The persistence of failed ideas continues to surprise me, and especially in the case of those who claim to embrace complexity approaches to organisational development. A lot of people like the shinny new wine of complexity, but they want to put it in the familiar wineskins of conventional thinking, net effect the wineskins burst.
One of the most persistent handovers from systems dynamics is the belief in full alignment of organisational values, mission statements, strategy etc. Now in practice (and thank God) this has never happened despite a lot of money being spent on it. Pragmatically full alignment means that you have lost all variety in the system and with that adaptive capacity.
Now the opposite is not just to let things go, that is to shift from order to chaos. What we need instead is what I describe as messy coherence, a sense of direction with with requisite diversity. Some of changes we need are:
- Move from the point where everyone can parrot the same platitudes (sorry clearly describe the common strategy) to the point where common heuristics and metaphors are in play. Metaphor based command languages are one of the most exciting new developments around at the moment and I will blog on them in the near future.
- Shift from all decisions and actions being aligned with strategy to an environment in which safe-fail experiments constantly challenge the established strategic thinking.
- Move from ensuring that everyone in the workforce understandings the strategy (a communication approach and fairly typical of the organisational story tellers) to whole of workforce real time engagement in strategic sensing of subtle put important changes in the ecology of the organisation.
- Start to use supply chain partners and customers in an architected approach which allows the emergence of an ideation based understanding of what is needed and a resilient and reactive capacity to embrace uncertainty rather than reducing it
Now I admit that there are some potential platitudes or ambiguities there, but I'll expand on the practice and the theory in future posts. For the moment I will try not to rip my remaining hair out in despair at the constantly rolling out of failed and failing ideas by people who should know better.
Comments (2)
I am not sure what you mean by "strategy". Perhaps, if your strategy includes safe-fail experiments, all decisions and actions can still be aligned. This also affects your first point, an agreement on this strategy allows common heuristics and metaphors.
As with all organisations, an understanding of what is really wanted, rather than following a process, enables this diversity.
Taking this approach also changes the context of "alignment" - you can have all of your stakeholders aligned and still have adaptive capacity.
My key point: I think my understanding of "strategy" and "alignment" has a different nuance than your use of the words here.
Failed ideas are only failures if organisations (and people) don't learn from them - so I feel your frustration when they are continually rolled out!
Cheers,
Alan
Posted by Alan Dyer | July 6, 2010 12:08 AM
Posted on July 6, 2010 00:08
All very true Dave but sadly lots of organisations have large numbers of people who have been taught to believe that the alignment model is correct and that all failures are as a result of a failure to align, and that to not align or seek to align is a mark of naivety at best and perhaps insanity at worst. They find safety in alignment. What did you say about sheep the other day? Cynical rant ends here
Posted by Tim | July 6, 2010 9:45 AM
Posted on July 6, 2010 09:45