. Sometimes it really does seem that an individual is hell-bent on his own destruction or on making the same mistakes again and again in different relationships. Often we can link this determination to explicit or unacknowledged beliefs that the individual holds about himself. I see no reason not to extend this analysis to organisations, where a group of individuals can hold equally strong beliefs and assumptions about the organisation, its worth, its direction and its likely end. When organisation culture experts talk about culture as 'the way we do things around here', they refer to a whole range of values and beliefs that inform every aspect of an organisation's operation and can define, unless they are openly challenged, how that organisation will end its days.


But to return to Arie's first assertion about directional flocking, I learnt that Craig Reynolds was working two decades ago on replicating flocking behaviour with computer modelling. In thinking about the steering behaviours of a boid (a computer simulation of a single flocking creature) he concluded that three factors are at play:

  • Separation: steer to avoid crowding local flockmates

  • Alignment: steer towards the average heading of local flockmates

  • Cohesion: steer to move toward the average position of local flockmates
It seems to me that separation, alignment and cohesion (which, at first sight, look interestingly contradictory) may be behaviours or inclinations that can be seen at work in many situations from a holiday beach to an artistic movement to a business. They were certainly in operation at Red Stripe, both in terms of the team members' working relationships with one another and in terms of the team's relationships with the outside world.

Furthermore, I found that Bryan Coffman has
written about the application of some of these principles to the organisation. Talking about Knowledge Nodes or Knodes, he suggests some rules that each Knode follows in a web or flock of Knodes:

  • If another Knode does something you value, emulate it.

  • Send regular "here's my current state" messages - communicate your current state to your neighborhood.

  • Hunt for and discover resources and opportunities. Once
    discovered, communicate these as a part of your current state message.

  • Look outward to identify new ideas, toys, tools and techniques. Once identified,
    communicate these as a part of your current state message.

  • Tell the story of the purpose of the web to new Knodes you run into (which may or may not be a part of the current web/flock that you belong to).

  • Family and immediate neighborhood come first.

  • Critical mass:
    - If the neighborhood flock is too small for critical mass, join another one.
    - If the neighborhood flock is too large and noisy, split off.

  • Align with and converge upon the currently highest wealth-generating opportunity (from your value vantage point) that you are aware of, based on current state messages you receive from other Knodes.

  • Always ship a product from your experiences to your local
    neighborhood. A product is actually a specific subset of a current state
    message.

  • Reply to current state messages you think are valuable, even if it's
    just to say, 'thanks, that was valuable'. DON'T respond to current state
    messages which you think are not valuable.

Now there's an interesting prescription for an innovation team. Again, the rules can apply to the way team members work together and to the way the team as a whole relates to the organisation it works for and to the outside world.

  • Emulation reminds us that the incremental approach to change may be more useful than the quantum leap.
  • Current state messages sound like Gerard Fairtlough's suggestion that we write things down.
  • Hunting for resources and opportunities sounds like a more practical approach than hunting for an idea. It might help to avoid becoming-whale syndrome.
  • Looking outward was obvious for this team; less obvious for many others. And looking for toys is like talking to children.
  • Telling the story is what Javier urged the team to do when they were getting stuck.
  • Family first is, amongst other things, a reminder of the issues that some team members faced whilst working so far from their families.
  • Critical mass gives us a guide for the size of the team and the business of working in one room.
  • Focusing on wealth-generating opportunities would have changed the team's direction at the time it was thinking about starting a charity.
  • Shipping a product from your experiences is a way of describing Mike's not-a-white-paper, which could perhaps be extended to include a reminder of the unexploited ideas that the team considered.
  • The formula for replying to current state messages might have been a helpful guide for Red Stripe when they were receiving ideas at the crowdsourcing stage.

Dilemmas:

The theory of flocking seems to make very good sense and is intrinsically appealing. Web 2.0 is all about flocking and the transmission of memes. As we've noted, the team was doing a great deal on online flocking. But many extremely creative people find flocking anathema. Recruit hermits or flockers to your team? And if you opt for both, how do you get them to work together?

Like what used to be called surfing the web, telling the story, transmitting and acknowledging current state messages, hunting and emulating all require huge amounts of time. Just as a team like this perhaps needs one person working full time on PR, maybe it would be useful to separate out those responsible for all these necessary flocking behaviours and those responsible for making a plan and creating a new business?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credits:
Milk bottle: Mykl Roventine
Blue tit: Lawrie Phipps
Flock: fdecomite

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------






drifting, angst and pan-ic



Joanna: 'I feel a little bit paralysed at the moment.'

One of the many tensions (and I mean tension in a Newton's 3rd Law kind of way) apparent in Project Red Stripe related to direction-finding, goals, intentions and wandering around.

With its very broad remit, Project Red Stripe gave its members enormous scope for 'wandering about' and looking for, or waiting for, inspiration. Now, of course, this is in the very nature of an innovation team and one of the primary characteristics that distinguishes it from a more goal-oriented project team. Yet, this innovation team had a very clear sense of having a goal: 'creating an innovative and web-based product, service or business model'. It just didn't yet know what the goal looked like. Its task was to locate the goal and then get there.

This set up tensions from the outset. There was a feeling amongst the team at different times that they were wasting time. Against this was the clear sense that the team ought to take its time in identifying the right idea - because there was surely no point in spending six months writing business and marketing plans, developing websites and other infrastructure, working with partners and commercialising the idea, if they hadn't chosen the right one in the first place.

Drifting

This often reminded me of 'drifting'. Drifting has been developed as a performance art, as autobiogeography, as a philosophical study and as a literary style (as well as a way of exploring the urban landscape). Its masters and mistresses (if you can master and mistress something as elusive as drifting) are the Wrights and Sites team.

It seems to me that drifting has particular relevance to the innovation project team where it pays attention to the idea of determination. Baz Kershaw, formerly Professor of Drama at Bristol University, although he's not a drifter as far as I know, has talked about the way in which our experience at a zoo is 'over-determined': signs, paths, maps and guides structure the route we walk; information notices structure the way we look at and experience the creatures; cages, enclosures and access points structure the way we observe and what we observe - and all this in addition to the particular memories and experiences we may bring, the cultural associations and responses that we may carry with us, and so on. Cities have a similar effect: there are explicit and implicit rules about where we can go and where we can't; where we can stop, stand and sit and where we must walk; what we can look at and what we can't; even how fast we should walk or on what side of the pavement.

All of this 'over-determination' in the city or in the zoo makes it hard to 'just drift'.

Some of these same rules come into play in an innovation project. The team members have their own expectations and associations, have their own experience of groups, reactions to rules and authority, working preferences and so on. They will also tend, such being our habit in this country and at this time, to look for some rules and guidelines, to establish where the power and the authority lies, to set down - if there aren't any already in place - codes of conduct, attendance times and working policies.

Inevitably, this sought-after regimentation can be at odds with the 'right to roam', which is the passport of the innovative and inventive mind. Just as drifting largely dispenses with maps and destinations and attempts to journey without intention (what Walter Benjamin - quoted here - has called 'the rhythmics of... slumber'), so we can suppose that innovation might attempt to dispense with as many limiting conventions as possible, in order to facilitate the emergence of ideas. Though creating a regime within which regimentation is discouraged is itself paradoxical.

Panic

One of the by-products of drifting or, more specifically, of the absence of rules, form and shape that accompany it, is a sense of panic. There is a hegemony of rules and shapes and laws precisely because we feel chillingly uncomfortable without them. Phil Smith has described this kind of panic as an 'encounter with everything (else), an intense, but relatively common initiatory Pan-ic - an experience of causeless, but sited dread' - the hyphenation of pan-ic reminds us of the word's Greek origins and associations with the god Pan and the word pan meaning everything.

In this form, panic is closely related to Kierkegaard's existential angst or dread. This dread is explicitly connected with freedom and choices, with the uncertainties and unboundariedness that freedom entails: 'the dread felt by innocence, which is the reflex of freedom within itself at the thought of its possibility.'


That may sound ridiculously grand. I'm sure none of the members of the team felt they were experiencing existential angst. But there was a sense of panic at times, when the team realised that they could do anything, but that they only had six months to do it. And I also connect that panic with their need to find the 'big idea', the becoming-whale-of-an-idea.

So, the Red Stripe team sometimes wandered around without a clear sense of what was going to happen next and without clear rules about how it might be going to happen or what they should be doing about it. Jurgen Habermas talks about something like this when he
discusses 'action oriented to success' and 'action oriented to understanding' and the different modes of thinking and communication that they require (logical and pragmatic for the first; rhizomatic and affective for the second).

Movement artist
Sandra Reeve says much the same when discussing action preceding intention:

In Move into Life practice, I often start from movement tasks or moving with no
fixed intention in a natural environment and allow associations, feelings,
images and ultimately meaning to emerge from a constantly shifting context.
Sometimes I introduce a theme, in order to guide the direction of my creative
response... This corresponds with Gibson's theory of affordances: that is, how
we pick up information appropriate to our needs directly from the
environment.

In any case, the team was 'drifting'. Instinctively, that seems like an appropriate thing for an innovation team to do; but it's also an uncomfortable thing to do at any time, and especially in a business context.

For myself, I would choose this state of drifting as the most profoundly productive one. Others would say that safety is a prerequisite of productive enquiry or creativity.
Arie de Geus maintains that 'fear inhibits learning'. Probably all these views are correct. Certainly there are many, including some members of the Red Stripe team, who work hardest and fastest when they know where they're going. Perhaps it depends on the make-up of your team, or perhaps your team can be invited to approach panic and safety in a new light. In any case, we could say that the issue of drifting and panic and over-determination needs to be addressed explicitly, at least if safety is intended.

One possible approach would be to invite team members to compare their situation to that of the participants in
Erotourism where two lovers travel independently to a chosen city without mobile phones or any pre-arrangements and set about finding each other. There is a destination, but no map.

[Incidentally, I like these
words of Borges: 'la inminencia de una revelación, que no se produce' (the imminence of a revelation that does not take place). They seem to me to characterise much of the early part of Project Red Stripe's existence and, perhaps, that of many other such innovation projects].

Weaving

Just before we leave the question of wandering around:

Tim Ingold, writing about
String Bags and Birds' Nests, suggests that we might look at construction as a kind of weaving, rather than as a kind of making:

Whereas making defines an activity in terms of its capacity to yield a finished object, weaving focuses on the skilled character of the process by which that object comes into existence. Three important properties of technical
skill are highlighted. First, skill is not a property of the individual human body in isolation but of the whole system of relations constituted by the presence of the artisan in a richly structured environment. Secondly, rather
than representing the mere mechanical application of external force, skill involves qualities of care, judgement and dexterity. Thirdly, skilled action has a narrative quality, in the sense that every movement grows rhythmically out of the one before and lays the groundwork for the next.

Perhaps innovation, as well as construction, can be looked at as a kind of weaving.

Dilemmas:

Drifting 'aimlessly' can be a profoundly creative process, but it's also anxiety-inducing. Participants (and Finance Directors) may want something more regimented. Rules and guidelines can offer direction or serve as blinkers.

It's vitally important to ensure that you've picked the right idea before embarking on commercialising it. But equally important to know when to stop looking for the right idea and accept that the one you have is good enough.

As Oliver Burkeman says, 'attempts to induce good feelings through top-down effort are self-defeating - whether imposed on workers by management or imposed on yourself by your rational brain... you (or those you manage) get caught in the psychological trap known as the double bind - the unspoken demand whereby, in the words of the philosopher Alan Watts, "you are required to do something that will be acceptable only if you do it voluntarily"'. Just how do you direct people to do the right thing?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credits:

Wordle: www.wordle.net

Zoo signs: Paul Downey, Bell and Jef, Edinburgh Blog, Tup Wanders, Paul Downey, Kate Sheets, Tim Parkinson

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------