One of the really depressing things about being on the circuit of conferences and seminars is to hear the same old tired solutions being proposed time and time again even when they have demonstrably failed in the past. I was reminded of one today. When faced with something that wasn’t working the consultant presenting, by way of general advise, trotted out the standard solution: (i) re-organise, (ii) change the culture and (iii) restructure and align processes. It is the normal use of an ideal approach in which a perfect world is designed, and then human agents within the system have to be conformed to that ideal through cultural change programmes and retraining. Its a pity someone doesn’t start with the people and evolve to a more sustainable future. It used to be the case that you might go through a re-organisation maybe every few years, now most people face a root and branch re-structuring on an annual basis. Now let me tell you a story …..
In one large organisation to which I belonged there was a seasonal pattern linked to the budget cycle. Round about July it started to become evident that things were not working Secret discussions then took place during August so that changes could be incorporated in the budget for the following year. Round about September anyone with good social networks had heard what was going on and positioned themselves for the new structure. The people doing the work, just got on with it and were politically shafted in consequence. In November with much fanfare the new organisation was announced, with the promise that the future was secure as the company was now (at this point insert two or three platitudes, it doesn’t matter which just make sure they sound good).
A frantic period of re-organisation would now follow through the end of the financial year and into the first month of the next so that by the end of January things were almost ready and money would be spent on “getting my new team together”. Towards the end of February with the Quarter End looming the new managers would suddenly realise that that they had forgotten their task was to make money and the blood letting would start in Q2. With continued failure, the consultants would be brought in and by July secret discussions were being planned …….
Of course there was some blood letting at the time of the re-organisation just for good measure and to pay the consultancy bills.
The real nonsense here is that it normally takes people some months to get used to a new structure, and then a year or so for the informal networks so critical to the success of an organisation to build around the new formal structure. The problem is that the engineering mind set sees humans as widgets who will perform to spec.
The trouble is one day we may. There is an old Joke which goes like this: Do you think computers will exceed human intelligence in the next decade? Yes. Why? Because we are planning to meet them half way.
It all reminds me of the Tom Lehrer song which forms the title of this post. Come to think of it Poisoning Pigeons in the Park would also be appropriate. Remember it?
Comments (5)
I think I recognize the re-organisation cycle you mentioned.
The funny thing is that I sometimes wake up at night and think that all that we have achieved with our well-meant KM activities is to accelerate this very cycle. Maybe by helping people connect and speeding up information flows I have betrayed my own good cause? We were so blinded by the flashy new technology available and the feeling of everything-is-possible-with-anybody-at-anytime-and-anywhere that we didn’t spent enough time on spreading the tacit knowledge of the fundamental values that lie beneath KM? But on the other hand we really tried so hard. I remember vividly being ridiculed by colleagues for telling stories instead of showing slides. It is just so difficult to get people’s attention nowadays (for more than 2 minutes) and get them thinking for themselves.
Unlike information, values are carried forward only by people (at a transfer rate that doesn’t match the speed of the internet). But, the wise men (and women) say that if we have more shared values, we will need much less information anyway. Disadvantage counterbalanced! But, I guess it will take a bit more time and patience to get there. I am not very good at the patience part, but I have 30-40 professional years to go…
Fortunately most of the night I sleep well…;-)
Posted by Britta Mohr | August 3, 2006 2:31 PM
Posted on August 3, 2006 14:31
The restructure cycles are directly linked to the promotional aspirations of the "upwardly mobile management". They know they can only remain in a role for 2 years before they move on. In the first year they blame the former management for inefficiencies and cut the budget by getting rid of those "expensive resources" (the knowledge rich ones who have been around long enough to have good networks, can solve problems quickly BUT are a real threat to the "new management's" lack of depth). Having moved them out they make big savings, BUT of course they know this is unsustainable. So they set a growth budget for the next year and then move themselves to a new role before their budget has to be delivered (thus the need for the next restructure which projects them upward based on their great performance). When the next manager inevitably fails (because the knowledge is gone), this reinforces how "good" the departed manager was (... it all worked fine when I was in charge!)
Posted by Arthur | August 4, 2006 5:00 AM
Posted on August 4, 2006 05:00
Ah yes, planning budgetary games by cycles of the moon, I remember it well ... in fact only last month ... :-)
Breaking that cycle of organisation hypocrisy, as Brunsson would call it, is the core of the problem ... the symptom being that we insist on ideally rationalising what is in reality complex.
Dave, I see your blogging rate (and diversity) has taken off since you you settled into the new arrangement in Singapore. A thought for you. I am finding the need to point significant customers at "this ex-IBM guy that has some interesting angles on how to tackle the reality of business complexity".
Clearly part of that reality is narratives and "social networks", so I really do appreciate the open blog working style. Do you think with more "conservative" customers really needing to take an interest, that having this style on the Cognitive Edge home page might "frighten the horses" unnecessarily ?
Posted by Ian Glendinning | August 8, 2006 3:26 PM
Posted on August 8, 2006 15:26
The blog started in Singapore! It has been planned for some time and that seemed the sensible time as I would be in one place for a reasonable length of time.
We did have a debate if I should have a personal blog and a CE blog, but most people felt that would build two identities and so we combined them. Interested in other views on this.
The style is I am afraid me for better or worse. If the horse is frightened that easy would it come to the water to drink?
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 8, 2006 7:51 PM
Posted on August 8, 2006 19:51
For what it's worth I think you don't need to separate 'personal' and CE topics, they are part of the same thing, i.e. the person behind this blog. This fits in nicely with your views about how systems or any structures should revolve around the individual.
One of the remarkable things about blogs is how they broke the first rule of communications - find, learn about and target your audience. Well, at the beginning there was no audience and bloggers had no way of knowing if anybody out there would read them. The motivation came from within, they found their voices and identity and as a result they get audiences they deserve. But I digress. You are absolutely right about the horses. :)
Posted by Adriana | August 14, 2006 10:40 PM
Posted on August 14, 2006 22:40