What lies beneath

18/7/2018

At a crucial moment in World War 2, Winston Churchill is said to have consulted with two of his key advisors on how to proceed in the face of Nazi Germany’s terrifyingly-effective military advances. One proposed (my paraphrase), “We need to become more organised than the Nazis if we are to defeat them.” The other pushed back in response: “No, the key to victory lays in our unique ability to improvise and, thereby, to take the Nazis by surprise. Organisation is the enemy of improvisation.”

What a dilemma. It’s like Myers Briggs J meets P in stark confrontation. The challenge here was how to face a serious existential threat posed by a highly organised enemy and not only to survive it but also to win: whether to out-organise the organised or to out-wit the organised by doing what they least expect. Yet, in that moment, two people looked at the same data-information, made sense of what they saw in different ways, drew different conclusions and proposed very different solutions.

I see parallels in some of the opportunities and challenges that leaders, OD, coaches and trainers face today. In volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous (VUCA) and stressful situations, how often are our observations and decisions - and those of our clients - based subconsciously on (and thereby constrained by) implicit psychological-cultural assumptions and preferences, e.g. for certainty-structure vs fluidity-agility, rather than necessarily on what the situation itself calls for per se?

Take, for instance, restructuring and re-engineering projects to solve issues where different types of conversations and relationships could have been less costly and more effective; or formal change management programmes that adhere to strict policies and procedures whereas innovative change leadership could have achieved far better outcomes. This begs important questions: What lies beneath different analyses and ideas for solutions? How can we work with clients to raise them into awareness?

22 Comments

Patrick O'Brien

21/7/2018 11:21:40 am

Support them to learn about and apply high reliability organising (Karl Weick).

It enables ongoing monitoring and assessment, involvement of people who can add value, learning through acting and resilience.

Thanks for your posts Nick! They are really helpful!

Nick Wright

21/7/2018 11:23:59 am

Hi Patrick - and thank you for your encouraging feedback! I haven't heard of 'high reliability organising' before. Do you have an example of what it could look like in practice?

23/7/2018 10:10:58 am

Hey Nick.
My recommendation would be that you read "Managing the Unexpected" by Karl Weick because he gives so many fantastic examples. There are 5 things to attend to when organising for high reliability:
Preoccupation with failure (also referred to as Chronic Unease and Entertaining Doubt - see Dr Robert Long from Human Dymensions).
Sensitivity to Operations
Reluctance to Simplify
Deference to Expertise
Commitment to Resilience
High reliability organising (HROing) is most commonly applied to high risk/critical industries, e.g. nuclear power plants, emergency services, airlines etc. However, all organisations manage risk (and therefore, opportunity and learning) as an essential part of maintaining and optimising operations.
Interestingly, HROing works well with other processes such as continuous improvement. It also, helps with managing the potential issues or unintended consequences of various processes. In the case of continuous improvement, efficiency is the goal. However, HROing helps to guide thinking and planning to keep people with diverse knowledge in the business, so that it can maintain resilience through turbulent or unexpected events.
Have a good one!
Cheers, Pat.

23/7/2018 10:25:07 am

Hi Pat. Thanks for sharing such fascinating insights. I just read a summary of Weick's book and found it very stimulating. I am used to working with appreciative inquiry (AI) and solutions-focused approaches and the Weick model you have described makes an interesting alternative perspective and approach. It reminds me of 'reflexivity' in research and of critical reflective practice. Thank you for sharing. I will order a copy of 'Managing the Unexpected'!

Patrick Hoverstadt

23/7/2018 10:26:26 am

Hi Nick
Really like this.
I think the answer is it depends. There are issues that require organisations to become much more cohesive to act as one, and there are situations that demand a much more diffuse, agile and flexible approach that maximises autonomy. The trick is understanding what your response should be and that in turn is a strategic question. For me, this is where OCM meets strategy, because the degree of change possible does limit the strategic options available to the organisation and if you've got a coherent strategy (very rare!) then that will tell you exactly what needs to change and how fast.
If you have an interest in the strategy side, then you might like: https://youtu.be/b0DHjO8MhTg

23/7/2018 11:33:26 am

Thanks Patrick - and thank you for sharing the link. I found your strategy presentation fascinating. I think the coupling-dynamics idea is a great application of systems theory. I also liked the notion of 'not necessarily conscious'. My sense is that many of the influences and dynamics we experience, often out of awareness, lay outside of our ability to know or understand - let alone manage. This is where I believe fields such as social psychodynamics, complexity theory and social constructionism add very useful contributions to the conversation.

Jane Miller

23/7/2018 04:18:17 pm

Interesting. Know thyself. Have them answer Napoleon Hills Self Analysis questions. There will be ALOT of awareness from the answers. I tucked them on my site here: http://www.janemillerassociates.com/2018/07/18/napoleon-hills-personal-analysis-test/

23/7/2018 04:18:41 pm

Thanks Jane. 'Know thyself' is an important factor - and thanks for sharing the link. Interesting reading. Perhaps there are other factors too, e.g. 'Know others' and 'Know thy situation'?

Dennis Hooper

24/7/2018 02:42:35 pm

Nothing gets done without the doing. Good ideas don't yield successful accomplishment--it's the execution of good ideas that contributes to desired outcomes.

In VUCA situations, no one knows the "right" or "best" idea. Consultants look for and suggest what they consider to be "best." The execution of that idea, however, is in the hands of someone who may not have a great deal of personal ownership in the idea, so the tenacity and rigor of the execution may suffer.

Coaches challenge and support their clients, stimulating them to identify and engage with the ideas they deem most right. We all have an inherent desire to make what we think is right come to pass. Coaches create the environment for bringing those ideas to conscious awareness, then helping the client clear away the obstacles to transforming the idea into tangible execution.

The awareness that a coach stimulates for the client is often invaluable--as judged by the client, the coach, and even independent third parties.

24/7/2018 02:48:14 pm

Hi Lester. I like how you expressed that: 'In VUCA situations, no one knows the "right" or "best" idea.' In my experience, this can sometimes leave leaders feeling anxious, confused or paralysed. In light of that, the coach may work with the client on, say, personal leadership resilience, dynamic systemic insight and complex decision-making as well as, in some instances, the presenting issue itself.

Anne Hudson

26/7/2018 10:44:51 am

Great article Nick and what a challenge to those working with clients in highly regulated sectors to be brave and call out those assumptions.

26/7/2018 10:58:14 am

Thanks Anne. What an intriguing insight. Do you have any examples from personal experience?

In my experience, it's sometimes difficult to know where in the wider system to intervene to call out assumptions, e.g. where regulatory requirements are being created and enforced or, perhaps, where they are being applied rigorously and unquestioningly without any attention to unintended consequences.

A controversial example currently is that of staff working in agencies and institutions that work with children who are not allowed any physical contact whatsoever with the children in order to avoid any risk of abuse or accusation of abuse. This includes even if the child is physically injured or is clearly distressed.

There appears to be little attention to the wider and longer-term psychological and social consequences of a 'no physical contact' rule and the associated fear and suspicion that physical contact becomes associated with in the minds of children, including as they grow older.

You may find this short related piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/do-no-harm I would love to hear what you think!

Anne Archer

26/7/2018 11:36:12 am

It would seem uncertainty is a scary and difficult place so leaders get to solution as quickly as possible. That may mean missing a golden moment for a transforming decision.

Thanks for the post - got brains working.

26/7/2018 11:41:30 am

Thanks Anne. I think that's very profound. If a leader is able to pause and reflect critically and with awareness on, say, 'What is driving my need for a decision?' or, 'Why am I drawn to decision X rather than to decision Y?', it can sometimes open up opportunity for more radical and transformational ideas and options to emerge.

John Gray

27/7/2018 10:43:55 am

I remember discussions around the 2016 referendum - reactions to the binary / limiting nature of the choice; and how often society or organisational decision-making pushes us into the binary.

Something I have taken from new science is the concept of "both-and". Things don't necessarily have to be either-or, and sometimes both can co-exist. Light, famously, can be a particle and a wave. Leadership today often means having to work effectively amidst paradox or contradiction - or as pointed out above, within the Uncertainty or Ambiguity of VUCA.

So, organise or improvise?; what if both might be possible? It's great as coaches we have the chance to ask 'And what other options might there be?', and to hold out the possibility there may be other paths additional to this or that, on or off, stop or continue, do or don't do.

27/7/2018 10:53:38 am

Hi John - and well said! In cognitive psychology, binary thinking is often an indicator that a leader is under stress. It's as if there are absolutely only two options available - usually polar opposites, e.g. 'Do or die'. You may find this short related piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/fresh-thinking.html

If I notice this happening when coaching a leader, I may work with them to explore the polarity as a spectrum - to see what options emerge between the poles - or as a triangle with the X and Y polarities at two points, to see what radical alternative could be represented by 'Z' at the third point.

Interestingly, I once discussed the Churchill dilemma with a social worker in Germany who argued that a level of organisation is necessary for improvisation, based on the psychological notion of a 'secure base' (John Bowlby) from which to explore, experiment and innovate.

Jeanne Schulze

27/7/2018 10:54:47 am

Excellent thoughts. And, the kid on the right looks exactly like my son Isaac. Really. It could be him.

27/7/2018 10:55:32 am

Thanks Jeanne. Have you considered the possibility that Isaac may have taken up a modelling career as a sideline..? :)

David Adams

29/7/2018 09:40:38 am

We come to conclusions often based on gut feel tempered by our own patterns and those we have seen in others. We then rationalise. This why using de Bono’s 6 thinking hats is so powerful in making the best (not wrong or right) decisions.

29/7/2018 09:42:14 am

Hi David. That is certainly consistent with some findings by Prof Eugene Sandler-Smith on leadership decision making. On that theme, you may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/intuition

Ann Ryder

30/7/2018 10:24:19 am

Excellent article, Nick - and it's not just about 'structure Vs innovation' IMO, I think it's also a case of "monkey speak - monkey do"....many change initiatives wax lyrical about the radical (and not so radical) changes that they are advocating - but seem to stall once you take them down the consequences path.

30/7/2018 10:25:49 am

Thanks Ann. Are you saying that 'action vs inaction' is another form of polarity that leaders may face in decision-making?