Sonja Blignaut’s presentation at the SAIIE Awards brought about a lot of takeaways for me, but this one really made me think about the disconnect between what we say in upper management, and what we make those at frontlines endure.
It’s trendy to say the customer is at the centre of all you do, but more often than not, the reward system at the frontline says otherwise. No better an example exists than with call-centre reps having targets of completing calls within 2.5 minutes.
If they get a particularly difficult customer who needs more time, they risk not hitting that KPI of call < 2.5 minutes. Now imagine yourself in the shoes of such a rep with this predicament.
On the one hand, your CEO publicly says the company values client-centricity. That would imply taking as much time to serve customers as they need.
On the other hand, you need to hit KPIs related to speed-of-service to get that bonus payment you really need. The irony is that such a KPI is a cascaded down take on a strategy from somewhere in upper mangement.
I’ve had my eyes glued onto papers about organisation design for the last few days. One of the concepts that sprung out to me was that of microstructures. Professor Phanish Puranam of INSEAD coined this term.
Microstructures are the building blocks of organisations. I’d imagine he’s referring to the teams, committees and collectives of human beings that form towards a specific purpose. They take guidance from and guides the organisation’s purpose.
How can you model a microstructure? I’d imagine it could be as simple as:
A full view of the team and activities it undertakes
Seeing the individuals who are in that team and the activities they’re responsible for
Building out these microstructures, you could then view them in overall workgroups and business units, to gauge the interactions necessary to create value. And keep going up until you’ve got a full view of the organisation’s movements.
What benefit could a practical manager get from this? Seeing the building blocks that form an organisation?
Imagine if you could track the evolution of these microstructures, the performance data gathered within, how they morph and contribute to overall structural integrity… then today’s machine-based modelling tech could tell you how to optimise it?
Perhaps the greatest human-centred benefit is driving change more effectively. They could do a before/after model of the individual and team activities impacted by process, technology or other change.
A visual approach to a process otherwise filled with mystery and uncertainty.
I’m going to shift gears for this post. Instead of the individual and team view, I will look at work from the 30000-foot perspective – seeing what’s happening in the whole organisation. Not hard for me since that’s my day job as a company GM.
Profit gives way to purpose and values. I don’t think profit will ever take a back seat. It’s a driving force for our capitalist society after all. But making a profit at the cost of community goodwill will become a big no-no in the near future. We can already see that with some activist investors like pension funds.
Hierarchy gives way to networks of teams. I run a smaller org with a network of teams, but I can tell you that an official hierarchy still exists in terms of rank and seniority. But teams must form and morph as needed to serve a purpose, not solely as headcount vanity for people in power.
Directive leadership gives way to supportive leadership. Do as you’re told will remain an issue as long as the concept of differential power exists. And because we’re human, it will. I think we need to balance it with tools that allow for supportive leadership. Let’s not skew too far in either direction.
Plan & predict gives way to experiment & adapt. Yes, some of today’s most successful companies are those that experiment & adapt in frontier markets. But they’re a handful. The rest of us need to still plan for how we’re going to achieve success in dull, predictable markets. We can experiment a little along the way.
Rules & control gives way to freedom & trust. This brings up the age-old concern of “without rules, everything descends into chaos”. People will need increasing freedom to act fast – the world is moving exponentially faster than even 10 years ago. But they will need guidelines and at times rules to keep actions ethical and guided towards the purpose.
Centralised authority to distributed decisionmaking. Yes, yes and yes! The number of times I’ve wondered why I need to chime in on a decision. But then again, some wide impact decisions need top brass OKs. The key is getting clarity and logical sense behind the criticality, urgency and org impact of decisions.
Secrecy gives way to radical transparency. I think both secrecy and transparency have a place in healthy organisations. Some critical and wide-impact decisions need to be a secret until they’re fully planned out. Likewise, people need to stop hiding day-to-day work matters just for the sake of keeping a one-up on others.
Job descriptions give way to talent & mastery. Yes, we will increasingly rely on exceptional talents, but there’s only a finite supply of that to go around. For the rest of us, we will need some form of boundary set around our job to do it with diligence. Job descriptions can be part of that boundary-setting equation.
I applaud the narrative that this image sparks. That we need to relook at those industries where orgs are single-minded on profit before all else that’s good on earth.
It’s also becoming increasingly pointless to hire people to follow 20-30 year old rules, do monotonous tasks and play office politics. That might’ve worked in the 80s and 90s, but that thinking has maxed out its productive potential.
With more technology and know-how improving productivity, I can see that people need to change what and how they do things.
Corporate Rebels have been gathering steam in a few circles. I’ve paste an image from their site (educational purposes only) to highlight the shift these circles are driving. From my observation, these circles are at the frontier of driving organisational change.
I remember my days of trolling similar-looking circles around 2005-2010. They talked about then-abstract concepts like “digital everything”, agile, cloud, IoT, SoLoMo (social, location, mobile).
We now take their efforts for granted on a daily basis – paperless workflows in the office to turning off the lights using Wifi to calling a late-night Uber.
But I’m no longer interested in the digital future the way I used to be. We are already (pretty much) living it – as I had envisioned it 15 years ago. AI and all that – not my jam.
What seems like the next frontier is this: wholesale org. change based on sustainability principles… and making better use of all this tech that surrounds us.
It’s been a few weeks since I’ve actively worked on this site. My work as a general manager has a way of morphing sometimes into an abomination of excess responsibility.
Even customers take pity, candidly saying to me, “You are in too deep. Take a break soon.” Has anyone covered the concept of mental bandwidth? I feel mine has been on the thin side during this period of extra managerial work.
My low mental bandwidth hadn’t stopped me from thinking about ideas for here. I was struggling to conjure energy some days despite caffeinated help.
What turned some of those days around was looking to the future of how we can improve our work, not just deal with day-to-day fires.
Here were some of my thoughts:
How to convey thinkingvisually – I noticed that with my over-busy mind, I paid way more attention to visuals – I’m guessing this applies to other managers too
I need to apply more practical examples – my friends’ eyes glazed as I talked about work optimisation, but their eyes lit up when I related the concepts to their roles e.g. salesforce CRM administrator – how would that role work, what are the complementary roles, how would that team do certain tasks etc.
Work out how to explore a burning platform topic that would draw attention which I could steer to a broader platform of adaptable teams. I thought of technology change management – teams are using a lot of tech, but not well. How can we enable people? Show them the tech in the context of their role and activities.
Now for the hard part, the doing part. A few more weeks of busy, busy mind then I want to knuckle down on these. Wish me luck.
As I sit here, I realise that my mind wants to relax. More work is the last thing I need after 9-10 hours at it. But deeper work must be done.
Every day at my day job is a combination of:
talking with 50-60 people for minutes about deals, projects etc
informing strategy by reading/hearing intelligence on our space
putting out fires – new tasks, decisions, information every few minutes
Very little time to do any deep concentration work. Work where I’m focused for more than 15 minutes without minimal to no interruptions of any kind.
And then I wonder why, when it comes to doing deep work at night, like writing a simple primer on workflow optimisation, I just stare at the screen. All that daytime activity has its purpose for my role. But it takes my finite mental energy for processing words.
I need to carve out time for proper, deep work.
Deep work is important – it’s the strategy to my barrage of tactics. Obviously at the end of the day isn’t the working out for me. So how could I make it easier? Let me investigate some action points:
Wake up 30 minutes earlier Waking up earlier doesn’t help me sleep early, it just makes me tired during the day! Plus I need my 8 hours.
Meditate right after getting home Yup, right after dinner, watering the plants, catching up with people at home, snack… and oh, is it 9pm already?!
Carve out solid daytime for deep work What happens when you hope someone doesn’t knock on your office door? They knock on your office door.
Make in-roads for deep work earlier in the day
I didn’t cross out the last point. It might work for my situation. If I can carve out 10 minutes of downtime every 3-4 hours to contribute to my deep work.
So what would I have to do to make that oh-so-tiny-period effective?
Outline exactly what I need to accomplish in those 10 minutes. e.g. find and write 3-4 pieces of evidence to support the “Risk management” section of the primer
Set a timer and commit to no interruptions. Phone face down on the desk, landline off the hook, the door closed, people advised not to interrupt
It could work. I’ll hopefully be back to building on this site’s content at a good pace very soon. This is the kind of deep work that keeps me motivated for another day of attention-arresting day in the office.
Without making too much controversy, there may be a good explanation for why (most) bosses get paid (reasonably) more. Elliot Jacques abstract-sounding timespan of discretion model will guide us in the thinking process.
Since my last post, I’ve built on the glossary for modern teams and reflected on philosophies shared by Jeff Bezos and Henry Mintzberg. Both have their fair share of public critics, but they are still venerable individuals in the world of leadership.
Around the same time, I started reading up on organisational development practices – again. I find that it definitely informs my research on agile team dynamics. Once in a while, I’ll read something that makes me sit up and think.
The moment I read about emergent processes was one of those. At its core, an emergent process is a non-routine business process where the knowledge and methods for making it happen emerge as it happens.
It seems like something that may be possible when your team’s laid out for parallel workflows. Different parts of the team, as they progress, shaping team-mate’s or interdependent process’s ongoing activity, as well as the team’s overall output.
I had never heard of the concept before yesterday. A quick Google search shows that the term has made rounds in academia for just over a decade. I suppose it’s time for it to shine in the actual world of work.
“The fable that leadership is superior to management has been bad for management and worse for leadership. The fashionable depiction sees leaders as doing the right things while managers do things right. This may sound right until you try to do the right things without doing them right.“
Source: Henry Mintzberg, Bedtime Stories for Managers (2019)
Optics-wise, I can understand the allure of calling oneself a leader. But nowadays, people are wary of the “heroic”, “larger-than-life”, “charismatic” archetype that famous leaders portray and many others emulate.
Essentially, taking on audacious goals without supporting them with the right kinds of action. Thinking that the wheels of a complex operation can turn without any consideration for greasing the cogs within. So long as there’s a “vision”.
Henry Mintzberg suggests a counterbalance to this. One from the realm of mere mortal managers. The ones who are all about doing things right. Efficiency, structured thinking and developing protocols may indeed have its place.
The real challenge is finding the right balance. Ultimately, people need to be led in the right direction. But they also need enablement to carry on their duties with vigour and without slowing down to wait for a go-ahead.
“Of the best leader, when his work is done, the people all say: “we did it ourselves.” – Laozi, ancient Chinese philosopher
Make sure every day at work feels like Day 1. Do you remember your first day at your first job? Sure, you were nervous. But part of you was excited. Excited about doing everything in your power to delight your new boss, coworkers, customers. Excited about doing the best work of your life.
Inspired by: Jeff Bezos, Letter to Amazon Shareholders (2016)
What a refreshing, energising way to approach your working day. It’s a 180 from how I’d imagine most people see their work or careers, especially after a long time slogging away. But I also wondered for a while if Day 1 thinking is sustainable.
Jeff Bezos seems to think it’s crucial to keep the Day 1 momentum alive. To him, letting your mind slip into Day 2 is a no-no. Here’s a summary of his thoughts on Day 2:
Day 2 means stasis. Followed by irrelevance. Following by excruciating, painful decline. Followed by death.
High-quality decisions, but too slow. The world’s moving at lightspeed, so teams and organisations need to make high-quality and high-velocity calls.
Decline in extreme slow motion. An established company might harvest Day 2 for decades, but the final result would still come.
So how could we maintain a Day 1 mindset day-in-day-out? Mr Bezos suggests complete, utter customer-centricity. Focus on what you can do next to wow an always curious and dissatisfied customer.
I’ve thought of another way – map out your work as a short-, medium- and long-term outlook. What do you expect from your immediate work? How do you see yourself working in the future? Your answer should not be “the same as today”.
Develop a vision for where you want to head and couple that with patient experimentation, accept failures in the learning process and double down when you see real progress.
Influence trumps authority in that an ineffective leader may have the authority to give orders, but without generating substantial goodwill, those orders execute poorly. Only by influencing others can a modern working professional get their way.
Inspired by: Jocelyn Davis, The Art of Quiet Influence (2019)
Let’s start by comparing the ineffective leader to a con artist.
A con artist has no authority over others, but they get what they want by influencing those others. An ineffective leader may have all the authority in the world. But without influence, their orders risk falling on deaf ears.
There was a time when the mere notion of authority was enough for a leader. That was a time when fear was pervasive. Followers feared retribution from not following orders – of losing their jobs or worse.
I don’t think that way of operating is as effective in the modern working world. Handing down orders may affect only the truly fearful among your people. The rest of them will follow through with varying degrees of care.
It’s another story if you influence them towards your way. By getting emotional and logical buy-in, you will pave a stronger path forward.