Three Primary Themes
In simple terms our society is designed around a hierarchical and reductionist mindset. The future is going to be around enabling those at the work face and seeing complex interdependant systems.
Shifts in Thinking
The following gives a relatively simple picture of the kinds of shift in thinking that is available to our society and organisations as we modernise our perception of “management.”
To solve organisational problems we design a set of management rules and regulations. The early development of our current design stemmed from early military and church hierrachical structures, it became very successful but is now tailing off because it is not adequate to solve the issues that face us today. The challenge now is to modernise our thinking .
Traditional Thinking
To represent our traditional style of management let us consider the work of one of the early pioneers of Management, an American Scot by the name of Daniel McCallum. His ideas, which were recorded by Henry Varnum Poor in the 1860s, called for:
Most of us will recognise the above in that they approximate to the foundations of how most organisations are managed today. It goes under the generic name of “Command and Control.” (C&C) The approach has been very successful, but it is a relatively simple approach to management in that it is designed to have “leaders” decide direction and then institute methods to ensure that there is due compliance with the instructions handed down. It is poor at utilising the intelligence at the work face. This uncomplicated approach is now ceasing to solve the problems of the modern world.
It is ceasing to solve today’s problems for three primary reasons. The first is that we now live in a highly complex interconnected world. The second is that our employees within organisations are now educated to a far higher degree. (The aim in Scotland is to have 50% of our young people educated to degree level.) Thirdly we live in very competitive times. To survive our organisations require to utilise every ounce of intelligence they have within their organisation.
So we continue to briefly introduce some of the changes in thinking that reflect this transition from traditional to modern.
Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivation
C&C concepts are built round the perception that we, as individuals, are inherently lazy, and that we have to be motivated (extrinsically) to work. But modern research has established that this is far from the case. In fact work is not only a pleasure but also a need. Observe a young child and you will see the eagar appetite for learning, in fact their love of learning. This love of learning remains with us throughout our lives unless it is knocked out of us by external forces such as the need to gain qualifications etc.
It is now recognised that the vast majority of us come to work wanting to do our best. Plus we secure meaning from our work, be we welders or nurses. If we display apathy then it is likely to be because the meaning of the work has been damaged by the working environment.
Furthermore research has now shown that external incentives – such as bonuses, targets, qualifications, blame, etc. will act as de-motivators. The reward/punish culture reduces motivation because it moves the thinking away from the job, which would have meaning, and onto to securing the reward (or avoiding punishment). The perpetual chasing of a reward demeans our intrinsic motivation to do a good job.
If a company has so designed their work that there is no meaning and people are required to do mind numbing repetitive work, then, and only then, will extrinsic motivators be of assistance.
The other very negative motivator is, of course, the use of fear – or simple the fear of failure - which of course is very prevalent in the public sector producing a “risk averse” culture.
Management is a Science Based on Theory
Throughout the 20th century there has been the call for management to be viewed as a science. In particular in 1960 when Douglas McGregor recognised that the advances in Engineering and Medicine had been secured after their professions had adopted a rigorous scientific approach. What he observed was that the culture and structures within an organisation reflects the theoretical assumptions of the organisation. It is only when these theoretical assumptions are identified and challenged is there the possibility for learning and change.
The vast majority of our managers use common sense, gut feel and intuition. It is rare to find the manager who understands, and can state, the theories that are in use. But until we are able to clearly define our theories, we will have no basis for learning and continual improvement. As W Edwards Deming says: “Without Theory there is no learning”
From Reductionist to Whole Systems Thinking.
When faced with a complex problem our training and culture teaches us to break problems down into its constituent parts and solve the problem part by part; we refer to this as mechanistic or reductionist thinking. But we are now recognising that the parts interrelate and that it is necessary to study the parts plus their interrelationship with each other. The whole is not the sum of the parts but the sum of the parts plus their interrelationship. These interrelationships can be both positive and negative – they can enhance or diminish the whole. The study of the whole – parts plus interrelationships - is called “Systems Thinking”
Systems thinking challenges many assumptions contained within the C&C paradigm.
90% of outcomes are a function of the design of the system
A primary premise of the C&C approach is that the primary cause of problems is the “dereliction of duty” by the individual. The purpose of the organisation chart is to sufficiently specify those duties so that management can quickly assign responsibility and blame.
What systems thinking is now saying is that it is the design of the system that has the greatest influence on outcomes. If an individual is working in a well designed system then they will produce good results, if they are working in a chaotic system then they will produce poor results. Thus, if there is a failure, nine times out of ten it will have been caused by a problem in the design of the system.
The leader’s role is not so much to inspire and motivate but to design effective operational systems.
Competition Vs Cooperation
We secure progress when all parts of the system work in cooperation – sales – purchasing – production – inspection – servicing etc. The outcome – a quality service to the customer – is a function as to how well all departments have been able to work together, relative to a shared aim. We should also include suppliers, even customers, into this cooperative framework.
In practice we create barriers to this cooperation through budgets and targets for individual departments, through competitive tendering for suppliers, through not working closely with other companies in a similar field, through encouraging personal competition for personal advancement etc.
The concept of systems thinking demands cooperation of all the parts. Competition within the system undermines the willingness of all parts to work together.
“If you cannot measure it you cannot control it”
The illogical statement of “if you cannot measure it you cannot control it” comes straight out of C&C thinking. The bosses after all want to sit in their ivory tower, issues instructions and want to be sure that their instructions are being followed. Their primary tool is the measures that are fed back to them.
In fact those processes that provide figures only represent a very small percentage of the whole – some 3-5%. The other 97% still require to be managed. One of W Edwards Deming’s deadly diseases was “managing by visible figures alone”
Tabulated Data vs Control Charts
Everything in life varies. Similarly the outcomes from a system will reflect variation. When collecting data we want to be able to represent what we would call expected variation from say unexpected variation, including trends. To do this will require the application of Statistical Process Control and in particular the method developed by Walter Shewhart – the control chart.
However most companies still present data in tabulated form. They produce columns of figures for each period or month. And against each period there is likely to be the period performance, budget, variance from budget, comparison with similar period last year, etc. The concept assumes that each figure on its own has meaning; that a movement up or down signals a reason to investigate the cause. In fact most differences are simply reflecting the natural variation in a system. By presenting data in a control chart we reflect not only expected variation, but unexpected events, trends and when something has occurred to change the operation of the system.
Post Code Lottery
We learn by experimentation; the more the better, and with time it is those approaches that best suit the needs of the customer that will survive. This is akin to evolutionary theory. But this learning process is hindered by the C&C mindset, when it believes that everything can be controlled and be the same – that services in one area should be of the same standard to another area. The press make a big issue out of these comparisons because it is simple and makes great copy.
In its place we should be encouraging both experimentation and difference. It is from experimentation and the observations of the outcomes that we will develop learning.
Complex Adaptive Systems
The systems within large organisation such as the National Health Service (NHS) or our Education System are amazing complex. They are well beyond the capability of a leader or a group of leaders to direct and control. The task is to gain some appreciation of the complex system and establish a dynamic learning system - within the system – utilising the intelligence of all employees and those associated with providing the service.
An Analogy – A Rock vs a Bird
The following is taken from the writings of Jake Chapman, who gives the credit to P E Plsek and in turn to Richard Dawkins who first used the analogy. The analogy involves throwing things.
“When the object being thrown is a rock, a mechanistic lump of mater, then Newton’s laws of motion and gravity allow us to calculate with great precision the exact force and angle require to get the rock to land in a predetermined place. Witness our ability to fire missiles and shells with great accuracy over large distances. However it is not possible to predict the outcome of throwing a live bird in the same way, even though the bird’s motion through the air is ultimately governed by the same laws of physics. Everyone knows that even if the rock had the same chemical composition as the weight of the bird, the two behave completely differently. The mechanistic properties of the bird are not what determine its behaviour – because it is a complex adaptive system with an internal organisation that allows it to respond adaptively and non-linearly to changes in its environment.
As Plesk points out, one approach is to tie the bird’s wings, weight it with a brick, and then throw. This will make the trajectory (nearly) as predictable as that of the rock – but in the process the capability of the bird system has been completely destroyed. Plesk says that this is more or less what policy makers try to do when using a C&C approach, based on a mechanistic model, to try and control the behaviour of a people in a complex adaptive system.”
We might think that a useful strategy would involve a bird feeder at the destination, but again that would be a simplistic controlling solution. A more successful strategy will arise out of the recognition that the bird – or should I say the people in our organisations – actually want to get to the destination – they want to provide valuable work and a service that is appreciated – plus they have the capability to adapt to the numerous complex challenges along the way. From this recognition we can then start to develop a strategy that not only captures the hearts and minds of the people but also utilises their inherent creativity and concern for continual improvement.
The terms - Traditional vs Modern – and Our Learning Ability
In fact it is a misnomer to label the above concepts that challenge traditional C&C concepts as modern. They have been written about and proven in application for the past 100 odd years.
The problem is that our organisations and society has been exceptionally poor at learning. It has failed to learn from research, the written word, examples of highly successful applications as well as the many networks established on the word-wide web. see the file - What has not worked in the past .
The Critical need to address The Environment
The environment and how it will affect our children needs urgent consideration. The calculation is that it would require 5 back up planets engaged in nothing but agriculture for everyone alive today to live as we live in the ‘West.’ It cannot be done. But the Chinese and the Indians are determined to try. That will be the end of us all. We need to radically change the way WE live and show that we can have a much higher quality of life whilst consuming fewer resources. Changing our light bulbs is purely cosmetic and will have as little effect as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Adam Smith
What we have in mind is perhaps best illustrated by returning to the writings of Adam Smith. (The Wealth of Nations)
Smith observed that there can be no such thing as a wise man or woman. One reason is that, if individual A sets off one set of activities and, unknown to him or her, B sets off another, one cannot tell beforehand what will happen if these two activities come together. The only thing to do is to encourage widespread innovation with evaluation of these innovations by a wide range of people with very different priorities voting separately on all these issues with their pennies. Through this process a huge range of, previously unimaginable, developments that could not have been prescribed by any centralised planning committee came about.
Unfortunately there are many problems with this “market” solution. One is that all sorts of costs are “externalised” … witness the widespread destruction of the soils, the seas, and the atmosphere. Another is that quality of life depends mainly on things that cannot be bought and sold; they depend on community.
The need is, therefore, to evolve an alternative answer to Smith’s question.
An Alternative
We propose that we should move our thinking from answers to knowledge, and how we enable our citizens to apply knowledge. How do we encourage the development of the knowledge that underpins the actions of individuals and our society? How do we encourage individuals and groups to try something different? And how, as a society, do we capture the forward thinking ideas of our people?
Evolving knowledge demands the very experimentation of which Smith spoke and which is precluded by the current preoccupation with a command and control culture both within organisations and, more importantly, in our society. Unconsciously we have evolved a society that is “risk averse” and is uncomfortable with experiment.
Furthermore we have a system that upwardly delegates responsibility for change to “Leaders.” Time and again, recognition of a problem results in calls for leaders to “do something”. Their response is virtually always to issue some commands, to set targets and then make arrangements to check on progress.
Unfortunately, most of these targets fail to encompass the most important social benefits and dis-benefits of the commanded activity, and the checking process is inordinately expensive and stifling of initiative.
Our central question is, therefore, what is an alternative answer to Smith’s question:
“How are we to create a pervasive climate of innovation, experimentation, comprehensive evaluation, learning and evolution?
How do we create a society that is continually learning, addressing the challenges of today’s world and moving forward?
We live in a Managed Environment
We actually live in a managed economy not one managed by multiple feedback loops of Smith’s “marketplace.” Approaching 40 % of us are employed in the public sector, and say a further 15% are subcontractors to the public sector and a further % in industries which are, in a way, public concerns, like the Water Boards, the Railway Industry etc. And then you have the Trans-national Corporations (TNCs), such as the Banks and the Oil companies which have economies greater than many countries. So at the very least 75% of our economy is managed for us. Furthermore that 75% is managed by surprising few people.
Understandably they manage and lead for the benefit of themselves and their organisation. Governments and TNCs have a track record of exploitation on a massive scale. They do not manage for the benefit of the general public nor for the citizens of the world. Furthermore people in positions of power, or in the hierarchies created by this power structure, are reluctant to change and release any of that authority.
The democratic deficient is that there are few means by which we can monitor the motivations and actions of these leaders.
Public Servants
The above recognition puts great responsibility on Public Servants. We would not want to diminish that responsibility, only make it more transparent. Public Servants require to be accountable to the public.
Education
Which leads us onto the personal competences we will require for the future. Competences such as being able to appreciate multifaceted systems, problem solving in a complex world, ability to work with diverse others, negotiating skills etc. etc. These skills are very different from those that are provided by our present secondary and tertiary education system.
Network
There will be a need for extensive discussions and networking across our whole community. Something modern technology can now enable.
Research
The basis of a “ferment of innovation” is the promotion of research. Not researched controlled by a central body, but research that explores all manner of issues, and is based on sound “scientific method.”
Values
We have an opportunity to re-examine society’s values for the individual, the family, the community and the environment; all in context of quality of life in the long term.
And then, the challenging part, of ensuring that our values are reflected in society’s systems and processes.
Media
We need a media that is not controlled by media moguls, or by advertising revenue but is committed to enhancing the understanding of the society in which it works. There is a desperate need for an informed, open and challenging press. Modern electronic communication could well have the potential to deliver this goal
Time
To enhance our learning, our scientific research, our investigative journalism, the hearing and implementation of people’s ideas, the application of diversity etc. etc - all takes time. As a society, we need, as a priority, to set aside time and provide resources for such activity. Our current fixation with what is measurable, and appraisal of individual’s performance against these measures, stands in the way of original and parallel thinking and experimentation.
Recap on Aim
The fundamental aim is to create a society that recognises and values the individual, that addresses and continually improves complex systems and promotes a ferment of research and innovation to underpin our march forward.