Hi.
Welcome to my blog. I have questions about the way we work and I put my thoughts here. I hope you have a nice stay!
Welcome to my blog. I have questions about the way we work and I put my thoughts here. I hope you have a nice stay!
The COVID-19 pandemic is upending how we think about work. We are all in a period of transition and adaptation as we adjust to meet the immediate needs, but what about the long term?
For the most part, our ideas about the way organisations function once inhabited a common sense world. There was a time when we could form a mental picture of our work and our organisational relationships, and we could map this to what we saw around us. Increasingly, our knowledge of organisation is letting slip the moorings of common sense but it might not be as complicated as we are making it out to be.
In many organisations there is a multi-pronged pursuit of the often talked about but rarely seen ‘perfect’ organisational culture. If it can be found, the perfect culture promises unimaginable benefits for employee engagement, performance and productivity. However, the quest seems to have no end, much gold and effort has been spent in the pursuit but the longed for benefits seem just as unattainable. What if our quest is based on a false assumption? It may be time to take a different view.
Is specialisation is impossible or is specialisation is necessary?
In 1927, Harry Burrell reflecting on the various complex adaptive specialisations of the platypus concluded that because they are simple creatures they can’t rely on the flexibility of intelligence to overcome the problems they encounter in the environment. In response, the platypus has developed special structures to deal with each new situation. Our organisations are much like the platypus in that they are a collection of specialist adaptations.
William Edward Deming, the father of quality management, listed ‘evaluation of performance, merit rating and annual review’ as the third of his ‘seven deadly diseases’. These are the ‘diseases’ Deming considered to be the most serious barriers that management faces to improving effectiveness and continual improvement.
Recently, I have seen more discussion on management 'accountability' which suggests a resurgence of interest in the topic. It led me to wonder how we might better frame a conversation about accountability. One that allows us to see it as a relationship rather than a penal code. And, one where we can think about accountability as an organisational and leadership choice in the way control and delegation are managed.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in his novel, Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship: "...everything that happens to us leaves some trace behind it, everything contributes imperceptibly to form us." I like this view.
The philosopher A.C. Grayling has helpfully pointed out that we might reasonably expect to live for about 1,000 months. A large part of this time is spent asleep but another sizeable portion is spent working. So, when I read that 70% of US workers are supposedly disengaged in the workplace I wonder what we have done to design work that could so distance people from participating meaningfully in work. Maybe, we need to give more thought to what shapes the way work is done and our relationship with work.
It is not uncommon to hear that the intransigence of middle managers is the principle barrier to implementing change in organisations. They are portrayed as entrenched in the ‘way things are done around here’. But, is that right?
