We can succeed only by concert. It is not “can any of us imagine better?” but, “can we all do better?” The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
Abraham Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 1, 1862
There are some quotations that are timeless in their applicability and this is one of them. I've used it on many occasions and introduce it now as part of a blog series over the next week which will look at traditional management practices from the the perspective of naturalising sense-making. I could equally apply it to the current financial crisis i but my ambition for the moment is both less and more. In this first post I want to outline three key principles that need to inform both the theory and practice of governance in organisations. The overall title of this series will be Think anew, Act anew and I will continue tomorrow with Scenario Planning. I particularly like the We must disenthrall ourselves by the way; too many management movements are starting to represent religious cults (the black belts of sick stigma for example) and the need for institute detoxification programmes is long overdue.
Before outlining the three principles its worth a brief reminder of what is meant by naturalising sense-making. I am using sense-making here is the sense of answering the question of how do I make sense of the world so that I can act in it? With that comes a concept of sufficiency, knowing enough to enable action but without the implication that I can know all that I might like to know. It also contains an inherent assumption of praxis which in tern implies that practice must be grounded in theory. If you want an example of the need for that then look at Alan Greenspans recent testimony that he was wrong in following Ayn Rands (a really nasty piece of work if there ever was one) belief that the self-interests of organisations (such as banks) would provide sufficient regulation. He argues that 40 years of success lulled him into that belief. The addition of naturalising is to create a distinction with people like Weik and Dervin (while respecting their considerable contributions) by linking to the naturalising tradition in philosophy which generically means creating a base in the natural sciences for said theory. The main areas here are complex adaptive systems, cognitive science, aspects of evolutionary psychology and large swathes of material from anthropology, ethnography and narrative theory to provide a balancing contribution from the disciplined side of the Humanities.
So what are the three principles? I will outline them here, but then expand on their meaning over the next week.
- Distributed cognition means far more that the more popular wisdom of crowds which in any case is a misnomer, crowds can be more foolish than wise. It means using network intelligence. The classic example is the Grameen Bank or micro-lending with self forming lending groups determine loan allocation rather than centralised credit scoring. I have used the example of the magic roundabout in swindon where drivers make decisions rather than traffic lights. In the context of modern management practice this means the top down stimulation of bottom up activity. Its not about delegation per se, or the absence of management, but it is about using the capacity of diverse networks to contribute to decision making. Government consultation of citizens, weak signal detection and innovation all benefit form this. But, to emphasise it is managed.
- Finely granulated objects have more utility than chunked up documents (information) or massive organisational empires. I'm still not sure of the language yet and previously spoken around the theme of Everything is fragmented but am torn between populism and precision here! The basic idea is that small things are more adaptable than big things. People will spend more time surfing the web and using the fragmented material of an RSS feed than reading documents. Its easier to write a blog than a book (I know that one only two well). Importantly fine granularity material can combine in novel and different ways more easily than formal documents. Fragmented stories of partial failure create more learning than formal documents summarising best practice. Critically fragmented material can combine and recombine in novel and different ways, a form of conceptual blending. In organisations crews make are more adaptive than matrices in organisation terms and networks more effective than formal structures of interaction.
- Disintermediation is one of those interesting words which borders on jargon but is too useful to abandon. It means removing the layers that separate decision makers from raw data. Allowing them to move from an abstract representation of a large data set, spot patterns and anomalies and then focus in on the five or six items they really need to pay attention to. There is an ethical dimension to this too. When people encounter real stories/pictures etc they are far more likely to gain empathy and understanding, and therefore make more contextually aware decisions. It also works two ways, with greater horizontal access to raw experience then knowledge and inspiration transfer more rapidly within organisations and society.
That lays out the principles. All of them link back to the naturalising concept and I will expand on that over the next week. So far I plan to cover Scenario Planning, Understanding Employees/Customers, Ethical Auditing and others. Any suggested topics feel free to throw them in through the comments field or via email
.
Comments (6)
could you put this in the context of how government can use this in governance? I would call it distributive/ed governance (some may call it networked governance)
three things i have picked up from the literature:
(a) gov employees must be involved and participate in informal networks
(b) must be able to identify the right balance - the balance is contingent on ensuring responsibility for finding solutions and implementing solutions remains distributed.
(c)government must be accepted (bottom up) in the role it adopts.
Posted by Jonathan Carter | October 27, 2008 7:00 AM
Posted on October 27, 2008 07:00
Great post Dave and I can't wait for the rest. It was a bit like watching one of my own workshops but with bigger words!
For me the really tough bit is "to emphasise it is managed." I agree but our current concept of managed is so inadequate and the new way requires so much active thought and participation.
How do you do it without replacing one set of rules with another. In fact as I tweeted the other day "Take enterprise software away and many people would have no idea what their jobs are"
Posted by Euan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 27, 2008 8:38 AM
Posted on October 27, 2008 08:38
Wonderful quote from 150 years ago. Our challenge now is not so much 'saving our country' though, but saving our planet. Looking forward to the blogs and second the idea of linking in 'governance'. But I'd like to see a focus not just governance for government but systemic governance, with a range of sectors, actors, groups, etc.
Another issue is the difference between imagining an alternative (distributed, fragmented, disintermediated...) and the transition process needed to turn a bunch of institutional supertankers. What are the (dis)incentives that make the taking action of the new imagined future so darn difficult? Our systems of governance are stacked against the alternative in many ways. Not valuing learning from error, rewarding safety rather than risk-taking, wanting clarity of plans up front, etc.
Posted by Irene | October 27, 2008 9:59 AM
Posted on October 27, 2008 09:59
There's a good link with Hans Monderman's work on shared space and your magic roundabout example - replacing the top down control of traffic lights, road markings etc and leaving the people in the space to pay attention and think on their feet. In Christiansfeld in Denmark a busy crossroads was plagued with traffic jams and pedestrian related accidents - an average of three people killed or seriously injured each year. After the changes in design were implemented (removal of road markings and traffic lights) the accident rate fell to zero for three years running - and with a reduction in tailbacks during peak times.
Posted by Jon Kendall | October 27, 2008 12:35 PM
Posted on October 27, 2008 12:35
Hi Dave
I know that these topics have a lot of overlap. My request would include "Decision Making" because it is still seen as an important area of traditional management function (and learning) and I expect you have a lot of interesting things to contribute to this subject. Others might be "Accountability" - particularly linked with the drive towards global accounting standards (accounting documents being an extreme form of chunked up objects) but then the post-modern alternatives (or more likely "complements") have all failed rather badly. Then topics like "operations management support" - we often think of naturalising Sense Making being only applicable to grandiose situations, forgetting about the people who need to reduce leaking water pipes or accident occurrences amongst their white van drivers. Then there are situations involving already existing communities such as search and rescue, fishermen, army combat units who already work as close knit teams. How can this theory address, for example, improving the way we coordinate search and rescue or even support those on the ground having to make decisions about where to look, how to coordinate equipment and ensuring the safety of everyone participating.
Finally, it may be interesting to address how these principles mix with other more traditional tools and approaches - e.g. cost accounting, operations research, systems dynamics, and more analytical approaches to problem solving (remember that American program (Numbers, I think it was called) where the mathematician supported homicide detectives solve murders and serious crimes). I have frequently heard people complain that CE tries to overturn all that has come before, which obviously isn't true as a blanket statement. But it is true of some perspectives to traditional approaches. It seems as though you are going to talk a lot about that anyway in your coming blogs.
I am sorry to hear that you have been unwell on your current trip and I hope that you are back in form soon.
Peter
Posted by Peter Stanbridge | November 4, 2008 6:14 PM
Posted on November 4, 2008 18:14
About this idea of "the top down stimulation of bottom up activity" and "Government consultation of citizens", I was very interested to discover tonight about the Change.gov [http://change.gov], the website of the Office of the President-elect of the United States. It includes a section on "the American moment". In "The American Moment: Your story", they are asked "what this campaign and this election means to you" and to "Share [their] hopes for an Obama Administration and a government for the people." In "The American Moment: Your vision "they are asked to "Share [their] vision for what America can be, where President-Elect Obama should lead this country. Where should we start together?"
Start right now. Share your vision for what America can be, where President-Elect Obama should lead this country. Where should we start together?"
Posted by pascalvenier![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 10, 2008 3:20 AM
Posted on November 10, 2008 03:20