Posts

The truth about organisational restructuring

The start

The first time I experienced a restructure, was when I got a call to come into the CIO office. that was about six months after I joined the company as a team leader in IT. Not sure what the topic was, I got into his room and set down. The CIO wanted to hear my ideas about some other areas in IT. The conversation sounded valid, but I had this distinct feeling something was up. I got back to my desk to find everyone in IT were called to a meeting for an important announcement. In the meeting the CIO announced a new structure, many senior managers names had no box, and my name was there now responsible for these areas that I was asked about an hour ago

…it was my first job in a commercial business and I believed the CIO that it was about better service and clearer accountabilities for the new management team. In reality, it happened to be about cost-cutting and moving aside “opinionated” managers who disagreed with the CIO. Many months later we were still struggling to recover from the damage to trust that this restructure created.

The reality

Restructures as a way to deal with cost-cutting became particularly popular after the financial crisis of 2009.

Mckinsey, 2009 : “We suggest a better way: companies should start any cost-cutting initiative by thinking through whether they could restructure the business to take advantage of current and projected marketplace trends (for instance, by exiting relatively low-profit or low-growth businesses) or to mitigate threats, such as consolidating competitors” (https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/a-better-way-to-cut-costs) and the recipe was clear:

  • Combine incidentals to gain a visible effect on the bottom line
  • While reducing the number of roles take personnel actions that were avoided before
  • Cut on management

Since, I myself led many restructures, some to accommodate new technology and changes to processes and roles responsibilities and some responding to a CEO demand to cut 10%, 20%, or even 30% of operational costs. Because of my experience in that first restructure, I committed to doing it differently. I believed that transparency, inclusion and opportunities for feedback and training made a difference even if at the end of the day some people lost their role. However, we now overused restructures and squeezed the lemon as much as possible.

Organisational restructuring motivated by cost cutting (and nowadays most are), achieves less and less sustainable long term benefits. It means that in the process, we are breaking the fundamental trust we need for a productive relationship between people and organisations. We embedded a cynical view, even on the few times a restructure was really about a new business model, new ways of working or strategic alignment.

The alternative

When we move forward we have to get away from this overused, usually ineffective method or improving business results. The answer should be in creating agility within an organisation in a way that allows an on-going evolution to teams purpose, roles and responsibilities and even to the size of the organisation. This agility is what is required as a dynamic response to fast-changing conditions.

There are many aspects organisations need to create to achieve agility. However, here are my favourite three ingredients:

Teams

With technologies and competition accelerating, companies plan on shifting to a more flexible organizational model. A popular approach is adopting the concept of agile teams. The idea is that when a new challenge arises, companies using the agile teams approach allow for small teams to form, with the necessary range of skills, to seize the opportunity. Agile teams manage themselves and are fully accountable for what they do. In the not very distant future merging artificial intelligence with real intelligence will allow these smart, dedicated, in-place, and flexible teams of generalists, to direct much larger teams of remote workers and digital humans. This combination of in-person, remote, and digital workers will allow the teams to react quickly to new opportunities and quickly retreat from failures. It is clear why this concept is so attractive. These teams can be the biggest winners in the digital era.

Learning organisation

Learning organisations and the people in them learn constantly from everything they do. Continuous learning is systemically built into the organisation’s DNA and infrastructure. Everyone gets that continuous learning is expected and will be rewarded. To achieve that, communication is open and widespread, people at all levels are included in most communications and it’s assumed everyone “needs to know.” Further, senior leaders show they are learning constantly by communicating what they are learning as they learn; people are rewarded for learning with recognition, growth jobs, promotions and even financial compensation. (most recent example https://www.microsoft.com successfully making the massive shift in mindset from desktop to cloud)

Holacratic governance

Rooted in methods like Holacracy an holacratic governance is a process to support distributed decision making replacing the current way in which decisions making are vested in a management hierarchy.  The principle of holacratic governance are:

  • roles purpose and boundaries are clear and transparent to all
  • a role is fully accountable to deliver to its purpose
  • everyone in the organisation has an equal voice to suggest changes to purpose or boundaries
  • no one has the power to overrule a suggestion unless they can prove certain and real damage to the business.

The principles of holacratic governance are counterintuitive to current management thinking however are critical as part of achieving agility. (most famous example https://www.zappos.com/)

 

If you feel you are constantly being restructured, you are probably right. This method of cost-cutting is overused in most organisations. It is about time to embed true agility for long term sustainable change.

 

@Hadas Wittenberg is a change maker and a Future of Work Enabler

Agile teams don’t scale! They spread (if conditions are right)

Background

Agile teams definition: “Small, smart, dedicated, in-place teams who have the necessary range of skills to seize a new opportunity as it arises. The agile teams manage themselves and are fully accountable for what they do”.

With technologies and competition accelerating, companies are hoping to shift into a more flexible organisational model. The buzzword for this is agile. Agile once considered a radical alternative to command-and-control-style management and is now “rolled out” across a broad range of industries. It is an exciting concept in businesses.  Having these teams mean that in the already happening future of merging artificial intelligence with real intelligence will allow these smart teams to direct much larger teams of remote workers and digital humans. This combination of in-person, remote, and digital workers will allow the teams to react quickly to new opportunities and quickly retreat from failures. It is clear why this concept is so attractive. These teams can be the biggest winners in the digital era.

However, while the concept is widely appreciated, we seem to get stuck on trying to scale, “roll out” or duplicate by using existing, none effective, change management practices. Agile teams are new and, in most cases, fundamentally different way of thinking and operating. It requires a deep change.

Deep change

Deep change happens when we fundamentally change the way we think. It allows something different to grow and spread across the organisation in a way that is sustainable and has long term benefits.

As leaders and change agents we usually focus on activating the self-energizing commitment and energy of people around changes that they deeply care about. However very little if any attention is given to the limiting conditions that exist in all organisations. These limiting conditions might stop the agile teams from forming, these might slow or stop them growing and deliver business results or these might hold them back from spreading. Only by addressing these limiting conditions organisations can really become agile.

The diagram below, inspired by the book Dance of change by Peter Senge describes the self-energizing process of deep change and the conditions that limit it.

deep change diagram 

Seed phase – limiting conditions

Seed the idea of agile teams – Create Small, smart, dedicated, in place teams.

Time flexibility and availability –most people at work are overloaded and under constant pressure to do more with less. However, like with any significant change people that are part of an agile team, should have enough time to learn, develop and embed a new way of thinking and working. To achieve that the teams should be able to control their own time allocation. The teams should also prioritise what to do or not and how much time is directed to learning, planning, reflecting and collaborating. With limited time as a constant reality, start small!

Psychological safety and trust – at the core of the agile team is the ability to experiment, fail fast, learn and continually improve. Teams should feel safe to share their learnings and trust that being open and honest is advancing both their own and their teamwork. It is important to allow the trust to develop through clarity and consistency of Organisational values, leadership that “walk the talk” and encouragement for exploring personal and organisational values alignment.

Help availability – agile is a new practice in most organisations.  It is a new way for individuals, teams and organisations to think and operate and it requires a significant amount of support and help. Help should come in the form of coaches who are able to guide and challenge the team for new learnings, sponsor availability to remove bottlenecks and protect the team initiation and other experts to complement capabilities gaps. Many organisations have not achieved the commitment level required to cause agile to be successful. If you are an executive sponsoring who this change but have no time to participate, if you are a manager but you sit on the fence to see if the experiment will be successful, or if you add this activity as just one more thing to do then don’t even start.

 

Grow phase –  limiting conditions

Grow the agile teams – allow them to manage themselves and be fully accountable for what they do

Measurements in use – Measurement is an important part of building credibility and feedback is key to agile learning. However, if the measurement is used as a lever to change behaviours you are undermining reflection and openness of the team to new learning. For example, if you created the expectation that agile is about short term ROI you will negatively impact the team ability to meet expectations and undermine the overall value that can be achieved from this change.  Instead, organisations who are committed to the success of agile, should consider balanced measures including performance, value creation and team health and use these as real-time, constant feedback to support learning and growth.

Local management of interdependencies – agile teams that are interacting with non-agile functions might feel misunderstood and unsupported. The organisation has to feel comfortable with allowing the teams to manage their interdependencies at a local level and the team must learn how to become aware of the system impacts of their own activities.  Two critical capabilities required for that: the ability to collaborate with others and system thinking.

Tolerance for self – directed teams -The agile teams require a successful arrangement of power moving away from direct and control to setting direction and adjusting in order to achieve their purpose. If the organisation’s tolerance for independence and self-governance does not increase, then this leads to a clash over autonomy between the local group and the larger system. The best way of increasing tolerance for self-directed teams is through setting a hierarchy of purpose where at every level there is an awareness of the purpose and direction of the organisation while considering the current reality and developing the capabilities for local management of interdependencies.

Spread phase – limiting conditions

Ready and able to seize a new opportunity as it arises

Organisational learning – the overall ability of the organisation to accept, learn and adopt new thinking is critical for spreading the agile teams. If you have invested all your focus on the growth of the initial teams and have not worked on developing learning capabilities across the wider community, spreading will be impossible. To overcome this limiting condition, organisations have to break the “silos”, distribute experts’ knowledge and allow participation and sharing of knowledge across all stakeholders.

Culture flexibility – Fear and anxiety are the most prevailing limiting conditions for any change to be successful and sustainable. This fear is rooted in the most common culture in organisations, the culture of winners and losers. It means that for new ways to spread other ways and the leaders that currently practice these must loose. It raises questions like: “am I safe?”, “am I good enough?”, “can I trust others to say I don’t know?”. On top of psychological safety, organisations must accept, demonstrate and embed diversity. Diversity will allow for a smoother inclusion of new thoughts and practices.

Evolving purpose – As agile teams grow in capabilities, deliver business results and gain credibility, they demand more self-governance, the ability to define their own boundaries and purpose and to set new targets.  As teams are learning to be aware of their context and collaborate with others, boundaries should be allowed to evolve.

 

Summary

The concept of agile teams as the winners in the future of work is taking hold with many organisation. To enable the agile teams to spread organisations must alter the limiting conditions that cause these ideas a premature death.

 

@Hadas Wittenberg is a Future of Work enabler and the founder of Adaptive Futures.

Discovery Workshop

The secret for thriving organisations

 

 

Recently I discussed with an HR director about helping people to discover their passions and understand how they can use these effectively to create a meaningful and fulfilling work(places). The first reaction was “That sounds very interesting and great for the participants, I am sure we will be interested when we are not as busy as now”. Since busy is the new word for no, we did a bit more digging. So, the second reaction came “But what happens if they all decide that they should resign and do something else? It will be really confusing for the people and we can’t really afford that to happen”. I appreciated this comment, voicing an underlining assumption is a massive step forward. Subsequently, we continued the conversation.

The assumption

This director is not alone.  Centuries of hierarchy and control shaped this underlining assumption. For example, some leaders believe they should care and protect their teams from needing to make stressful decisions. Others assume that knowledge is power. Because they believe that if you want to hold the power you should be very selective about how you share knowledge, else anarchy will happen and you won’t be able to corral the people to do your will. Don’t go as far as the church or the king, look at the latest “transformation”/ “change” programme that you were involved in. What was the level of transparency, frequency and accuracy of information passing the organisation top down, sideways and bottom-up? How much effort was invested in editing the news to ensure work continues? How much time was invested in people creating value vs. waiting to see their fate?

The impact

Yuval Harary in his book, The 21 Lessons For The 21st Century, summarise it as:  “We are now creating tame humans that produce enormous amounts of data and function as very efficient chips in a huge data-processing mechanism, but these data-chips hardly maximise the human potential. Indeed we have no idea what the full human potential is, because we know so little about the human mind. And yet we hardly invest much in exploring the human mind, and instead focus on increasing the speed of our Internet connections and the efficiency of our Big Data algorithms ”

Transformation/change programmes are hard and often fail also because the few try to use their power to push forward the many. But what if we change our assumption about the power of knowledge and the direction of energy and we learn how to enable organisations that attract the energy of the many, their passions and their motivations and use it to thrive forward?.  There are great examples of organisations that already do that (for example Patagonia, Buutzorg and The morning star). The common for all is that all the people involved with these organisations are powerful to do the right things for their organisation to thrive, they are pulled by opportunities to create real value and they will go the extra mile to make that happen. For that, we have to reframe our assumptions about power and control. We have to make sure workers regain the ability to think for themselves, shape their own future and tap into their full potential. The secret for thriving organisations is a simple equation:  PASSIONS + POSITIVELY MOTIVATING CONTEXT = VALUE AND FULFILMENT

What’s next?

I already wrote about the need for individuals finding their Ikigai, organisational purpose, breakthrough values and a higher conscious culture. I think what is missing is a conversation about leaders’ shared accountability to create a better future for all (not just for themselves or their shareholders or the selective few). We have to start investing in creating an environment of self-learners, motivated and powerful individuals. It starts with investing in people and leaders self-awareness and a way to make sense of that awareness for a better future.  Yes of course, some people are comfortable where they are, and some will realise their future is somewhere else. But most with newly acquired awareness will be better equipped to direct their energy instead of wasting it, looking for the opportunities to create value instead of waiting for the instruction manual, channel their energy for thriving, not for power and control games, and help leaders to be clearer on what positively motivate vs what is not.

If you chose to be a leader, you have taken a care accountability. You have to ensure a better future for the people in your care, not by further taming them but rather by ensuring they thrive in the future regardless of the circumstances.

 

 

Note aside: The mentioned HR director agreed to feature in this blog J

 

 

Hadas Wittenberg is a Future of Work enabler and the founder of Adaptive Futures. Adaptive Futures is a sense-making framework for people and organisations reimagining WORK that works.

The reason you don’t recruit the best talents

I found it interesting to read an article on the NZ Herald talking about the industry of personality tests as a way used by organisations to reduce the risk of recruiting the wrong people. (p.s. as opposed to increasing the chance of hiring the best people). It’s unfortunately, supporting my view that the challenge we are facing in New Zealand and elsewhere is a problem of talent waste not shortage. Our fundamental assumptions about work are causing our economy to be stuck on no growth and less pay.

When I arrived in New Zealand 17 years ago I was lucky. I somehow landed an interview on the first week with a hiring manager who was open minded and inclusive. He had no issue to consider someone for a leadership position that had no New Zealand or industry experience and not the best English. If I was not that lucky then and try it today, I would have straggled to even pass the “sophisticated” screening tests.  When later, I asked that person why he thought to hire me, his answer was “ability to demonstrate positive attitude, overcoming hardship and a passion for the task at hand”.

I took that answer as a guiding principle when later looking for people’s potential. However, throughout the years I was surprised to learn what are the common hiring and talent growth strategies and the way it is limiting potential with a set of assumptions that haven’t been tested. The current economy in New Zealand is of very low unemployment rate. This is considered a good problem to have. However, in this economy many of the existing recruitment and talents growth strategies are making organisation’s talents challenges even worse.

Some examples:

Screen for average

Organisations screen based on past skills and personality traits out of a very limited and not in their control pool. Because organisations assume these can limit mistakes. Most organisations recruit the same way: post a job, screen resumes, interview some people, pick whom to hire.  This is hiring for average.  Most top performers are not looking for work precisely because they are top performers, so they won’t be in that pool anyway. Further to that we apply screening as if we had plenty of candidates to select from based on criteria that no one can prove or link to performance. For example, why do we assume that to be an awesome UX designer in a bank requires previous experience in precisely the same job in the banking industry???.

Entrenching biases

Existing practices like Job descriptions and hiring decisions are entrenching biases not just based on gender, age, ethnicity etc. It is now becoming worse by the flooding of personality tests and AI key words, proclaiming to identify a fit with the organisation and the job before you even talk to the person. Most organisations are not really aware of the culture they currently have, and even if they do, not always this is the one they wish to have.  What makes up a person is far more complex than a set of words or letters combination to describe their personality. With a year of research I found no evidence that anyone showed a validated, predictable link between common tests used and performance. All we do is screening out diversity. Even the approach of matching with a model persona designed based on your current top performers is problematic as it ensures more of the same. (There are decades  of validated research about human personality psychology and motivation that are very useful for people to increase self awareness, it is more our understanding of how to use these researches that is the problem).

Filling the gaps

Hiring managers usually compromise on appointments to fill gaps assuming they can fix potential shortcomings with some training. Designing effective training is hard. It has to be personalised, in context, and internalised over a long period of time. In most cases organisations don’t actually know what and how to cause sustained improvement in performance, particularly when considering that a big (even if unknown) part of high performance is influenced by the environment (i.e. the manager, the team, the organisation culture, and the leadership style).  Add to that the commonly held financial point of view of “we don’t expect to invest much in talent growth because we assume people move around anyway”. But what happens if you don’t? I passionately believe in expanding peoples strengths, ensuring every experience is a growth experience. This is a positive sum game, where everyone wins.  Current approach ensures no growth hence flat productivity at best and people do leave, particularly the top performers because they are motivated by personal growth.

No use of data

We would have been better if we actually used data sourced from personality tests and other screening and performance data points to reflect and improve. Currently we still use like/ dislike and personal intuition as the best predictor of future success. Even if data is available, it is used only as supporting material at the beginning. Organisations don’t usually go back to reflect and improve. With a new sense making model , there is a huge opportunity to create new insights and positive actions based on big data derived from knowing people, knowing organisations and knowing performance.

 

To summaries, in my view there is an ever growing industry that is trying to pull the short blanket to cover skills gaps. This industry made not much difference in recent decades to people’s fulfillment or productivity growth. We have to fundamentally challenge our assumptions about work and the relationship between people, organisations and performance and design new strategies for  a different future.

 

@Hadas Wittenberg is a future of work enabler and founder of Adaptive Futures.

“MasterChef” – 8 key lessons to take away

I don’t watch most “reality” shows.  I often find that these programmes exploit human weaknesses as a way to make cheap entertainment. However, I take an exception with MasterChef (the Australian version). I love good food and appreciate the creativity, innovation and mastery that go into making a master chef dish. Even more than that, I am inspired by how the show is able to create a space for ordinary cooks to bring their whole selves into this experience. It is a space where everyone is given an equal opportunity to show their skills, learn and grow. It is also a space that defines winning when someone is able to combine their passion and ongoing learning with giving it all to be better than their last dish.

So on that very serious note,  here is what I took from MasterChef that you might be to take out from the kitchen and into your work life.

Learning from the To be Chefs

1. The courage to experiment

The strong players of the show are the ones that have a passion and mastered some type of dishes and techniques and can use these strengths as often as possible. But the winners are the ones that also always take some risks and try new combinations or a new way of doing things. The great players know that taking a risk can be the difference between moving to the next phase or going into elimination.

2. Achieve growth by competing to be better than your last dish

The best players are the people who stay focus on their own dishes, learn from their own mistakes and push themselves further. It does not matter how good was your previous dish, you are always judged on your last dish. It is also interesting to see that when you play to outperform your own last dish, it is easy to show generosity toward others. Others being great, does not take away from your own amazing creations.

3. At the same time, be coachable and confident with your own abilities

The show has amazing coaches, people that stand near the competitors, push them almost to their breaking point, challenge them to think differently and never tell what or how to do things. The winners are the ones that listen, take on board what is relevant but are also able, at the same time, to stay focus on their original vision and own instincts.

4. The real winners emerge after the show ends

The winners of the show get a positive nudge into their career as chefs. But it seems that some of the other participants have equally taken the experience as an opportunity to propel their own passions.

Learning from the winning dishes

1. The Ingredients are the base for amazing dishes

The more variety and better quality these ingredients are the better chances you have to create multiple, unique and desirable dishes. The same ingredients can make multiple dishes, all taste and look different. It is critical though to know what combinations work and which will be a culinary disaster. Think about your individual knowledge, skills, abilities and style as the ingredients and the dishes as your unique multiple value propositions.

2. A vision for the final dish

Regardless if you are following a recipe, or creating something totally new, you have to have a vision of how the final dish is going to look and taste like. If you don’t, most likely you will lose too much time trying and failing, so you will run out of time to deliver any dish at all. When you offer your talents to deliver value, you have to be clear what it is that you are actually offering.

3. It’s a science and an art

While knowing the techniques and mastering the cooking is important, the key for the final result is testing and adjusting all the time. Your end results are only as good as your testing sense.
At work, it is not just your own talents and specific work that come into play, the organisation, the team and the customers are all impacting the end result. You have to strive for mastery but you equally need to have the ability to sense and adapt in real time.

4. Looks is important but the taste is the key

How the dish is plated is important because people eat with their eyes first. But it is not enough; if the taste is disappointing there won’t be a second spoon. Having a great CV, a polished pitch or rehearsed interview answers is important when first engaging but it is the true value you create that matter for a sustainable work future.

 

bon appétit

 

Hadas is a Future of Work Enabler

Organisational culture change is hard work

Background

There is a growing acknowledgement of the link between the type of culture that exists in an organisation, the level of personal engagement and the organisation’s overall success. However, only few organisations cracked the secret of how to move their culture and leverage it for strategic advantage.

In response to a previous post, I was asked a question about culture. While being a very popular topic on the leadership agenda I feel that clarity on what it is and what to do with it will be helpful. In this post, I bring together some of the simpler and, in my view, more comprehensive researches. I hope to turn the culture conversation from a “fluffy/ too hard/ nice to have…“, into a useful tool for both individuals and organisations growth.

Definition of culture

Culture is not posters on the walls, what the CEO declares as the new way, the managers’ personal style, or what is agreed in the strategic planHerb Kelleher (founder of southwest airlines) describe it as “…It’s not formulaic. The way I describe it is this huge mosaic that you’re always adding little pieces to make it work. And it’s not a job that you do for six months and then you just say, “Well, that’s behind us.” It’s something you do every day”

Culture is defined by the attitudes and behaviours of the majority of people in the organisation. this includes what is encouraged, discouraged, accepted, or rejected within the group. It is the day to day of the collective, and because of that, it is hard to change. Culture is the how in which strategy is executed. Culture can support and promote the organisation strategy or hinder it. When aligned with personal values, drives, and needs, culture can unleash significant amounts of energy toward a shared purpose and a thriving organisation.

 

Culture framework

 Culture stages

Framework principles

  1. Culture stage can be described by the words most people use in the organisation in relation to the way people interact with each other and the way in which they respond to change.
  2. Culture is an evolutionary process. As such, with intentional effort leadership can evolve an organisation’s culture. However like with any evolution, you can’t skip stages, you can’t stabilise the change until a tipping point is achieved, and you can’t time it.
  3. Since culture is a group phenomenon, most people in the organisation should be at the same stage to allow evolution. But, for exactly the same reason, unstable culture can disintegrate into lower stages.
  4. People “fit” into the different cultures is described in a similar way using personality traits. Note that for earlier stages of cultures, “fit” is achieved through fear vs. the individual’s preferences.
  5. Inherent in the framework are fundamental trade-offs. Although each cultural value can be beneficial on its own, natural constraints and competing demands force difficult choices about which values to emphasise and how people are expected to behave.

Why change?

The dominating culture across the western world is the culture of stage 3. The achievement worldview profoundly shapes today’s management practices. Most business leaders, MBA programs and management thinking are shaped by the hallmarks of this culture. Hence, when considering a shift from stage 3 to 4 it is particularly challenging because the current culture had served the organisations well for many years. Since the industry emphasises efficiency and results, this culture is perceived by most management as a strength.

However, this culture that created the prosperity of the modern world is also the one that is depleting the world’s natural resources and destroying the ecosystems upon which our survival depends. It is the culture of few winners and increasing inequality. It is a culture that is solely materialistic and that does not answer to humans longing for meaning and being part of something bigger.

People and organisations that have chosen to evolve to be part of a culture that operates at stage 4 and 5 report feeling more alive and having more fun, learning becomes effortless and stress goes down,  engagement is consistently high hence people seek employment in the company and stay, taking the company a long way toward having the talents to succeed.

Descriptions of each stage

Stage 1

Historically, organisations emerged when tribes organised to attack neighbouring tribes. Today this culture still exists in organisations like the Mafia or drug-dealing street gangs. Other examples are enterprises where founder-bosses do whatever it takes to succeed. They get involved in everything, regardless of structures or processes that would constrain their ability to “get things done”.

At this stage of cultural evolution, people are united by the fear and basic instincts of survival. When they are together, they form isolated gangs with absolute loyalty to the group. The theme of their words is that life has given them a bad deal, so it’s ok to do whatever it takes to survive.

Stage 2

Organisations at this stage have clear ranks up the hierarchical pyramid.  Many armies, religious institutions, government agencies, public school systems, and universities are still run today along the lines of this culture. They often operate on the hidden assumption that there is one right way of doing things, that the world should not change, and that lifelong employment should be the norm.

The focus of this culture is on predictability, risk consciousness and careful planning, respect, structure, and shared norms.

Under the protection of rules and traditions, people usually do the minimum to get by, showing almost no initiative or passion.  Passive-aggressive behaviour is the norm, i.e. people spend their time ignoring the organisation directives while telling people in charge that they are on board.

Stage three

At this cultural stage, the organisation metaphor is the organisation as a machine. The people in the organisation use the language of units and layers, inputs and outputs, efficiency and effectiveness, information flows and bottlenecks, Humans are resources, re-engineering and rightsizing.

In this culture, the values are authority and results. The culture is characterised by achievement and winning, strength, decisiveness, and boldness.

The work environments are competitive places where people strive to gain personal advantage and aspire to achieve top performance. People engage in anything that’s going on, with energy and commitment, but when you listen closely, they talk mostly about themselves and focus on appearing smarter and better than others. People operating in this stage usually complain that they don’t have enough time or support and that the people around them aren’t as good or as committed as they are. Winning is all that matters, and winning is personal.

Stage Four.

At stage four, the organisation language is about family or a community. Where everyone has a place, where colleagues look after one another, where the happiness of every member is important to the organisation’s overall success.  The leaders in this culture often strive to inspire employees to great things, leading them to outperform more traditional command-and-control organisations.

This culture value Learning and Enjoyment characterised by exploration, expansiveness, and creativity often expressed through fun and excitement. Work environments are inventive and open-minded places where people generate new ideas and explore alternatives and where people tend to do what makes them happy.

People form partnerships and operate as part of teams that are focused around shared values and has a common purpose. People build relationships based on shared values and the language is about what is the right thing to do, not what is good for me.

Stage Five.

There are very few organisations that operate consistently at stage 5. If you listen to the leaders of these organisations, they talk about their organisation as a living organism or a living system (as opposed to a machine or a family). In this culture, people collaborate and work toward a noble cause, propelled from their values.

In this culture, leadership has a different role. When Jos de Blok (Buurtzog) was asked how is he motivating the people that work for Buurtsog his answer was ” I am not. This is a sort of patronizing, I think. My most important assignment is to keep out all the problems so that people can do their work”.

The culture is of caring and purpose. Caring focuses on relationships and mutual trust. Work environments are warm, collaborative, and welcoming places where people help and support one another. Loyalty unites the employees; Purpose is exemplified by idealism and altruism. Work environments are tolerant, compassionate places where people try to do good for the long-term future of the world.

In this culture, the group is focused on creating a better world not about winning over the competition. People talk about limitless potential, caped only by the imagination and the group commitment. People in this culture can find a way to work with almost anyone, as long as their commitment to values is at the same intensity as their own. There is almost no fear, stress, or workplace conflict.

What’s next

Evolving organisation’s culture is not easy; however, it is one of the only few levers left with leaders who want to create a long-term sustainable and impactful organisation. Leadership has a critical role in enabling the desired culture. In order to shift a culture, you have to consider the following:

  1. Accurately assess your own and your organisation’s cultural stage. Understand what outcomes different cultures produce and how it does or doesn’t align with the current and anticipated market and business conditions. When designing a target culture, it has to be in context and relate to tangible problems
  2. Foster leadership that is more culturally advanced than the organisation current stage. The leaders must align with the values of the target culture and committed to personal growth.
  3. Be able to understand and talk all culture stages languages as you enable the evolution of the individuals which might be at different stages.
  4. Be ready to shift your concept of leadership. At stage 4 and 5 leaders have no directive power, their primary role is to “hold the space” for the culture to emerge and that no earlier stages practices creep back in.

@Hadas Wittenberg is a future of work enabler and founder of Adaptive-Futures

References:

Laloux, Frederic. Reinventing Organizations: An Illustrated Invitation to Join the Conversation on Next-Stage Organizations. Nelson Parker.

Logan, Dave. Tribal Leadership Revised Edition: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization. HarperBusiness

Boris Groysberg, J. L.-J. (January – February 2018). The Leader’s Guide to Corporate Culture. HBR.

 

 

In retrospect – 3 lessons learned on being an Entrepreneur

“Being an entrepreneur is living a meaningful and adventurous life; it requires courage, commitment, and curiosity to learn” Hadas

It has been six months since I created this definition for myself. Many things happened that mixed work and personal life, I had to develop new skills and face new and sometimes uncomfortable realities. In retrospect, it’s definitely shaping to be one of the most interesting adventures I have taken in my career. Here are my top 3 takeaways

Focus

Most of us live a very busy and demanding life: wake up, go to work, deal with the politics, get paid, manage our personal life, go to sleep, wake up and start again. How much of that is really to do with your passion, with your purpose?. I thought I was making the most out of it, and then I got out of the formal job world for a bit and I discovered the power of being single-minded. Focus on one thing.

I spend my days only on the things that matter to me with no purposeless meetings, no meaningless PowerPoints, only work that has value. Being focus enables everything you do to be part of your purpose. This is regardless of whether you are investing your energy with a family member, helping a colleague or developing a product.

I am realistic that my work context may change, but the experience made it very clear to me that focusing only on the things that matter has to be my way of working from now.

Learning and reflection time

I remember a conversation a few years ago with a frustrated executive. Employee engagement results came back and one of the top areas of concerns for the employees was learning and development. It made no sense. The organisation had a sizable training budget and fast-changing work requirements meant people had lots of opportunities to learn something new. True. What people didn’t have was the time for retrospects and no time to embed new knowledge into useful skills before rushed to the next thing. Hence, no real learning and development.

In the last six months, I really got it. There are many hours where I am busy doing something (usually new), researching a new topic or meeting someone. But it is the ability to have the time in between, doing something different that allows for new insights to surface and new learning to become useful.

Grit 

By (my) definition as an Entrepreneur, you innovate to disrupt.  This means that in many cases people might intellectually engage with the need for your product but not for them as they don’t really want to be changed. When you are on your own or part of a small team, this can be daunting.

Grit is one of the qualities we will need more and more in the future. I, for example, am taking one pill of grit a day.  It contains the following ingredients: a reminder of the purpose and why I do what I do, a conviction that this is really going to make a positive difference in the world and a sprinkle of fun. 🙂

“If you want to change the world, start with yourself.” Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

@Hadas Wittenberg is a future of work enabler and founder of Adaptive-Futures.