Capability development

The Uncomfortable Truth: Why Developer Training Is a Waste of Time

There’s an entire industry built around “improving” software developers. Conferences, workshops, bootcamps, online courses, books, certifications—billions of dollars spent annually on the promise that if we just train developers better, we’ll get better software. It’s time to say what many of us have privately suspected: it’s all just theater.

Here’s why investing in developer training is increasingly pointless, and why organisations would be better served directing those resources elsewhere:

Nobody’s actually interested in improvement
Developers don’t control what actually matters
GenAI has fundamentally changed the equation

Let’s examine each of these uncomfortable truths.

1. Nobody’s Actually Interested in Improvement

Walk into any development team and ask who wants to improve their craft. Hands will shoot up enthusiastically. Now watch what happens over the next six months. The conference budget goes unused. The book club fizzles after two meetings. The internal tech talks attract the same three people every time. The expensive training portal shows a login rate of less than 15%. Personal note: I have seen this myself time and again in client organisations.

The uncomfortable reality is that most developers have found their comfort zone and have little to no genuine interest in moving beyond it. They’ve learned enough to be productive in their current role, and that’s sufficient. The annual performance review might require them to list “professional development goals” but these are box-checking exercises, not genuine aspirations. When developers do seek training, it’s often credential-seeking behavior—resume-building for the next job search, a.k.a. mortgage-driven development, not actual skill development for their current role.

This isn’t unique to software development. In most professions, once practitioners reach competence, the motivation for continued improvement evaporates. The difference is that in software, we’ve created an elaborate fiction that continuous learning is happening when it definitely isn’t. The developers who genuinely seek improvement are self-motivated outliers who would pursue it regardless of organisational investment. They don’t need your training programs; they’re already reading papers, experimenting with new technologies, and pushing boundaries on their own time.

2. Developers Have No Control Over What Actually Matters

Even if a developer emerges from training enlightened about better practices, they return to an environment that makes applying those practices simply impossible. They’ve learned about continuous deployment, but the organisation requires a three-week approval process for production releases. They’ve studied domain-driven design, but the database schema was locked in five years ago by an architecture committee. They’ve embraced test-driven development, but deadlines leave no time for writing tests, and technical debt is an accepted way of life.

The factors that most impact software quality—architecture decisions, technology choices, team structure, deadline pressures, hiring practices, organisational culture, the social dyname—are entirely outside individual developers’ control. These are set by management, architecture boards, or historical accident. Having developers trained in excellent practices but embedded in a dysfunctional system is like teaching someone Olympic swimming techniques and then asking them to compete while chained to a cinder block. (See also: Deming’s Red Bead experiment).

Moreover, the incentive structures in organisations reward maximising bosses’ well being, not e.g. writing maintainable code. Developers quickly learn that the skills that matter for career advancement are political navigation, project visibility, stakeholder management and sucking up—not technical excellence. Training developers in better coding practices while maintaining perverse incentives is simply theater that lets organisations feel good about the charade of “investing in people” while changing absolutely nothing that matters.

3. GenAI Has Fundamentally Changed the Equation

The emergence of generative AI has rendered much of traditional developer training obsolete before it’s even delivered. When Claude or GPT can generate boilerplate code, explain complex algorithms, refactor legacy systems, and even architect solutions, what exactly are we training developers to do? (Maybe AI has a more productive role to play in helping developers maximise their bosses’ well being).

The skills we’ve traditionally taught—memorising syntax, understanding framework details, knowing design patterns, debugging techniques—are precisely the skills that AI handles increasingly well. We’re training developers for skills that are being automated even as we conduct the training. The half-life of technical knowledge has always been short in software, but AI has accelerated this to the point of absurdity. By the time a developer completes a course on a particular framework or methodology, AI tools have already internalized that knowledge and can apply it faster and more consistently than any human (usual AI caveats apply).

The argument that developers need to “understand the fundamentals” to effectively use AI is wishful thinking from an industry trying to justify its existence. Junior developers are already shipping production code by describing requirements to AI and validating outputs. The bottleneck isn’t their understanding—it’s organisational factors like the social dynamic, relationships, requirements clarity and system architecture. Training developers in minutiae that AI handles better is like training mathematicians to use slide rules in the calculator age.

The Hard Truth

The developer training industry persists not because it works, but because it serves organisational needs that have nothing to do with actual improvement. It provides HR with checkboxes for professional development requirements. It gives managers a feel-good initiative to tout in interviews and quarterly reviews. It offers developers a sanctioned way to take a break from the grind. Everyone benefits except the balance sheet.

If organisations genuinely wanted better software, they’d stop pouring money into training programs and start fixing the systems that prevent good work: rigid processes, unrealistic deadlines, toxic relationships, flawed shared assumptions and beliefs, and misaligned incentives. They’d hire fewer developers at higher salaries, giving them the time and autonomy to do quality work. They’d measure success by folks’ needs met rather than velocity and feature count. But that would require admitting that the problem isn’t the developers—it’s everything else. And that’s a far more uncomfortable conversation than simply booking another training workshop.

Are You Too Good? You’re Not Alone

August 21, 2025

Article, Capability development, Excellence

Leave a comment

Are You Too Good? You’re Not Alone

Or: How Excellence Became Our Beautiful Problem

I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I’m pretty sure I’ve cracked the code on one of life’s more paradoxical challenges: you can absolutely be too good at things. And before you roll your eyes at what sounds like the world’s most privileged complaint, hear me out.

The Excellence Problem

Here’s what happened to me, and I suspect it’s happened to you too. I got really good at my job. Like, uncomfortably good. Not just competent—genuinely excellent.

And that’s when the problems started.

When Good Equals Different

Here’s what they don’t tell you about excellence: it doesn’t fit into systems designed for average performance. When you consistently operate at a level above the established norm, you’re not just doing good work—you’re operating outside the parameters the system was built to handle.

Think of it as a bell curve. Far to the left are people so unsuited that they never get hired. Far to the right are people so excellent that they’re way out of place in most systems and organisations.

Most systems—whether deliberately designed or naturally evolved—optimise for the statistical middle because that’s where the majority of the distribution exists. The left tail gets filtered out through hiring processes, performance standards, and correction mechanisms. But the right tail? They get hired. They meet all the standard criteria. They even exceed them.

Then they discover they’re trying to operate in environments that were never designed for their level of capability.

Your capabilities exceed what the infrastructure can process. Your output doesn’t match the categories available. Your performance breaks the framework that was designed to manage predictable competence within anticipated ranges.

The Cost of Being Different

The really insidious part is how excellence gets systematically wasted. When you consistently operate at a higher level, you discover that most environments simply can’t utilise what you’re capable of. Your competence exceeds what the system can leverage or accommodate.

The Architecture of Mediocrity

Most organisational structures are designed around one primary function: managing average performance. They have elaborate systems for performance improvement plans, disciplinary processes, and managing people who aren’t meeting standards. Average performance is treated as the invisible baseline—expected, unremarkable, requiring no particular attention or infrastructure.

But here’s the deeper issue: most managers never even dream that some people could be genuinely excellent. Their mental models of human capability simply don’t include the possibility of someone operating at a truly excellent level. They think in terms of ‘good enough,’ ‘above average,’ and ‘solid performer’—but genuine excellence is outside their conceptual framework entirely.

So when they encounter it, they don’t recognise it as excellence. They treat excellent people as if they’re just slightly above-average performers, completely missing the magnitude of the difference.

Excellence breaks the system because the system was never designed to recognise or accommodate it. There are no processes for what to do with someone who consistently operates well above the mean. No clear paths for people whose capabilities don’t fit predetermined categories. No frameworks for accommodating genuine competence.

We have elaborate mechanisms for dealing with the left tail of the performance curve—training programmes, performance improvement plans, remedial support. But we have almost nothing for dealing with the right tail. Excellent people are left to figure out how to function in systems that simply weren’t built with them in mind.

Excellence is as much of an edge case as incompetence, just on the opposite end. Both are equally problematic for systems calibrated for the statistical middle.

The organisational chart doesn’t have a box for ‘person whose work output consistently exceeds expectations in ways that create systemic discomfort.’ The budget doesn’t have a line item for ‘managing the disruption caused by actual excellence.’

There have been exceptions. Sun Microsystems famously created the Distinguished Engineer track—recognition that some of their best technical people shouldn’t be forced into management just to get advancement and compensation. But these approaches were rare anomalies, not industry standards. Most organisations never bothered to build infrastructure for genuine excellence.

So instead, these systems do what all systems do when encountering something they weren’t designed to handle: they try to force the anomaly back into familiar patterns. They become uncomfortable with the disruption. They find ways to neutralise or eliminate what they can’t categorise.They view the excellent performer as a trouble maker.

The problem isn’t the excellent performer. The problem is that most organisations simply never build infrastructure for genuine excellence, preferring to force everyone through the same patterns regardless of where their actual capabilities lie.

In Lean methodology, they call this the Eighth Waste: underutilisation of people’s talents and capabilities. Organisations obsess over eliminating the traditional seven wastes in their processes, but completely ignore that they’re systematically wasting their most valuable human capital by not building proper infrastructure for excellence.

It’s particularly ironic—companies will spend enormous resources optimising their supply chains and manufacturing processes whilst simultaneously underutilising the people who could most improve their operations. They’re paying for excellence but designing systems that can only extract average value from it (at best).

It’s like having a master chef on staff but only letting them make fries and burgers, then hiring expensive consultants to figure out why your restaurant isn’t performing better.And then firing the master chef for complaining too much.

The Frustration

Being too good means operating in systems that consistently underutilise your capabilities. You can see solutions that others can’t. You can execute at levels that the infrastructure wasn’t designed to support. You can deliver results that exceed what the organisation knows how to handle.

But none of that matters if the system can’t process it. Your excellence becomes irrelevant in environments that can only extract average value from it. You find yourself constrained not by your abilities, but by the limitations of everything around you.

This is Deming’s 95/5 rule in action: 95% of performance problems stem from the system, not the individual. When excellent people find themselves frustrated or underutilised, it’s not because there’s something wrong with them. It’s because the systems around them weren’t designed to handle their level of capability.

But Here’s the Thing…

I’m not suggesting we all become deliberately mediocre. Excellence is still worth pursuing, and capability is still a superpower. But we might choose to recognise that the problem isn’t with us—it’s with systems that evolved for the statistical middle and literally cannot grok what we represent.

The issue is simply being excellent in systems that aren’t designed for it. You’re a statistical outlier trying to operate in environments calibrated for the statistical middle.

The Fellow Travellers

If you’ve made it reading this far, you’re probably in the same boat. You’re probably really good at things, and it’s probably causing you problems.

You’re probably discovering that your competence itself is the source of your professional challenges. Not what you’re asked to do with it, but simply having it in the first place.

You got through the hiring process because you met all the standard criteria. You even exceeded them. But now you’re discovering that excellence is as much of an edge case as incompetence—just on the opposite end—and equally problematic for systems that weren’t built with you in mind.

So here’s my question: what if we got really good at being strategically selective about where we deploy our excellence? What if we reserved our ‘too good’ for the things and places that can actually handle it? Or are there so few that this consigns us to unemployability?

Because the truth is, the world needs people who are really good at things. But it doesn’t need us to be excellent everywhere, for everyone, all the time.

Sometimes the most excellent thing you can do is choose where to be excellent.

Are you too good for your own good? I’d love to hear about it. Would you be willing to share your stories of ability-related problems—the weirder, the better.

What’s “Good”?

June 6, 2025

Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Capability development, Organisational effectiveness, Patterns, Thinking tools

Leave a comment

What’s “Good”?

After four decades of observing workplaces, studying organisational behaviour, and writing extensively about thinking differently, I keep circling back to one fundamental truth that explains so much dysfunction in modern work: those in charge—the managers, executives, and decision-makers—generally have no clue what ‘good’ actually looks like. Nor do those actually doing the work, absent the opportunity to discover it.

This isn’t meant as an indictment of individual character or intelligence. These are often industrious people who genuinely want their organisations to succeed. The problem runs much deeper than personal failings. It’s systemic, structural, and perhaps most troubling of all, invisible to all those it affects.

The dysfunction isn’t just at the top. The people doing the actual work—the developers, designers, analysts, customer service reps—often lack the context, time, or permission to discover what excellence could look like in their domain. They’re too busy meeting deadlines, following procedures, hitting metrics and generally earning a living, to step back and ask whether there might be fundamentally better ways.

The Distance Problem

The higher you climb in most organisations, the further you get from the actual work being done. Executives live in a world of dashboards, PowerPoints, and quarterly reviews. They see metrics, not reality. They hear summaries, not truth. The rich, nuanced texture of good work—the kind that creates real value for all the Folks that Matter™ and meaningful progress on problems—gets filtered, sanitised, and abstracted until it’s unrecognisable.

I’ve watched countless C-suite meetings where managers and executives debate the colour of charts whilst remaining utterly clueless about whether their teams are solving the right problems, attendingh to folks’ needs, or burning out from impossible demands. They mistake activity for progress, busy-ness for productivity, and compliance for excellence.

The Metrics Mirage

This disconnect gets worse when organisations become obsessed with measurement. Don’t misunderstand me—measurement can be valuable. But when managers and executives start believing that what gets measured is what matters, they’ve got it backwards. The most important aspects of good work are often the hardest to quantify.

W. Edwards Deming understood this when he observed that

“The most important figures that one needs for management are unknown or unknowable (Lloyd S. Nelson, director of statistical methods for the Nashua corporation), but successful management must nevertheless take account of them.”

~ “Out of the Crisis,” page 121.

The conversation that prevents a disaster, the insight that reframes everything, the trust built through consistent excellence—these create immense value but resist measurement.

How do you measure the quality of a difficult conversation that prevents a project from going off the rails? What’s the metric for the insight that completely reframes a problem? How do you put a number on the trust that develops when someone consistently delivers thoughtful work?

These unmeasurable qualities map directly to what I’ve identified as the T-Squad patterns of thinking different:

Transform Constraints Into Advantages
Systems-Level Perception
Generate Unexpected Connections
Develop Metacognitive Awareness
Build Comprehensive Mental Models

Each of these patterns produces value that’s immediately recognisable to practitioners but nearly impossible to capture in a dashboard.

Managers and executives who don’t know what good looks like default to measuring what’s easy: hours worked, tickets closed, features shipped, meetings attended. They create elaborate systems to track the wrong things, then wonder why engagement surveys show their people feel disconnected from meaningful work.

The Promotion Paradox

Here’s a cruel irony: the people who get promoted to senior positions are often selected based on their ability to play organisational games rather than their understanding of good work. They’ve mastered the art of managing up, crafting compelling presentations, and navigating political dynamics.

Meanwhile, the few people who actually know what good looks like—who can spot quality work from across the room, who understand what customers really need, who can tell the difference between elegant solutions and clever hacks—often remain hidden in individual backroom contributor roles. They’re too busy doing stupid busywork to spend time positioning themselves for promotion.

The Innovation Killer

This blind spot doesn’t just create inefficiency—it kills innovation. Good ideas rarely arrive in the format that management expects. They’re messy, incomplete, and require context to understand. They emerge from deep engagement with real problems, not from strategic planning sessions.

When managers and executives don’t recognise good work, they can’t protect the conditions that produce it. They interrupt important work with urgent busywork. They restructure teams just as they’re hitting their stride. They impose processes that optimise for the wrong outcomes. They reward the wrong behaviours and wonder why innovation never happens.

What Good Actually Looks Like

So what does good work look like? It’s harder to define than you might think, precisely because it’s contextual and qualitative. But after decades of observation, I’ve noticed some patterns:

Good work attends to the real needs of real people. It’s not just technically proficient—it’s relevant and useful. The people doing it can explain clearly why it matters and to whom.

Good work has a quality of rightness that’s immediately recognisable to other practitioners. We might call it GWAN – Good Work without a Name It shows deep understanding of the domain, careful consideration of trade-offs, and attention to details that matter. It often looks simple on the surface but reveals layers of thoughtfulness upon closer inspection.

Good work creates momentum. It makes the next piece of work easier, clearer, or more valuable. It builds on itself and enables others to do better work too.

Good work comes from people who care about attending to folks’ needs, not the process. They take ownership of problems and persist through obstacles. They’re driven by intrinsic motivation—the satisfaction of doing something well—rather than external rewards.

The Missing Practice: Going to the Gemba

Taiichi Ohno, the architect of the Toyota Production System, had a deceptively simple prescription for managers and executives: ‘Go to the gemba.’ Go to the actual place where the work happens. See with your own eyes what’s really going on. Yet despite decades of management literature celebrating this principle, it remains conspicuous by its absence in most organisations.

Walk through any corporate headquarters and you’ll find executives who haven’t set foot in their own customer service centres, product managers who’ve never watched someone actually use their software, and strategy teams who’ve never witnessed the daily struggles their policies create for frontline workers.

But here’s the thing Ohno understood that most managers and executives miss: going to the gemba doesn’t necessarily help you understand what good could look like. Good work, when it’s happening, often appears effortless. It’s quiet, smooth, unremarkable. The real value of gemba walks isn’t in spotting excellence—it’s in making dysfunctions visible.

When you actually watch work happening, you see the workarounds, the repeated mistakes, the time wasted on activities that add no value. You see people struggling with tools that don’t work, processes that make no sense, and conflicting priorities that force impossible choices. You witness the gap between what the org chart says should happen and what actually happens.

The Reality Check

This means spending time with customers, sitting in on problem-solving sessions, reviewing work products before they’re polished for presentation. It means asking different questions—not just ‘Are we on schedule?’ but ‘Are we solving the right problem?’ Not just ‘What are the risks?’ but ‘What would good look like here?’

John Seddon and the Vanguard Method call this ‘getting knowledge’—the fundamental step that must precede any attempt at improvement. You can’t fix what you don’t understand, and you can’t understand complex work from spreadsheets and status reports.

But most importantly, it means regularly going to where the work actually happens—not for dog-and-pony shows or carefully orchestrated visits, but for unvarnished observation of normal operations. The patterns of dysfunction become obvious when you see them repeated across different teams, different processes, different days.

The Way Forward

Recognising this blind spot is the first step towards addressing it. Managers and executives who want to actually be effective benefit from getting closer to the work—not through reports and dashboards, but through direct in-situ observation of how work actually gets done.

It means promoting based on different criteria—not political savvy and presentation skills, but demonstrated ability to recognise and nurture good work. It means creating space for the deep work that produces breakthrough insights, rather than filling every moment with meetings and status updates.

Most importantly, it means admitting what you don’t know. The most dangerous managers and executives are those who are confident in their understanding of work they’ve never done, in domains where they lack expertise, with customers they’ve never met. Of course, given the human condition, this ain’t never going to happen.

The Thinking Different Connection

This connects directly to everything I’ve written about thinking different over the years. The organisations that truly innovate, that create products and services that change how we live and work, are led by people who maintain intimate connection with good work. They may not do all the work themselves anymore, but they never lose their ability to recognise it.

They create cultures where good work is valued over political manoeuvring, where deep expertise trumps management credentials, where the best ideas win regardless of their source. They understand that their job isn’t to have all the answers, but to create conditions where the people who do have answers can do their best work.

The future belongs to organisations that can bridge this gap—that can combine a strategic perspective with deep, nuanced understanding of what good work actually looks like. In a world of increasing complexity and accelerating change, this isn’t just a nice-to-have. It’s survival.

The question isn’t whether your managers and executives are smart or well-intentioned. The question is: do they know good work when they see it? Because if they don’t, you’re building on a foundation of sand, no matter how impressive your org chart looks.

COPE Framework: Comprehensive Organisational Psychotherapy Evaluation

May 21, 2025

Article, Capability development, Collective psyche, Culture change, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, SAR Organisations

Leave a comment

COPE Framework: Comprehensive Organisational Psychotherapy Evaluation

Purpose

This integrated assessment framework is designed for folks who need to understand the mental health status of their organisation. It evaluates an organisation’s collective psychological wellbeing, functioning, and areas for development. It measures the collective assumptions and beliefs (memes) that shape an organisation’s effectiveness. Note: The structure of this questionnaire is based closely on the structure found in my OP books Quintessence and Memeology.

Version

For reference and to aid evolution, this post defines COPE version 1.0a.

Assessment Questionnaire

Instructions: This assessment evaluates the collective mental health of your organisation. Please rate your agreement with each statement using the scale: 0 = Strongly Disagree | 1 = Disagree | 2 = Neutral | 3 = Agree | 4 = Strongly Agree

SECTION 1: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY & PURPOSE

Organisational Purpose Clarity

The organisation has a clearly articulated purpose beyond profit
Members across all levels can articulate why the organisation exists
The organisation’s purpose inspires meaningful contribution
Decision-making processes reflect the organisation’s core purpose
The organisation regularly revisits and reaffirms its purpose
Daily operations clearly connect to the organisation’s purpose
External communications authentically reflect organisational purpose
The organisation measures success by metrics aligned with its purpose

Organisational Values Integration

Organisational values are clearly defined and widely understood
Values are consistently demonstrated in organisational decisions
Leaders model the organisation’s espoused values in their behaviour
Reward systems recognise and reinforce organisational values
Hiring and promotion decisions reflect organisational values
Resources are allocated according to proclaimed priorities
The organisation addresses gaps between stated and enacted values
Policies and procedures align with and support organisational values
Performance evaluations include assessment of values alignment
The organisation’s values are regularly discussed and reaffirmed

Organisational Identity Cohesion

Members across all levels identify strongly with the organisation
There is a distinctive and coherent organisational identity
The organisation’s identity remains stable through changes
Members feel personally connected to the organisational identity
External stakeholders recognise the organisation’s distinctive identity
The organisation’s identity is authentic rather than aspirational
Stories and symbols reinforce organisational identity effectively
The organisational identity provides meaning during challenges

SECTION 2: ORGANISATIONAL COGNITION

Organisational Learning Capacity

The organisation systematically captures lessons from experience
Knowledge is effectively shared across organisational boundaries
Failure is treated as an opportunity for organisational learning
The organisation regularly challenges its assumptions
Learning is translated into changes in policies and practices
The organisation systematically tests new approaches
Members are encouraged to question established ways of working
The organisation integrates diverse perspectives into decision-making
The organisation has effective mechanisms for organisational memory
There is regular reflection on organisational processes and outcomes

Organisational Decision-Making Patterns

Decision-making processes are clearly defined and understood
Decisions are made at appropriate levels of the organisation
Decision-making incorporates relevant stakeholder perspectives
Information flows effectively to decision-makers
Decision-making processes are appropriately transparent
The organisation balances decisive action with thoughtful consideration
Decision-making processes adapt to the nature of the issue
The organisation learns from the outcomes of decisions
Decision-making incorporates both analytical and intuitive elements
The organisation revisits and adjusts ineffective decisions
Decision-making processes recognise complexity and avoid oversimplification
The organisation effectively prioritises decisions based on strategic importance

Organisational Sense-Making Capability

The organisation effectively interprets changes in its environment
Multiple interpretations of events are considered before conclusions are drawn
The organisation creates shared understanding of complex situations
Diverse perspectives are integrated in understanding challenges
The organisation can detect weak signals of important changes
Organisational narratives help create meaning from ambiguous situations
The organisation avoids simplistic explanations for complex events
Conflicts in interpretation are productively explored rather than suppressed
The organisation can reframe its understanding when circumstances change
Sense-making processes engage appropriate stakeholders

SECTION 3: ORGANISATIONAL EMOTION & CLIMATE

Emotional Climate Assessment

The prevailing emotional tone of the organisation is positive
There is appropriate emotional expression within the organisation
People feel emotionally safe within the organisational environment
The organisation acknowledges emotional aspects of organisational life
Leadership effectively manages the emotional climate
Difficult emotions are acknowledged rather than suppressed
The organisation demonstrates appropriate empathy toward members
Emotional intelligence is valued and developed
The emotional impact of changes is considered and addressed
There is emotional resilience within the organisational culture

Psychological Safety Evaluation

Members feel safe to express divergent viewpoints
Risk-taking is encouraged without fear of punishment for failure
Mistakes are openly discussed to promote learning
Difficult issues are raised and addressed constructively
Members can show vulnerability without negative consequences
There is tolerance for well-intentioned errors
The organisation avoids blame-oriented responses to problems
Power differences do not prevent open communication
Members trust that others have positive intentions
Ideas are evaluated on merit rather than source
Feedback flows freely up and down the organisational hierarchy
The organisation demonstrates curiosity rather than judgement

Organisational Trust Measure

There is a high level of trust between leadership and members
The organisation fulfils its commitments consistently
Communication from leadership is honest and transparent
Members trust that decisions are made with appropriate consideration
There is trust between different functions or departments
The organisation demonstrates trustworthiness to external stakeholders
Trust is systematically built rather than assumed
When trust is broken, there are effective repair mechanisms
Policies demonstrate trust in members’ intentions and capabilities
Information is shared openly rather than closely guarded

SECTION 4: ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES

Structural Health Assessment

Organisational structures effectively support its purpose
Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined
Authority is appropriately distributed throughout the organisation
Organisational boundaries effectively manage complexity
Structures adapt appropriately to changing circumstances
There is effective coordination between organisational units
Reporting relationships support effective functioning
The organisation has appropriate integration mechanisms
Structures balance stability with flexibility
Organisational hierarchy serves function rather than status

Resource Allocation Patterns

Resources are distributed according to strategic priorities
Resource allocation processes are transparent and understood
The organisation effectively balances short and long-term investments
Resources are sufficient to accomplish expected outcomes
The organisation invests in maintaining and developing capabilities
Resource constraints are acknowledged and addressed realistically
Resources are reallocated when strategic priorities change
Resource allocation reflects organisational values
The organisation avoids resource hoarding within units
There are effective processes for resolving resource conflicts

Organisational Justice Evaluation

Rewards are distributed fairly within the organisation
Organisational policies are applied consistently
Procedures for making important decisions are fair
People are treated with dignity and respect regardless of position
Information is shared appropriately with those affected by decisions
The organisation provides explanations for significant decisions
There are effective mechanisms for addressing perceived inequities
Promotions and advancement reflect merit rather than politics
Accountability is consistent across organisational levels
Discipline and correction are applied fairly and proportionately
Performance evaluation processes are perceived as fair
Benefits and burdens are distributed equitably

SECTION 5: ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE

Change Capacity Assessment

The organisation effectively anticipates emerging changes
Change initiatives are implemented skilfully
The organisation maintains core functionality during transitions
Changes are thoughtfully designed to address root causes
The organisation communicates effectively about changes
Change processes engage appropriate stakeholders
The organisation builds commitment rather than merely compliance
The human impacts of change are considered and addressed
The organisation learns from its change experiences
Change capacity is systematically developed

Innovation Climate Evaluation

The organisation systematically encourages innovative thinking
There are effective processes for developing new ideas
The organisation allocates resources to innovation
Promising ideas can navigate organisational boundaries
The organisation effectively balances exploration and exploitation
Innovation efforts address meaningful organisational challenges
The organisation learns from unsuccessful innovation attempts
Innovation processes engage diverse perspectives
The organisation effectively implements promising innovations
Innovation is recognised and celebrated

Organisational Resilience Index

The organisation maintains functioning during disruptions
There are effective crisis response mechanisms
The organisation demonstrates learning after disruptions
There is appropriate redundancy in critical systems
The organisation can rapidly reconfigure resources when needed
There is awareness of potential vulnerabilities
The organisation demonstrates optimism in facing challenges
Leadership provides stability during turbulent periods
The organisation maintains strategic focus despite disruptions
There is capacity to absorb stress without breakdown
The organisation effectively balances continuity and transformation
Recovery processes are well-developed and effective

SECTION 6: ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

Stakeholder Relations Assessment

The organisation maintains constructive relationships with key stakeholders
There is effective dialogue with diverse stakeholders
The organisation demonstrates understanding of stakeholder concerns
Stakeholder perspectives influence organisational decisions
The organisation manages competing stakeholder interests effectively
There are mechanisms for addressing stakeholder conflicts
The organisation maintains integrity in stakeholder relations
Stakeholder relationships are systematically developed
The organisation responds effectively to stakeholder feedback
There is appropriate transparency with stakeholders

Collective Engagement Measure

Members demonstrate energy and enthusiasm about the organisation
There is discretionary effort beyond minimal requirements
Members speak positively about the organisation to others
Retention of valued members is high
Members demonstrate commitment to organisational success
There is pride in organisational membership
Members find meaning in their organisational participation
Engagement is consistent across organisational units
The organisation systematically addresses engagement barriers
Engagement remains resilient during challenging periods

Power Dynamics Evaluation

Power is used constructively rather than coercively
Decision-making authority is appropriately distributed
Influence is based on expertise rather than position alone
The organisation addresses power imbalances that hinder effectiveness
Hidden power structures align with formal authority systems
Minority perspectives can influence organisational direction
The organisation effectively manages political behaviour
Power differences do not prevent necessary communication
Leadership empowers rather than controls
There are effective checks on power concentration

COPE SCORING SHEET

SECTION 1: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY & PURPOSE

Organisational Purpose Clarity Items 1-8: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 8 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severe purpose deficit; organisation lacks meaningful direction
1.1-2.0: Moderate purpose deficit; purpose is unclear or uninspiring
2.1-3.0: Adequate purpose clarity with some areas for strengthening
3.1-4.0: Strong purpose clarity and integration

Organisational Values Integration Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severe values-action gap; espoused values not reflected in practice
1.1-2.0: Significant values inconsistency; limited alignment between stated and enacted values
2.1-3.0: Moderate values integration; some alignment with opportunities for improvement
3.1-4.0: Strong values integration throughout organisational systems

Organisational Identity Cohesion Items 1-8: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 8 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Fractured organisational identity; lack of coherent self-concept
1.1-2.0: Weak identity cohesion; identity is unclear or contested
2.1-3.0: Moderate identity cohesion; recognisable identity with some inconsistencies
3.1-4.0: Strong identity cohesion providing stability and meaning

SECTION 2: ORGANISATIONAL COGNITION

Organisational Learning Capacity Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely limited learning capacity; organisation repeats errors
1.1-2.0: Deficient learning processes; occasional learning without systematic approach
2.1-3.0: Moderate learning capacity; some effective systems with gaps
3.1-4.0: Strong learning orientation integrated throughout organisation

Organisational Decision-Making Patterns Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional decision processes; decisions arbitrary or opaque
1.1-2.0: Problematic decision-making; significant inefficiencies or biases
2.1-3.0: Adequate decision processes with specific improvement opportunities
3.1-4.0: Highly effective decision-making processes

Organisational Sense-Making Capability Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____ Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely limited sense-making; organisation regularly misinterprets situations
1.1-2.0: Deficient sense-making processes; narrow or distorted interpretations
2.1-3.0: Moderate sense-making capability; generally accurate with blind spots
3.1-4.0: Strong sense-making supporting insightful interpretation of complex situations

SECTION 3: ORGANISATIONAL EMOTION & CLIMATE

Emotional Climate Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Toxic emotional climate; pervasive negative emotions
1.1-2.0: Problematic emotional climate; significant negative emotional tone
2.1-3.0: Moderate emotional health with specific areas of concern
3.1-4.0: Healthy emotional climate supporting organisational vitality

Psychological Safety Evaluation Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely unsafe psychological environment; fear-based culture
1.1-2.0: Limited psychological safety with significant barriers to openness
2.1-3.0: Moderate psychological safety with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Strong psychological safety supporting candour and learning

Organisational Trust Measure Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Pervasive distrust throughout organisation
1.1-2.0: Significant trust deficits in key relationships
2.1-3.0: Moderate trust levels with specific areas of concern
3.1-4.0: High trust environment supporting collaboration and efficiency

SECTION 4: ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES

Structural Health Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional organisational structures; significant barriers to effectiveness
1.1-2.0: Problematic structures with substantial inefficiencies
2.1-3.0: Adequate structures with specific improvement opportunities
3.1-4.0: Well-designed structures effectively supporting organisational purpose

Resource Allocation Patterns Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely problematic resource allocation; significant misalignment with priorities
1.1-2.0: Inefficient resource allocation with substantial waste or gaps
2.1-3.0: Adequate resource management with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Strategic resource allocation effectively supporting priorities

Organisational Justice Evaluation Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severe justice deficits; widespread perceptions of unfairness
1.1-2.0: Significant justice concerns undermining organisational trust
2.1-3.0: Moderate justice with specific improvement opportunities
3.1-4.0: Strong justice climate supporting organisational commitment

SECTION 5: ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE

Change Capacity Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely limited change capacity; organisation resistant or chaotic
1.1-2.0: Deficient change management with significant implementation failures
2.1-3.0: Moderate change capacity with specific improvement opportunities
3.1-4.0: Strong change capacity supporting effective adaptation

Innovation Climate Evaluation Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely limited innovation climate; organisation static or rigid
1.1-2.0: Weak innovation capability with barriers to new ideas
2.1-3.0: Moderate innovation climate with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Strong innovation capability supporting organisational renewal

Organisational Resilience Index Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Highly vulnerable organisation; limited capacity to withstand challenges
1.1-2.0: Fragile organisational systems with significant vulnerability
2.1-3.0: Moderate resilience with specific areas for strengthening
3.1-4.0: Highly resilient organisation capable of thriving amid disruption

SECTION 6: ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

Stakeholder Relations Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely problematic stakeholder relations; significant conflicts
1.1-2.0: Strained stakeholder relationships undermining effectiveness
2.1-3.0: Adequate stakeholder relations with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Strong stakeholder relationships supporting organisational success

Collective Engagement Measure Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severe engagement deficit; widespread disaffection
1.1-2.0: Significant engagement problems with limited commitment
2.1-3.0: Moderate engagement with uneven distribution
3.1-4.0: Strong engagement supporting organisational vitality

Power Dynamics Evaluation Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional power dynamics; power used coercively
1.1-2.0: Problematic power distribution hampering effectiveness
2.1-3.0: Adequate power dynamics with specific improvement areas
3.1-4.0: Healthy power dynamics supporting organisational effectiveness

COPE ORGANISATIONAL HEALTH PROFILE

Composite Scores

Organisational Identity & Purpose Composite (Purpose Clarity + Values Integration + Identity Cohesion) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Cognition Composite (Learning Capacity + Decision-Making Patterns + Sense-Making Capability) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Emotion & Climate Composite (Emotional Climate + Psychological Safety + Trust) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Systems & Structures Composite (Structural Health + Resource Allocation + Organisational Justice) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Adaptability & Resilience Composite (Change Capacity + Innovation Climate + Resilience) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Relationships & Engagement Composite (Stakeholder Relations + Collective Engagement + Power Dynamics) ÷ 3 = _____

Overall COPE Index Sum of all 6 Composite Scores ÷ 6 = _____

Interpretation Guidelines

Overall COPE Index:

0-1.0: Critical organisational dysfunction requiring fundamental intervention
1.1-2.0: Significant organisational health concerns requiring substantial intervention
2.1-3.0: Moderate organisational health with specific areas requiring attention
3.1-4.0: Strong organisational health supporting sustainable performance

COPE Profile Analysis

You might choose to plot each composite score on a radar chart to visualise the organisation’s psychological health profile:

Organisational Identity & Purpose Composite: _____
Organisational Cognition Composite: _____
Organisational Emotion & Climate Composite: _____
Organisational Systems & Structures Composite: _____
Organisational Adaptability & Resilience Composite: _____
Organisational Relationships & Engagement Composite: _____

COPE Intervention Planning

Identify the lowest two composite scores as primary intervention areas
Within those composites, identify specific scales with lowest scores
Consider interventions targeting specific dimensions requiring improvement
Create an intervention sequence addressing foundational issues first
Establish monitoring mechanisms to track intervention effectiveness
Schedule reassessment at appropriate intervals (typically 6-12 months)
Consider the self-intervention support available in Memeology.

COPE ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES

Participant Selection: Include diverse organisational members representing different levels, functions, and perspectives
Timing Considerations: Administer during relatively stable periods to establish baseline; avoid periods of acute crisis
Response Aggregation: Calculate mean scores across respondents for each item and scale
Variance Analysis: Examine patterns of agreement/disagreement across respondent groups
Qualitative Data: Supplement quantitative scores with structured interviews or focus groups
Contextual Interpretation: Consider results in light of organisational history, industry context, and strategic priorities
Longitudinal Tracking: Establish regular assessment cycles to monitor changes over time
Confidentiality: Ensure anonymous participation to encourage candid responses

APPENDIX: RELATION TO EXISTING ASSESSMENTS

The COPE Framework shares characteristics with several existing organisational assessment tools but is distinctive in its focus on organisational psychotherapy and collective memeplexes. Here’s how it relates to established frameworks:

Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) – Like COPE, the Denison model assesses organisational effectiveness across multiple dimensions including mission, adaptability, involvement, and consistency. While both use quantifiable metrics, COPE extends beyond culture to examine underlying psychological mechanisms.
Organizational Health Index (OHI) by McKinsey – The OHI measures organisational health across nine dimensions with 37 management practices. COPE shares the OHI’s view that organisational health predicts performance, but adds deeper psychological dimensions and a therapeutic orientation.
Barrett Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) – This assessment examines alignment between current and desired values in organisations. COPE builds on this by not only identifying values misalignment but also examining the psychological roots of such gaps.
Competing Values Framework (CVF) by Cameron and Quinn – This framework uses a quadrant model to classify organisational cultures (clan, adhocracy, market, hierarchy). While COPE similarly assesses cultural dimensions, it uses a different theoretical model based on organisational psychotherapy rather than competing values.

The COPE Framework is distinctive in its:

Grounding in organisational psychotherapy principles
Explicit focus on the collective psyche and memeplexes that shape organisational behaviour
Attention to how assumptions and beliefs manifest as patterns of behaviour and degrees of functioning
Assessment of psychological health across six interconnected dimensions
Integration of both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives
Consideration of organisational cognitive dissonance and its impacts
Examination of power dynamics from a psychological rather than purely structural perspective

COPE’s approach bridges the gap between traditional organisational assessments and therapeutic interventions, making it particularly suitable for organisations seeking transformative change through addressing their collective psychological patterns.

From Operational Value Streams to Prod•gnosis

May 12, 2025

Actionable Insights, Alien tech, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Capability development, Digital evolution, Flow, Flow•gnosis, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Prod•gnosis, Product development, SAR Organisations, Software development, Systems thinking, Value streams

Leave a comment

From Operational Value Streams to Prod•gnosis

Connecting Allen Ward and Bob Marshall’s Product Development Philosophies

A thoughtful exploration of two complementary approaches to transforming product development

Introduction

In the world of product development theory, two complementary approaches stand out for their innovative thinking about how organisations might tackle the creation of new products: Dr Allen Ward’s approach, born of many years researching the Toyota approach, and my own approach, which I’ve named Prod•gnosis

While Dr. Ward’s work on operational value streams emerged from his extensive study of Toyota’s product development system, Prod•gnosis builds upon and extends his ideas into a comprehensive framework focused on organisational transformation for better product development, reduced costs, and more appealing products.

This post explores the connections between these two approaches and how, together, they offer a powerful lens for fundamentally rethinking product development.

The Foundation: Allen Ward’s Operational Value Streams

Allen Ward’s core insight, which has become a cornerstone of lean product development e.g. TPDS, is elegantly simple yet profound:

“The aim of development is, in fact, the creation of profitable operational value streams.”

An operational value stream (OVS) represents the set of steps that deliver a product or service directly to the customer (and others). This includes activities like manufacturing a product, fulfilling an order, providing a loan, or delivering a professional service.

Ward’s work, drawing from his decade of direct research at Toyota, showed that effective product development isn’t just about designing isolated products. Rather, it’s about designing the entire system through which those products will be manufactured, shipped, sold, and serviced. This holistic approach explains much of Toyota’s success in bringing new products to market quickly and profitably.

Ward emphasised that creating profitable operational value streams requires:

A “whole product” approach that involves every area of the business
Knowledge creation as the central activity of product development
The use of tools like trade-off curves for decision-making and teaching
Systematic waste elimination throughout the development process

Prod•gnosis: Building on Ward’s Foundation

I’m delighted to acknowledge my intellectual debt to Dr. Ward. In my writings on Prod•gnosis, I directly reference Dr. Ward’s influence, adopting his view of “business as a collection of operational value streams.”

I define Prod•gnosis (a portmanteau of “Product”, and “Gnosis” meaning knowledge) as a specific approach to product development that places the creation of operational value streams at its centre. However, Prod•gnosis extends Dr. Ward’s thinking in several notable ways:

The Product Development Value Stream (PDVS)

Prod•gnosis introduces the concept of a dedicated “Product Development Value Stream” (PDVS) as a distinct organisational capability responsible for creating and instantiating operational value streams. I previously wrote:

“I suggest the most effective place for software development is in the ‘Product Development Value Stream’ (PDVS for short) – that part of the organisation which is responsible for creating each and every operational value stream.”

This represents a significant organisational shift from traditional department-based structures.

Challenging IT’s Role in Product Development

Prod•gnosis particularly questions the conventional role of IT departments in product development. Prod•gnosis argues that software development does not belong in IT departments but instead is much more effective when situated within the Product Development Value Stream:

“If we accept that the IT department is poorly suited to play the central role in a Prod•gnosis-oriented organisation, and that it is ill-suited to house or oversee software development (for a number of reasons), then where should software development ‘sit’ in an organisation?”

The answer is clear: within the PDVS, where it can directly contribute to creating operational value streams.

Incremental Implementation

Prod•gnosis proposes a “Lean Startup-like approach” to implementing operational value streams:

“I’m thinking more in terms of a Lean Startup-like approach – instantiating version 0.1 of the operational value stream as early as possible, conducting experiments with its operation in delivering an MVP (even before making its 1.0 product line available to buying customers), and through e.g. kaizen by either the product development or – the few, early – operational value stream folks (or both in collaboration), incrementally modifying, augmenting and elaborating it until the point of the 1.0 launch, and beyond.”

This represents a pragmatic approach to putting Dr. Ward’s principles into practice.

Key Points of Alignment

Despite their different emphases, Ward and Prod•gnosis’ approaches share significant philosophical alignment:

1. Value Stream-Centric View

Both view business fundamentally as a series of operational value streams, with product development focused on creating and improving these streams rather than just designing isolated products.

2. Whole Product Approach

Both emphasise the importance of involving all aspects of a business in product development. Prod•gnosis references Toyota’s “Big Rooms” (Obeya), which Ward studied extensively, as an example of effective cross-functional collaboration.

3. Systems Thinking

Both reject piecemeal improvements and advocate for fundamental shifts in organisational perspective. As Ward wrote and Prod•gnosis quotes: “Change will occur when the majority of people in the organisation have learned to see things in a new way.”

And see also: Organisational Psychotherapy as a means to help organisations see things in a new way.

4. Flow Focus

Both emphasise the importance of flow in product development, with Prod•gnosis particularly focused on aspects like flow rate, lead time, cycle time, and process cycle efficiency – both of the PVDS and the OVSs.

Practical Applications of the Combined Approach

Organisations seeking to apply these ideas might consider:

Creating a dedicated Product Development Value Stream responsible for designing and implementing operational value streams (a.k.a. new products)
Removing software development from IT departments and placing it within the PDVS
Adopting a “whole product” approach that brings together all business functions in the service of product development
Implementing early versions of operational value streams viw the PVDS, and then iteratively improving them
Measuring and optimising flow through the product development process

Getting There: Transitioning to Prod•gnosis

Moving from conventional product development approaches to a Prod•gnosis model represents a significant organisational transformation. As Prod•gnosis acknowledges,

“getting there from here is the real challenge”

The transition requires more than just structural or process changes—it demands a fundamental shift in collective mindset.

The Challenge of Organisational Transformation

The Lean literature is replete with stories of organisations failing to move from vertical silos to horizontal value streams. Prod•gnosis presents additional challenges by proposing to remove software development from IT departments and create an entirely new organisational capability (the PDVS).

As Ward wisely noted and Prod•gnosis quotes:

“Change will occur when the majority of people in the organisation have learned to see things in a new way.”

This insight highlights that sustainable transformation depends on shifting collective beliefs rather than merely implementing new processes.

Organisational Psychotherapy as a Path Forward

In Organisational Psychotherapy I propose as a methodical approach to shifting collective assumptions and beliefs. As an Organisational Psychotherapist, I apply psychotherapy techniques not just to individuals but to entire organisations.

OP recognises that organisations, like individuals, operate based on deep-seated assumptions and beliefs—i.e. “memeplexes” These collective mental models determine how an organisation functions and often unconsciously resist change. And see my book “Hearts over Diamonds” (Marshall, 2018) for more in-depth discusion of memeplexes.

Organisational Psychotherapy works by:

Helping organisations become aware of their current collective beliefs (surfacing)
Examining how these beliefs serve or hinder effectiveness (reflecting)
Supporting the organisation in exploring new, more productive mental models
Facilitating the adoption of these new models

For organisations seeking to move toward Prod•gnosis, this might involve addressing fundamental beliefs about:

The nature and purpose of product development
The relationship between software development and IT
The definition of “whole product”
The organisation’s relationship with customers and all the Folks That Matter™
How value flows through the organisation

As Prod•gnosis emphasises, this isn’t a quick fix. The transformation to Prod•gnosis represents a significant evolution in how organisations think about and structure product development. The journey requires patience, persistence, and a willingness to examine and change foundational assumptions about how product development might work significantly better.

Conclusion

The synthesis of Allen Ward’s operational value stream concept and Prod•gnosis offers a powerful framework for rethinking product development. By viewing product development as the creation of complete operational value streams and establishing organisational structures that support this perspective, organisations can potentially achieve the kind of rapid, profitable product development that Toyota has demonstrated.

As more organisations struggle with digital transformation and the ever-increasing importance of software in product development, these two complementary approaches may provide a valuable roadmap for fundamentally rethinking how products are developed and brought to market.

What are your thoughts on the operational value stream approach to product development? Have you seen examples of it in practice? I’d love for you to share your experiences in the comments below.

Prod•gnosis: Nothing New, Just Better Organised

April 25, 2025

Actionable Insights, Article, Capability development, Prod•gnosis, Product development, Productivity, Quintessence, Value streams

Leave a comment

Prod•gnosis: Nothing New, Just Better Organised

Every organisation creates new operational value streams when launching products—they just do it chaotically. When a new product line emerges, companies cobble together resources across departments, form temporary project teams, and somehow bring products to market. The Prod•gnosis model simply formalises what already happens, but in a structured way that eliminates the chaos and the costs.

The Core Insight: Acknowledge What You’re Already Doing

Organisations are already operating with two distinct value streams, though almost never by design:

Ad hoc Product Development: Temporary cross-functional efforts that somehow create new products
Operational Value Streams: Systems that eventually deliver and support those products

The problem isn’t that companies don’t create new operational value streams—they do. But they do it inconsistently, reactively, implicitly, and often painfully.

The Current Reality: Chaotic Creation

Look carefully at how your organisation actually launches new products:

Marketing creates requirements in isolation
Product teams prioritise based on limited technical understanding
Engineering builds what they interpret from incomplete specifications
Operations scrambles to ship and support whatever gets delivered to them
Project managers desperately try to coordinate across departmental boundaries

This chaotic approach somehow delivers products, but at tremendous cost: missed deadlines (cost of delay), technical debt, market misalignment (cost of focus), and burned-out teams. You’re already creating operational value streams—just in the most painful way possible.

From Chaos to Capability: The PDVS Advantage

A Product Development Value Stream (PVDS) simply formalises what you’re already attempting to do, transforming a chaotic process into a permanent ever-improving capability:

Instead of forming temporary project teams, maintain dedicated cross-functional groups
Rather than reinventing processes with each new product, develop institutional expertise
Replace improvised handoffs with designed collaboration
Transform one-off learning into compounding organisational knowledge
Make schedules highly dependable through e.g. set-based concurrent engineering

You’re already paying the cost of creating new operational value streams—adopting the Prod•gnosis perspective just ensures you get full value from that effort.

Making the Implicit Explicit

To transform your chaotic product creation into a structured capability:

Identify who’s actually creating your new operational value streams today
Formalise these cross-functional collaborations into permanent teams
Move software development from IT into this product development capability
Replace departmental handoffs with integrated teamwork
Capture the knowledge that’s currently lost between product launches

The Bottom Line

Your organisation is already creating new operational value streams—just inefficiently, and without realising it. Prod•gnosis doesn’t ask you to do anything fundamentally new. It simply recognises and organises what you’re already doing, transforming chaos into capability.

The cost is organisational change. The benefit is turning an expensive, unpredictable process into a strategic advantage. Nothing new, just better organised.

The Ignorance Epidemic: Why Knowledge Transfer Fails in Tech

March 5, 2025

Agile, Article, Capability development, Careers, Lamentation, Learning

2 Comments

The Ignorance Epidemic: Why Knowledge Transfer Fails in Tech

I’ve lost count of the number of people – especially developers, but also managers, trainers and consultants, that have shown zero interest in learning anything from me. Even in my several roles as CEO, almost nobody seemed even the slightest bit interested in taking advantage of my skills, experience and knowhow. You might be thinking this says something about me, and maybe that’s so, but I note a similar disconnect these folks have with other knowledgeable folks too. Even as I junior developer way back when, none of my fellow developers seemed even the slighted bit interested in learning.

After decades of observing this phenomenon across organisations, I’ve identified several core reasons why people resist learning opportunities that could significantly advance their careers and benefit their teams. And yes, intrinsic joy in learning is also a thing, but rarely pursued, it seems.

Note:

I define learning as experiences that shape and change behaviours, not just acquisition of information:

If behaviours haven’t changed then learning hasn’t happened.

~ FlowChainSensei

Petulance: The Childish Resistance

It’s surprising how often I’ve witnessed grown(?) professionals respond to learning opportunities with what can only be described as petulance. When presented with a chance to learn something new—whether it’s a more efficient coding technique or a strategic business approach—many respond as if they’ve been asked to eat green vegetables. This childish unwillingness to engage with new material manifests as sighs, eye-rolls, or passive-aggressive compliance that ensures minimal absorption.Sometimes even outright hostility.

Laziness: The Path of Least Resistance

Let’s be honest: learning requires effort. In our comfort-oriented culture, many choose the easiest path rather than the most rewarding one. I’ve watched talented developers continue using inefficient workflows simply because learning a better approach would require initial investment of energy. This intellectual laziness stunts growth and ultimately creates more work in the long run.

“Too Much Like Hard Work”

Closely related to laziness is the perception that learning is laborious rather than rewarding. The phrase I hear repeatedly is, “That sounds too much like hard work.” This attitude reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how learning functions in personal growth. The temporary discomfort of stretching one’s capabilities always pays dividends, yet many resist anything that doesn’t provide immediate gratification.

Note: At this point I’d like to mention the book “Mastery” by George Leonard.It’s quiet short and to the point.

Indifference: The Motivation Vacuum

Perhaps most puzzling is the sheer indifference I encounter. Even when I’ve made myself available for folks to ask about things that would directly solve problems they are actively struggling with, I’ve been met with tumbleweed – blank stares or polite nods that signal nothing will change. This lack of curiosity about improving one’s craft suggests many are simply going through the motions in their working lives.

Arrogance: “I Already Know”

Technical fields seem particularly prone to the Dunning-Kruger effect, where limited knowledge creates overconfidence. I’ve encountered junior developers who dismiss insights from those with decades of experience, convinced their six months of coding has given them comprehensive understanding. This arrogance creates impenetrable barriers to knowledge transfer.

No Hunger: The Ambition Deficit

Lencioni in his book “The Ideal Team Player” suggests that success requires hunger—a driving desire to improve and excel. Many folks today seem satisfied with mediocrity, lacking the ambition that fuels learning. Without this internal motivation, even the most valuable knowledge remains lock up run islands of expertise and experience. I’ve offered mentorship to individuals who showed initial interest but lacked the drive to follow through and pursue excellence beyond their comfort zones.

Selfishness: Overlooking the Common Good

Perhaps most concerning to me is the widespread failure to recognise how individual learning benefits collective outcomes. Knowledge hoarding and resistance to shared learning creates organisational silos and redundant mistakes. I’ve watched teams struggle with problems that other teams have already solved simply because members prioritised personal identity over communal knowledge building.

The irony is that those most resistant to learning often need it most. The rapid evolution of technology means that today’s expertise becomes tomorrow’s obsolescence. Organisations that fail to cultivate continuous learning cultures find themselves outpaced by more adaptable competitors.

Peer Pressure: The “Uncool” Factor

Another powerful deterrent to learning that I’ve observed over the years is peer pressure, particularly amongst male developers. Much like schoolboys who mock the swot, there exists in most organisations a bizarre culture where being eager to learn is somehow deemed “uncool”. I’ve witnessed talented but immature developers deliberately avoid knowledge-sharing sessions or downplay their interest in learning new things simply to maintain their perceived status within the group.

This playground mentality creates a toxic environment where intellectual curiosity becomes a liability rather than an asset. Developers who might genuinely want to improve feel compelled to hide their enthusiasm for learning, lest they be labelled as overeager. The resulting culture of celebrated ignorance becomes self-reinforcing, with each member of the group tacitly agreeing not to progress beyond a collectively acceptable level of commitment.

What’s particularly frustrating about this dynamic is how it persists well beyond the schoolboy years. Workplace environments become stunted by the same social dynamics that govern secondary schools, with the “cool kids” dictating acceptable levels of engagement and enthusiasm.

The Agile Paradox: Learning in Theory, Not in Practice

One of the most glaring contradictions I’ve witnessed across decades in the industry is how Agile approaches—which explicitly promote continuous learning—so rarely deliver on this promise in practice. The Agile Manifesto itself values “responding to change” and continuous improvement, with retrospectives specifically designed to facilitate team learning. Practices like pair programming and knowledge sharing are promoted as foundational elements of the approach.

Yet in reality, I’ve sat through countless hollow retrospectives where genuine learning opportunities are sidestepped in favour of superficial discussions that avoid challenging established practices and ignorances. “Sprint reviews” become demonstrations of completed work rather than critical evaluations that might prompt deeper learning. The promised knowledge transfer of pair and ensemble programming degenerates into one person typing while others watch passively.

The pressure to deliver within each sprint typically overwhelms any meaningful commitment to learning. When teams are asked to estimate work, they rarely account for learning time, treating knowledge acquisition as something that happens magically alongside delivery. The result is predictable: technical debt accumulates, and teams and whole organisations repeatedly encounter the same obstacles without developing the knowledge needed to overcome them permanently.

Perhaps most tellingly, organisations proudly proclaim their Agile credentials whilst simultaneously eliminating dedicated learning time as “inefficient.” The irony appears lost on management that removes slack from the system and then wonders why teams cannot improve. Does this fundamental disconnect between Agile’s learning principles and its real-world implementation represent one of the greatest missed opportunities in modern software development?

Summary

What’s your experience with learning resistance? Have you encountered these behaviours in your organisation, and do you recognise them in yourself? The first step toward change is awareness—perhaps acknowledgment of these barriers can help us collectively build more effective learning cultures and more successful, fulfilling workplaces?

The Evolution of Social Engineering: Rossi’s Vision for Organisational Psychotherapy

December 13, 2024

Argyris, Article, Capability development, Engineering, Organisational behaviour, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts

2 Comments

The Evolution of Social Engineering: Rossi’s Vision for Organisational Psychotherapy

Understanding Rossi’s Core Argument

In his seminal paper’s conclusion, Peter Rossi presents a sophisticated dual proposition that merits careful examination. Rather than simply critiquing existing approaches, he advocates for a fundamental transformation in how we approach social – including organisational – change, encompassing both theoretical foundations and practical applications of social engineering/organisational psychotherapy as a professional discipline.

The First Pillar: Policy-Relevant Basic Social Science

The Need for Deeper Understanding

Rossi’s call for developing policy-relevant basic social science stems from his recognition that many interventions fail due to insufficient understanding of fundamental social mechanisms. This isn’t merely about gathering more data; it’s about developing comprehensive theoretical frameworks that can explain how social systems – including organisations – actually function.

When we examine social systems closely, we find they behave much like complex organisms, with interconnected parts that influence each other in subtle and often unpredictable ways. This complexity demands a more sophisticated approach to research and intervention.

Bridging Theory and Practice

The emphasis on “policy-relevant” research is crucial here. Rossi envisions social science that maintains rigorous academic standards whilst directly informing practical interventions. This represents a departure from purely theoretical research, pushing instead for knowledge that can be meaningfully applied to real-world challenges.

The Second Pillar: Professional Social Engineering

A New Professional Discipline

Perhaps most intriguingly, Rossi advocates for the establishment of social engineering as a distinct profession. This recommendation might seem to contradict his famous Iron Law of Evaluation, but it actually builds upon it in a sophisticated way. The professional social engineer / organisational psychotherapist Rossi envisions would be equipped with both theoretical knowledge and practical skills, much like other established professions such as medicine or architecture.

The Therapeutic Dimension

Much like individual psychotherapy focuses on personal growth and healing, this new profession would examine the collective psyche of organisations and other social systems. This approach recognises that organisations, like individuals, can develop dysfunctional patterns, trauma responses, and defence mechanisms that require careful and skillful intervention.

The Integration: Creating Sustainable Change

Competencies

Modern practitioners in this field will benefit from developing a unique blend of skills, combining:

Deep understanding of social systems theory
Practical knowledge of organisational dynamics
Therapeutic techniques adapted for collective application
Evaluation methodologies for measuring intervention outcomes
Systematic intervention design capabilities

Beyond Traditional Change Management

Unlike traditional change management approaches, this new profession adopts a more nuanced, healing-oriented perspective. It acknowledges that resistance to change often stems from deeply embedded organisational trauma or learned defensive patterns, while remaining grounded in rigorous scientific methodology.

The Path Forward: Implementing Rossi’s Vision

Learning from the Iron Law

Rossi’s Iron Law of Evaluation isn’t presented as a barrier to success, but rather as a crucial insight that should inform how we approach social change. It suggests that social engineering must be grounded in realistic expectations and robust evidence, while maintaining the aspiration to create meaningful change through competent and skillful intervention.

Building Standards

The discipline Rossi envisions requires developing standardised bodies of knowledge, ethics and standards, effective training programmes, and evidence-based practices. This framework would help ensure that interventions are both scientifically grounded and practically effective.

Concluding Reflections

Rossi’s conclusion represents a sophisticated approach to social change that remains remarkably relevant today. By advocating for both enhanced basic research and professional development, he charts a course between naive optimism and complete skepticism. This balanced perspective offers valuable guidance for contemporary efforts to address social challenges through therapeutic interventions.

The vision he presents transcends traditional social programming, pushing toward a more nuanced understanding of how to effect change in complex social systems. As organisations continue to face increasingly complex challenges, the need for this kind of sophisticated approach to social engineering a.k.a. organisational psychotherapy becomes ever more apparent.

The emergence of this new discipline represents a significant evolution in how we approach social and organisational transformation. By combining Rossi’s vision for remade social engineering with therapeutic principles and rigorous scientific methodology, we create a powerful framework for addressing the complex challenges faced by modern organisations and societies.

Burn It Down: Radical HR for a Post-Industrial World

December 3, 2024

Article, Attendants, Business, Capability development, Culture change, HR, Revolution

Leave a comment

Burn It Down: Radical HR for a Post-Industrial World

The Existential Crisis of Human Resources

Traditional HR is a rotting corpse of industrial-age thinking—a parasitic function that suffocates organisational potential. It’s time to perform radical surgery, not incremental adjustment.

Dismantling the Bureaucratic Prison

Total Deconstruction of Hierarchical Control

HR has been the primary mechanism of corporate oppression, maintaining archaic power structures that:

Suppress individual creativity and autonomy
Enforce soul-crushing conformity not employee mastery
Perpetuate systemic mediocrity rather than championing Purpose

The Manifesto of Human Potential

Liberation Through Radical Autonomy

Reimagine HR not as a department, but as a liberation movement:

Dismantle job descriptions
Eliminate performance reviews
Destroy top-down decision-making
Create fluid, self-organising human networks

Introducing the Needsscape: A Radical Paradigm of Organisational Design

The Needsscape represents a revolutionary approach to understanding and organizing human potential within an organization. It’s not a static map, but a dynamic, living ecosystem of human needs, desires, capabilities, and potential contributions.

Deconstructing Traditional Motivation Models

Conventional organizational approaches treat human motivation as a simplistic, linear construct—typically reduced to monetary compensation, hierarchical progression, or basic psychological rewards. The Needsscape obliterates these reductive models.

Principles of the Needsscape

Holistic Human Understanding

The Needsscape acknowledges that each individual is a complex, multidimensional being with:

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
Evolving personal and professional aspirations
Unique intersections of skills, passions, and potential contributions
Dynamic personal and collective purpose

Continuous Needs Mapping and Tracking

Instead of annual performance reviews or rigid job descriptions, organizations will:

Develop real-time, multi-dimensional needs mapping technologies
Create fluid skill and contribution marketplaces
Enable individuals to continuously reconfigure their organizational role
Support dynamic value creation beyond traditional job boundaries

Governance as Dynamic Ecosystem

Replacing Policies with Living Protocols

Instead of rigid rules, develop:

Real-time adaptable collaboration frameworks
Transparent, collective sense-making mechanisms
Continuous consent-based decision processes

Capability Development as Perpetual Becoming

Learning as Fundamental Organisational DNA

Transform learning from a static event to a continuous, emergent process:

Individual learning budgets with zero managerial approval
Peer-to-peer skill exchange platforms
Radical transparency about individual and collective capabilities
Continuous skill recombination
Hire learners, not workers

Economic Model Transformation

Destroying Compensation Orthodoxies

Radical reimagining of value creation:

Eliminate fixed salaries – have folks set their own compensation packages, without management approval or oversight
Implement dynamic value contribution models
Create internal marketplace for skills and contributions
Transparent earnings across the entire organisation

Technology as Collective Intelligence Amplifier

Platforms of Human Potential

Develop technological infrastructure that:

Eliminates hierarchical communication channels
Enables real-time needs vs skills matching
Supports emergent collective intelligence
Creates frictionless collaboration spaces

Cultural Revolution

From Compliance to Collective Emergence

HR becomes the catalyst for:

Dismantling power structures
Supporting radical transparency
Enabling continuous organisational reinvention
Championing human agency

Conclusion: Organisational Rebirth

HR is not a function to be reformed—it’s a paradigm to be obliterated. The future belongs to organisations that see humans not as resources to be managed, but as living, dynamic networks of potential waiting to be enabled and unleashed.

This is not an incremental change. This is a revolution.

The Perennial Delusion: Talent Matters But a Jot

December 3, 2024

Article, Business, Capability development, Coaching, Culture change, Learning, Quintessence, Talent

Leave a comment

The Perennial Delusion: Talent Matters But a Jot

Redefining Talent: A Dynamic Perspective

Angela Duckworth offers a compelling reimagining of talent that shifts our understanding from a static, innate quality to a dynamic process. As she articulates, talent is fundamentally “the rate at which you get better with effort.” This definition is revolutionary—talent becomes not a fixed attribute, but a malleable capacity for improvement.

Duckworth’s View

Consider her precise framing: “The rate at which you get better at soccer is your soccer talent. The rate at which you get better at math is your math talent.” This approach acknowledges individual differences while simultaneously emphasising the critical role of effort and learning.

Deconstructing the Talent Myth: Insights from Bill Deming

W. Edwards Deming’s perspective complements Duckworth’s framework. His groundbreaking work argued that variation in performance is predominantly a function of the system (the way the work works), not individual capabilities.

The System’s Primacy

Deming posited that approximately 94% of performance variation is attributable to the system within which people work, with only a minimal percentage—around 6%—related to individual effort or inherent skill. This profound insight aligns with Duckworth’s view that talent is about improvement rate, not predetermined potential.

The Multifaceted Nature of Talent

Talent emerges from a complex interaction between:

Individual learning capacity
Organisational infrastructure
Quality of deliberate practice
Systemic support mechanisms

The Contextual Nature of Performance

An individual’s ability to improve—their “talent rate”—is dramatically influenced by their environment. A person with high potential in a dysfunctional system will struggle to develop, while someone in a well-designed learning environment can accelerate their skill acquisition.

Practical Implications for Organisations

Reimagining Talent Development

Progressive organisations might choose to focus on:

Creating environments that maximise learning potential
Providing structured, deliberate practice opportunities
Designing systems that accelerate individual improvement rates
Recognising and supporting different learning trajectories

Critical Considerations

Duckworth’s perspective does not suggest that all individuals are equally talented. Instead, she acknowledges that meaningful differences exist in how quickly people can improve. This nuanced view challenges both the myth of innate, unchangeable talent and the notion that effort alone guarantees success.

Conclusion: A Holistic Approach to Performance

The intersection of Duckworth’s and Deming’s insights offers a transformative perspective. Talent is not a fixed trait discovered, but a dynamic capacity cultivated through:

Intentional effort
Supportive systems
Continuous learning
Personalised development strategies

The most effective organisations are those that create systems and environments where individuals can discover and accelerate their unique rates of improvement—their true “talent.” Oh, and those that recognise the quest for talent as futile and delusional.

The Attendant Role: Focussing on Folks’ Needs

October 9, 2024

Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Capability development, Culture change, Needs

1 Comment

The Attendant Role: Focussing on Folks’ Needs

Introduction: A Paradigm Shift

In an era dominated by technological advancements, organisations have long placed software developers on a pedestal. But what if this focus is fundamentally misaligned with true business needs? Is it time to challenge the status quo and consider a rethought approach: the rise of the attendant?

The Software Illusion

For decades, we’ve conflated software capability with business success. The mantra has been clear: more software equals more progress. But this equation is fundamentally flawed. Organisations don’t need lines of code; they need solutions to real-world problems and ways to serve their customers better.

As Steve Jobs famously said:

“The way you get programmer productivity is not by increasing the lines of code per programmer per day. That doesn’t work. The way you get programmer productivity is by eliminating lines of code you have to write. The line of code that’s the fastest to write, that never breaks, that doesn’t need maintenance, is the line you never had to write.”

~ Steve Jobs

Introducing the Attendant: The Unsung Hero of Business

Enter the attendant – not just a job title, but a mindset and approach to work. Attendants are individuals who possess an uncanny ability to understand and address the needs of the “Folks That Matter™” – customers, employees, management, and shareholders alike.

The Attendant Skill Set: More Than Meets the Eye

Attendants bring a unique blend of skills to the table:

Empathetic listening
Systems thinking
Adaptive problem-solving
Cross-functional communication
Customer journey mapping
Resource wrangling

These skills enable attendants to see beyond surface-level issues and address the real needs of the Folka That Matter™.

From Code-Centric to Human-Centric: The Attendant Advantage

By prioritising attendants, organisations can achieve:

Deeper customer insights leading to innovative solutions
Streamlined processes that actually work for employees
Reduced waste from misaligned technology investments
A culture of quality and adaptation

The Vanguard Method: A Blueprint for Attendant-Led Transformation

John Seddon’s Vanguard Method provides a framework that aligns perfectly with the attendant approach:

Understand customer demand in customer terms
Redesign work as a system to meet that demand
Embed new thinking and practice through continuous learning
Defer software implementation until after business processes have been reengineered (“Software Last”).

This method forms the backbone of attendant-driven product (and process) development.

Implementing the Attendant Model: A Roadmap

To embrace the attendant model, organisations might choose to:

Redefine success metrics around outcomes for all the Folks That Matter™
Invest in developing attendant skills across all levels
Create cross-functional “attendant teams” to tackle larger products and more complex issues
Implement regular “gemba walks”and dialogues with the Folks That Matter™ to stay connected with front-line realities
Establish feedback loops that prioritise customer, employee and other voices

Proving Value: The Attendant Approach in Action

Before even considering software solutions, organisations might:

Conduct immersive customer research using ethnographic methods
Prototype low-tech solutions and iterate based on real-world feedback
Use visualisations to make system performance visible to all
Engage the Folks That Matter™ in participatory design workshops

Only after these steps have yielded tangible improvements can technology be considered as a scaling tool.

Technology’s New Role: Amplifying Human Potential

In an attendant-enabled organisation, technology takes its rightful place as a supporter, not a driver, of change. Software becomes a tool to augment human capabilities, not replace them.

Conclusion: The Future is Attendant

As we stand at the crossroads of technological innovation and human-centered design, the choice is clear. Organisations that embrace the attendant model – focusing on understanding and meeting human needs before jumping to technological solutions – will be the ones that thrive in the coming decades.

The future of business isn’t about having the most advanced software; it’s about having people who can truly attend to the needs of those who matter most. By putting attendants at the forefront, we can create organisations that are not just speciously efficient, but genuinely effective in serving their purpose.

Are you ready to join the era of attendants?

Gullibility in Tech: A Critical Look at Hiring Practices

September 23, 2024

Article, Attendants, Business, Capability development, Recruiting, Self-organisation

Leave a comment

Gullibility in Tech: A Critical Look at Hiring Practices

The Allure of the Inexperienced Developer

In the fast-paced world of technology, one might assume that businesses would prioritise hiring the most skilled and experienced software developers. However, a troubling trend has emerged in recent years: the preference for junior developers who are more susceptible to management micromanaging. This practice, rooted in a desire for control – and, incidentally cost-cutting – raises questions about the long-term productivity and viability of tech companies and the ethics of their hiring practices.

The Gullibility Factor: A Double-Edged Sword

What Makes Junior Developers More Gullible?

Junior developers, fresh out of university or coding bootcamps, often lack the real-world life experiences that breeds healthy scepticism. Their eagerness to please and prove themselves can make them more amenable to questionable management practices. This gullibility, while potentially beneficial for managers seeking to exert control, can have detrimental effects on both the individual and the company. And the managers themselves, too, if they but knew it.

The Short-Term Benefits for Management

For tech managers inclined towards micromanagement (most of them), junior developers present an appealing prospect. They are:

More likely to accept unrealistic deadlines
Less likely to question inefficient processes
Eager to work long hours to prove their worth
More malleable in terms of company culture
Less aware of development and management best practices – practices conspicuous by their absence in many organisations

The Hidden Costs of Exploiting Gullibility

Stunted Professional Growth

By hiring developers based on their susceptibility to micromanagement, companies inadvertently hamper their employees’ professional development. The constant oversight and lack of autonomy prevent junior developers from developing critical thinking skills and the confidence to innovate.

High Turnover Rates

As junior developers gain experience and realise their true worth – and the definciencies of their current employers – they are likely to seek employment elsewhere. This leads to high turnover rates, which are costly for businesses in terms of both time and resources.

Compromised Code Quality

Micromanagement often results in developers focusing on meeting arbitrary metrics rather than producing quality, maintainable code. This short-sighted approach can lead to technical debt and long-term issues for the company.

The Ethical Implications

Exploitation of Naive Talent

The deliberate hiring of gullible junior developers borders on exploitation. It takes advantage of their inexperience and enthusiasm, potentially causing lasting damage to their careers and self-esteem.

Perpetuating Toxic Work Cultures

By quietly prioritising gullibility in hiring decisions, companies risk creating and perpetuating toxic work environments. This can lead to a cycle of poor management practices and subpar output.

Breaking the Cycle: A Call for Change

Valuing Experience and Critical Thinking

Tech companies might better choose to recognise the value that experienced developers bring to the table. Their ability to question processes, suggest improvements, and mentor junior staff is invaluable for long-term success.Although deeply unpopular with command-and-control obsessed egoistic managers.

Fostering a Culture of Trust and Autonomy

Rather than seeking to control developers through micromanagement, companies might choose to focus on creating environments that foster trust, autonomy, and creativity. This approach leads to more innovative solutions and higher job satisfaction. In the bigger picture, see also: Auftragstaktik (a.k.a. Misson-type tactics).

Investing in Professional Development

By investing in the professional development of junior developers, companies can cultivate a loyal and skilled workforce. This long-term strategy is far more beneficial than exploiting gullibility for short-term gains.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The tech industry’s fixation on hiring gullible junior developers is a short-sighted strategy that undermines the very innovation it seeks to foster. By recognising the value of experience, critical thinking, and autonomy, tech companies can build stronger teams, produce better products, and contribute to a healthier industry overall. Is it yet time for a paradigm shift in hiring practices—one that values potential and skill over malleability and gullibility?

Enhancing Software Development Outcomes

August 12, 2024

Antimatter principle, Article, Capability development, Collective psyche, Deming, Giants, Memeology, Motivation, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Psychology, Quantification, Rightshifting, Self-organisation, Software development, Systems thinking

Leave a comment

Enhancing Software Development Outcomes

A Cornucopia of Techniques

In the realm of software development, teams have at their disposal a rich array of techniques designed to raise productivity and outcomes. These techniques, evolved over decades, and championed by thought leaders in their respective fields, offer unique approaches to common challenges. Let’s explore some of the most notable ones:

Gilb’s Evolutionary Project Management (Evo)

Tom Gilb’s Evo technique emphasises incremental delivery and the use of quantification, focusing on delivering measurable value to the Folks That Matter™ early and often throughout the development lifecycle.

Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints (TOC)

Eliyahu Goldratt’s TOC encourages teams to identify and manage the primary bottlenecks in their processes, thereby improving overall system performance.

Ackoff and Systems Thinking

Russell Ackoff’s techniques promote viewing problems holistically, considering the interconnections between various parts of a system rather than addressing issues in isolation.

Seddon’s Vanguard Method

John Seddon’s Vanguard method advocates for understanding work as a system, focusing on customer demand and designing the organisation to meet that demand effectively.

Rother’s Toyota Kata

Mike Rother’s Toyota Kata is a practice routine that helps teams develop scientific thinking skills, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and adaptation.

Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge

W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge is a management philosophy that emphasises system thinking, understanding variation, and the importance of intrinsic motivation in the workplace. SoPK consists of four main themes:

Appreciation for a System
- Understanding how different parts of an organisation interact and work together
- Recognising that optimising individual components doesn’t necessarily optimise the whole system
Knowledge about Variation
- Understanding the difference between common cause and special cause variation
- Recognising when to take action on a process and when to leave it alone
Theory of Knowledge
- Emphasising the importance of prediction in management
- Understanding that all management is prediction and that learning comes from comparing predictions with outcomes
Psychology
- Understanding human behaviour and motivation
- Recognising the importance of intrinsic motivation over extrinsic rewards and punishments

Marshall’s Organisational Psychotherapy

My own field of Organisational Psychotherapy focuses on techniques for addressing the collective assumptions and beliefs of an organisation, aiming to improve outcomes and overall effectiveness through overhauling these shared assumptions.

The Adoption Quandary

Whilst these various techniques offer glittering avenues for improvement, many development teams find themselves at a crossroads. The crux of the matter lies in two key questions:

Will the effort invested in mastering one or more of these techniques yield a worthwhile return?
More fundamentally though, can we muster the motivation to make the necessary effort?

The Crux: Self-Motivation

The second question is the more critical of the two. It’s not merely about the potential payoff; it’s about the willingness to embark on the journey of learning and mastery in the first place. Crucially, this motivation must emanate from within the team itself, rather than relying on external factors.

Surmounting Inertia

Change is inherently challenging, and the comfort of familiar practices can be a powerful deterrent to adopting new techniques. Teams rarely find the inner drive to overcome this inertia and push themselves towards new horizons.

Nurturing a Desire for Self-Betterment

Fostering a culture that values learning and self-betterment is paramount. When team members view challenges as opportunities for growth rather than insurmountable obstacles, they’re more likely to embrace new techniques. This mindset shift must be initiated and nurtured by the team itself.

Peer-Driven Inspiration

In the all-too-common absence of top-down motivation, teams can look to each other for inspiration and encouragement. By sharing successes, discussing challenges, and collaboratively exploring new techniques, team members can create a supportive environment that fuels self-betterment.

Individual Responsibility

Each team member bears the responsibility for their own personal and professional development. By setting personal goals for improvement and actively seeking out opportunities to learn and apply new techniques, individuals can drive the team’s overall progress.

Conclusion

While the array of available techniques to improve development team outcomes is legion, the true challenge lies not in their complexity or the time required to master them. Rather, it’s in cultivating the self-motivation to pursue excellence and adopt such techniques.

As we ponder the question, “Can we be bothered to make the effort to improve ourselves, our capabilties and our outcomes?”, we must remember that the most successful teams are those who answer with a resounding “Yes” – not because they’re compelled to, but because they genuinely desire to excel. It is this intrinsic commitment to growth and improvement that ultimately distinguishes high-performing teams from the rest. And if the outcomes are simply making the rich (management, shareholders) richer, then none of this is likely to happen.

The journey of improvement commences with a single step, taken not because someone else pushed us, but because we ourselves choose to move forward. In the end, the power to transform our outcomes lies within our own hands. The techniques are there, waiting to be explored and mastered. The question remains: are we ready to take steps towards a better future for ourselves, our teams and our lives? Do we need it?

Postscript

By the bye, this subject was the topic of my keynote at Agile Spain, 2016 2 December 2016, in Vitoria Gasteiz.

Mummery

June 29, 2024

Agile, Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Dialogue, Joy, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence

Leave a comment

Mummery

In the realm of software development, we often witness a curious spectacle: the performance of rituals and practices that, whilst appearing productive on the surface, amount to little more than elaborate pantomime. This phenomenon, which we might dub ‘mummery’, has deep roots in the industry’s power structures and misaligned incentives. Let’s delve into the causes of this theatrical approach to software development, with a particular focus on the tension between management and the boots-on-the-ground developers and testers.

The Management Muppet Show

The Illusion of Control

At the heart of many mummery practices lies management’s desire for control and predictability in an inherently unpredictable field. This manifests in the imposition of rigid processes that often fail to account for the nuanced, creative nature of software development.

Case in Point: The Scrum Straitjacket

Many a developer has found themselves forced into the constraining embrace of Scrum, not because it’s the best fit for their project or team, but because it provides management with the comforting illusion of progress through burndown charts and velocity metrics. The result? Daily stand-ups that feel more like status reports to appease the powers that be, rather than collaborative problem-solving sessions.

The Metrics Mirage

In their quest for quantifiable progress, managers often grasp at metrics that are easy to measure but may not reflect genuine productivity or quality.

The Story Point Saga

Developers and testers frequently find themselves pressured to assign story points to tasks, engaging in estimation exercises that feel more like crystal ball gazing than scientific measurement. The root cause? A managerial need for ‘data’, even if that data is fundamentally flawed.

The Compliance Charade

Ticking Boxes, Missing the Point

Many mummery practices stem from a culture of compliance, where the appearance of following best practices trumps actual effectiveness.

The Code Review Ritual

While code reviews are invaluable when done properly, they can devolve into perfunctory checkbox exercises. Developers, under pressure to meet deadlines, may perform cursory reviews, leaving substantive issues unaddressed. The root cause? A management culture that values the appearance of quality processes over their substance.

The Agile Theatre

Agile methodologies, originally intended to empower developers, have in many organisations become a top-down mandate, stripped of their original flexibility and purpose.And owned by the management, not the workers (as was the original intent).

The Sprint Planning Pantomime

Developers and testers often find themselves participating in sprint planning sessions where the ‘plan’ has already been decided by management. The root cause? A fundamental misunderstanding of Agile principles, coupled with a reluctance to relinquish control.

The Innovation Illusion

Buzzword Bingo

In an industry that deludes itself that it’s being constantly innovative, there’s immense pressure to appear cutting-edge. This can lead to the adoption of trendy technologies or approaches without proper consideration of their actual value.

The Microservices Mania

Developers may find themselves forced to refactor perfectly functional monolithic applications into microservices architectures, not because it’s necessary, but because management has bought into the hype. The root cause? A fear of appearing outdated, combined with a misunderstanding of when and why to adopt new architectures.

Breaking Free from the Mummery

Fostering Authentic Dialogue

To combat mummery, organisations need to create safe spaces for honest communication between management and development teams. This involves:

1. Encouraging developers and testers to provide feedback on processes without fear of retribution.
2. Educating management on the realities of software development, including its inherent uncertainties.
3. Emphasizing outcomes over output, focusing on delivering value rather than adhering to rigid processes.

Embracing True Agility

Rather than imposing Agile practices from the top down, organisations should empower teams to adapt methodologies to their specific needs. This might mean:

1. Allowing teams to experiment with different approaches and learn from failures.
2. Focusing on the principles behind Agile rather than rigidly adhering to specific practices.
3. Recognising that different projects and teams may require different approaches.

Surfacing Shared Assumptions and Beliefs

One of the most insidious causes of mummery in software development is the presence of unexamined, often conflicting assumptions and beliefs about how work actually happens. To combat this, organisations might choose to actively surface and reflect upon – through e.g. dialogue – these underlying assumptions and beliefs:

Conduct Assumption Archaeology: Regularly hold sessions where team members, including management, developers, and testers, articulate their beliefs about how and why work gets done. This might reveal surprising differences in perspectives, such as:
- Management assuming that productivity is directly proportional to hours worked, while developers know that creative problem-solving often happens during downtime, and away from the desk.
- Testers believing that catching bugs is a sign of their effectiveness, while developers might see it as a failure of their process.
- The role of Quality and the purpose, practices of “QA”.
Create a Shared Mental Model: Once assumptions are surfaced, work together to create a shared understanding of the software development process and its place in the wider business. This might involve:
- Mapping out the actual flow of work, including informal processes and communication channels that may not be part of the official methodology.
- Identifying points of friction or misalignment between different roles’ perceptions of how work should proceed.
Challenge the “Should” Mentality: Encourage questioning of established practices by asking “Why do we do this?” rather than assuming “This is how it should be done.” This can help distinguish between purposeful processes and mere theatre.
Recognise the Complexity of Knowledge Work: Consider whether software development is not a linear, predictable process that many assume it is. Help all stakeholders to participate in this dialogue.
- Creative breakthroughs can’t be scheduled.
- The most valuable work often can’t be easily quantified or tracked.
- Learning and experimentation are essential parts of the process, not just “wasted” time.
Align Incentives with Reality: Once there’s a shared understanding of how work really happens, adjust incentives and metrics accordingly. This might mean:
- Valuing quality and customer satisfaction over lines of code or story points completed.
- Recognising and rewarding collaborative problem-solving rather than individual heroics.
Continuous Reflection: Implement regular retrospectives not just on the work itself, but on the team’s evolving understanding of how they work. And on the assumptions and beliefs shared across the organisation. This keeps the conversation about shared assumptions alive and prevents new forms of mummery from calcifying.

By actively working to surface and align assumptions about how work works, organisations can choose to create an environment where mummery becomes not just unnecessary, but glaringly obvious when it does occur. This shared understanding forms the foundation for genuine, effective practices that respect the realities of software development.

Conclusion: Dropping the Act

The prevalence of mummery in the software industry is a symptom of deeper issues: conventional management and its category errors about the nature of the work, misaligned incentives, a lack of trust between management and development teams, and a misunderstanding of the creative and unpredictable nature of software development.

By addressing these root causes, we can begin to shed the costumes and scripts that hinder genuine productivity and innovation. It’s way past time for both managers and developers to step out from behind the curtain, adopt relativey effective shared assumptions and beliefs, and engage in authentic, effective ways of working. Only then can we experience the joy of delivering true value, rather than merely acting out the role of productive software teams.

The Chimera of Talent: Unravelling the Myth of Natural Ability

June 26, 2024

Article, Capability development, Deming, HR, Recruiting

Leave a comment

The Chimera of Talent: Unravelling the Myth of Natural Ability

In the realm of human achievement, we often encounter a beguiling concept: the idea of “talent”. This notion, much like its mythological namesake, is a composite beast—part truth, part fiction, and entirely captivating. Let’s delve into why the idea of innate talent might be more misleading than we generally assume.

Defining Talent

Before we proceed, let’s consider a specific definition of talent, as proposed by Angela Duckworth in 2016:

“Talent – when I use the word, I mean it as the rate at which you get better with effort. The rate at which you get better at soccer is your soccer talent. The rate at which you get better at math is your math talent. You know, given that you are putting forth a certain amount of effort. And I absolutely believe – and not everyone does, but I think most people do – that there are differences in talent among us: that we are not all equally talented.”

This definition adds a nuanced perspective to our discussion, framing talent not as an innate ability, but as the speed of skill acquisition given consistent effort.

The Allure of Natural Gifts

We’ve all heard tales of prodigies and savants, individuals who seem to possess an almost supernatural ability in their chosen field. These stories captivate us, painting a picture of effortless excellence that many find both inspiring and intimidating. But is talent, as defined above, truly the decisive factor in success?

The Graft Behind the Gift

Scratch the surface of any ‘overnight success’, and you’ll invariably find years of dedicated practice lurking beneath. The violinist who effortlessly coaxes soul-stirring melodies from their instrument has likely spent countless hours perfecting their craft. The footballer whose footwork seems to defy physics? You can bet they’ve worn out more than a few pairs of boots on the training pitch. While their rate of improvement may have been swift, it was not without significant effort.

The Interplay of Effort and Improvement

Perhaps what we perceive as talent is this complex interplay between one’s rate of improvement and the effort invested. Some may improve quickly in certain areas, but without consistent effort, this potential remains untapped. Conversely, those who may improve more slowly can still achieve remarkable results through persistent, focused practice.

The Danger of Misinterpreting Talent

Ironically, a misunderstanding of talent can be a significant obstacle to achievement. Those who believe they lack innate ability may give up before they’ve truly begun, not realising that their rate of improvement could accelerate with sustained effort. Similarly, those labelled as ‘talented’ might rest on their laurels, failing to put in the necessary work to fully develop their potential.

Embracing the Process

Rather than fixating on the chimera of talent as an innate, unchangeable trait, we might do better to focus on the journey of skill acquisition. Deliberate practice, perseverance, and a willingness to learn from failures are crucial, regardless of one’s initial rate of improvement.

The Organisational Pitfall: Talent Obsession in HR and Recruitment

A misunderstanding of talent doesn’t just affect individuals; it can lead entire organisations down a problematic path, particularly in human resources and recruitment practices. This issue is compounded when we consider W. Edwards Deming’s 95:5 principle, which posits that 95% of performance variation is due to the system in which people work, and only 5% can be attributed to the individuals themselves.

The Talent Hunt Mirage

Many organisations fall into the trap of believing that success is primarily about hiring the ‘most talented’ individuals. This leads to:

Overemphasis on recruitment: Companies spend inordinate amounts of time and resources on finding ‘perfect’ candidates, often overlooking the potential of existing staff.
Neglect of systems and processes: By focusing on individual talent, organisations may fail to address systemic issues that truly drive performance.
Unrealistic expectations: New hires are expected to perform miracles, regardless of the systems they’re placed in.
Increased turnover: When ‘talented’ individuals fail to meet inflated expectations, they’re quickly replaced, leading to a cycle of hiring and firing.

Deming’s 95:5 Principle: The Overlooked Truth

Deming’s insight suggests that the vast majority of performance variation comes from the system (the way the work works), not the individual. In light of this:

The ‘war for talent’ may be misguided: Organisations are better served by improving their shared assumptions and beliefs rather than endlessly hunting for ‘top talent’.
Development over selection: Resources poured into selection might be better spent on training and development programmes that help all employees improve their common wys of working.
Creating the right environment: How about focussing on creating systems and environments that allow people to flourish and improve rapidly, regardless of their initial ‘talent’ level?

A More Balanced Approach

Organisations would benefit from:

Evaluating candidates holistically: Look beyond perceived ‘talent’ to consider adaptability, learning capacity, ability to build interpersonal relationships, and cultural fit.
Investing in systems: Spend time and resources on creating effective ways of working, supportive environments, and learning cultures.
Realistic expectations: Understand that even the most ‘talented’ individuals need time to acclimate and will perform best only in well-designed and complementary systems.
Avoid focus on individuals in favour or a focus on e.g. group dynamics, the way the work works, etc.

By moving away from the chimera of talent and embracing a more systemic view of performance, organisations can create more effective, stable, and productive work environments. This approach recognises the complex interplay between individual capabilities and organisational systems, leading to more sustainable success.

Conclusion: Beyond the Myth

In the end, the chimera of talent may be more complex than we initially thought. While differences in rates of improvement certainly exist, they pale in comparison to the power of dedicated effort and continuous learning. So the next time you find yourself in awe of someone’s abilities, remember: behind every ‘natural’ talent lies a story of commitment, passion, and application. And that’s a story in which we can all write our own chapters, each improving at our own pace.

Unleashing the Power of the Antimatter Principle

May 13, 2024

Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Capability development, Collaboration, Conversations, Dialogue, Empathy, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Paradigm shifts, Product development, Psychology, Quintessence, Software development

1 Comment

Unleashing the Power of the Antimatter Principle

The Benefits

When it comes to collaborative knowledge work endeavours like software development and product development, the “Antimatter Principle” offers a revolutionary approach that promises to unlock unprecedented levels of engagement, value and effectiveness. By focussing on the psychology of human behaviour and treating people’s needs as the most precious and potent resource, this principle has the potential to transform the way we approach and manage such work.

Fostering a Culture of Mutual Respect and Empathy

At its core, the Antimatter Principle advocates for a deep understanding and prioritisation of the human needs of all stakeholders involved – developers, customers, partners, and anyone else impacted by or contributing to the project. By genuinely listening to uncover everyone’s underlying needs, it fosters an environment of mutual respect, empathy, and a shared desire to contribute one’s best efforts. This nurturing atmosphere empowers individuals to tap into their deepest motivations, unlocking a wellspring of creativity, innovation, and dedication.

Aligning Efforts with What Truly Matters

Traditionally, collaborative work often prioritise metrics like productivity, deadlines, or profits, relegating human needs to a secondary concern. The Antimatter Principle flips this paradigm on its head, advocating for a psychologically aware approach that places people’s core needs at the forefront. By aligning all efforts with what truly matters to those involved, it increases the likelihood of achieving outcomes that resonate deeply and create lasting value.

Maximising Value and Effectiveness

While challenging to implement, the payoff of the Antimatter Principle is immense. By tapping into people’s core needs and motivations, it has the potential to unlock exponentially more value and effectiveness than process optimisation or profit-driven methods. This approach recognises that true success lies not in mere efficiency, but in harnessing the collective power of human potential.

Implementing the Antimatter Principle

Identifying “The Folks That Matter™”

Central to the Antimatter Principle is the concept of “The Folks That Matter™” – a term encompassing all stakeholders with needs inviting attention. This includes developers, team members, customers, users, sponsors, regulators, society at large, and anyone else impacted by or contributing to the project. The first step is to establish a well-reasoned process for determining who falls within this crucial group. It’s this dialogue that brings much of the power to the Antimatter Principle.

Engaging in Deep Listening

Once “The Folks That Matter™” have been identified, and more importantly the policy driving such identification and prioritisation, the next step is to engage in deep, active listening to uncover their underlying needs. This invites an organisation to create safe spaces for open dialogue, fostering trust, and demonstrating genuine empathy and curiosity. By understanding the human factors driving each group’s motivations and expectations, teams can align their efforts to deliver outcomes that resonate profoundly.

Prioritising and Focusing Efforts

With a comprehensive understanding of stakeholder needs, teams can then prioritise and focus their efforts on addressing the most critical and impactful requirements. One complimentary approach involves evaluating the “Cost of Focus” – the impact on desired outcomes from including or excluding certain needs – and making strategic trade-offs when necessary. By aligning resources with the needs that truly matter, teams can maximise their potential for creating transformative value.

Embracing the Antimatter Principle

While the Antimatter Principle may seem counterintuitive or even idealistic at first glance, its potential rewards are profound. By treating people’s needs as the rarest and most potent resource, it offers a path to unlocking unprecedented levels of collaboration, innovation, and success in collaborative knowledge work endeavours. Embracing this mindset requires a paradigm shift – a willingness to prioritise human factors over traditional metrics and to invest in deep listening and empathy. However, those who embark on this journey may discover that the true “antimatter” lies not in some elusive substance but in the limitless potential of human connection and understanding.

Appendix: The Folks That Matter™

The concept of “The Folks That Matter™” is a central tenet of the Antimatter Principle, referring to all the various stakeholders, team members, customers, users, and anyone else impacted by or contributing to a collaborative project or endeavour. These are the people with needs to be prioritised and attended to.

The “interesting angle” of The Folks That Matter™ is examining how this set of stakeholders gets determined – through consensus, autocracy, cost/impact analysis, or other means. And what consequences result from that examination and emergent dialogue.

With finite resources, difficult trade-offs must be made about whose needs to prioritise versus discount as “Folks Who Don’t Matter™” for a given scope. Note the concept of “Cost of Focus” – communicating the impact on desired outcomes from including or excluding certain stakeholders’ needs. Similar to Cost of Delay for prioritising product features.

The core premise is that until you have a well-reasoned way to determine whose needs to “focus” on (whose needs matter most), other prioritisation efforts like Cost of Delay are moot.

In essence, “The Folks That Matter™” framing reinforces and provides more operational details for implementing the “Antimatter Principle” of truly prioritising understanding and delivering on people’s core needs in collaborative efforts.

Dissent: A Catalyst for Innovation

May 2, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Capability development, Quintessence

Leave a comment

Dissent: A Catalyst for Innovation

The Path Least Questioned

Businesses and software teams often find themselves entrenched in established practices and ideologies. Processes become routines, and routines turn into unquestioned norms over time. In such environments, conformity reigns supreme, and innovation is stifled. However, true progress lies in the disruption of these norms – the willingness to challenge the status quo through calm yet forceful dissent.

The Importance of Differing Perspectives

One key ingredient that is frequently overlooked when striving for innovation is the role of dissent – offering alternative viewpoints that diverge from the dominant narrative. When differing perspectives are encouraged and thoughtfully considered, businesses and teams can reap substantial benefits.

The Benefits of Constructive Disagreement

While dissent may initially seem disruptive or uncomfortable, it is essential for driving progress. When differing viewpoints are encouraged and respectfully considered, it can lead to:

Rigorous Evaluation of Ideas: Contrary opinions invite teams to thoroughly examine their assumptions and beliefs, and critically assess the merits and drawbacks of their proposals, resulting in more robust and well-rounded solutions.
Identification of Blind Spots: Individuals or groups often become entrenched in their own biases and perspectives, making it challenging to recognise potential pitfalls or oversights. Dissenting voices can help uncover these blind spots and mitigate risks.
Increased Creativity: By challenging the status quo, dissent can spark new lines of thinking and encourage teams to explore alternative approaches, fostering an environment of creativity and innovation.

Creating a Culture of Open Discourse

Fostering an environment where dissent can thrive requires a concerted effort from everyone. Here are some strategies to consider:

Lead by Example: Teams can choose to demonstrate a willingness to listen to and consider differing viewpoints, even when they contradict their own beliefs. This sets the tone for the entire organisation.
Establish Safe Spaces: Create designated forums or channels where folks can freely express their opinions without fear of repercussions. This could include regular brainstorming sessions, anonymous feedback mechanisms, or open discussions during meetings.
Promote Cognitive Diversity: Actively seek out individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives to contribute to projects and decision-making processes. This diversity of thought can be a catalyst for both dissent and innovation.
Provide Constructive Feedback: When dissenting views are expressed, respond with supportive and constructive feedback. Invite folks to address the substance of the dissent, rather than dismissing or belittling the dissenting individual.

Embracing Dissent as a Competitive Advantage

In competitive business situations, the ability to adapt and innovate is a crucial differentiator. By cultivating an environment where dissent is not just tolerated but actively encouraged, businesses and software development teams can tap into a wealth of diverse perspectives and ideas, ultimately driving progress and gaining a competitive edge.

While embracing dissent often feels uncomfortable or disruptive, it’s a necessary catalyst for challenging complacency and fostering a culture of innovation. By fostering open discourse and constructive disagreement, organisations can unlock the full potential of their people and stay ahead of the curve.

How Group Minds Change

April 28, 2024

Actionable Insights, Agile, Agility at Scale, Article, Business, Capability development, Collective psyche, Conversations, Culture change, Empathy, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, Rightshifting, Systems thinking

Leave a comment

How Group Minds Change

While we often think of the mind as belonging to an individual, groups and organisations can develop their own collective mindset – a.k.a. collective psyche – that transcends the viewpoints of any single member. This “group mind” emerges from the shared beliefs, assumptions, and ways of thinking that become entrenched within a organisation over time.

The group mind is an entity distinct from the individual minds that comprise it, yet it is also shaped by the psychological tendencies and biases of those individuals. As people within an organisation interact, reinforce each other’s viewpoints, and establish shared narratives, a collective psyche emerges. This psyche influences how information is interpreted, how decisions are made, and how the organisation responds to change and new ideas.

While the group mind can provide a sense of unity and cohesion, it often also acts as a barrier to growth and adaptation. Outdated assumptions, confirmation biases, and a resistance to changing the status quo can become deeply ingrained, making it difficult for the organisation to evolve. Understanding the forces that shape and maintain the group mindset is crucial for leaders seeking to facilitate meaningful change within their organisations.

Shifting the Group Mindset: How Organisations Can Evolve

When it comes to organisations, whether they are corporations, non-profits, or government agencies, change is often resisted. Entrenched beliefs, established processes, and a fear of the unknown can make it challenging for groups to adapt and evolve their collective mindset. However, understanding the psychological factors at play can help leaders facilitate meaningful change within their organisations.

While leaders can play a role, truly meaningful updates to an organisation’s ingrained “group mind” often arise from the grassroots. Teams have the power to self-organise and proactively evolve the collective psyche. This shared mindset influences how people interpret information, make decisions, and embrace (or resist) change. To become an adaptable, future-ready team, try:

Combating Confirmation Bias

The tendency to seek out information confirming existing beliefs presents a major obstacle. Break through by having everone actively encourage diverse perspectives during meetings and decisions. Invite team members to argue the various sides of issues. Bring in outside experts – including organisational psychotherapists – to help challenge assumptions.

Overcoming the Status Quo Bias

Closely related to confirmation bias is the status quo bias, which is the preference for maintaining the current state of affairs, even when change could be beneficial. This bias stems from a combination of fear of uncertainty, perceived effort required for change, and a false sense of security in the familiar. The status quo feels comfortable, which makes change difficult. But fresh thinking is crucial. Clearly communicate the reasons for change and the benefits of evolving. Provide coaching for indiciduals and organisational psychotherapy for groups to help people navigate ambiguity. Celebrate small wins to build momentum. Provide support and resources to ease the transition.

The Influence of Social Proof

Humans are heavily influenced by the actions and beliefs of those around them – a phenomenon known as social proof. In organisations, this oten leads to the perpetuation of outdated or ineffective practices simply because “that’s the way it’s always been done”. Breaking this cycle requires leaders to invite everyone to model desired behaviors and create an environment where innovation and new ideas are celebrated.

Cultivating a Growth Mindset

At the core of organisational change is the ability to adopt a growth mindset – the belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed through effort and learning. Leaders can foster a growth mindset by encouraging continuous learning, providing opportunities and resources for skills development, and celebrating failures as learning experiences rather than sources of shame.

Increasing Group Emotional Intelligence

Navigating change within organisations is not just an intellectual exercise; it also requires a high degree of emotional intelligence. Folks can choose to empathise with the concerns and fears of their peers and co-workers, communicate effectively, and manage their own emotions during times of stress and uncertainty. Building emotional intelligence within the organisation can help create a more resilient and adaptable culture. By increasing emotional intelligence, people can process these emotions constructively as e.g. a team. Expressly invite an environment of empathy where needs can be heard and concerns can be voiced. Learn to self-manage team emotions and dynamics.

Embracing Change as a Constant

Ultimately, organisations that are able to successfully retune their group psyche will be those that embrace change as a constant. Rather than viewing change as a temporary disruption, these organisations see it as an integral part of their growth and evolution. By fostering an environment that values learning, diversity of thought, and emotional intelligence, organisations that are truly adaptive and future-ready emerge. The most adaptable (Agile!) organisations make evolving shared assumptions and beliefs feel like a source of strength, not pain. Foster this by developing a culture where change is treated as integral to growth and development. Institutionalise mindset updates as a regular team and organisation-wide practice. Lean on communications experts within the organisation to regularly share these updates.

Conclusion

Shifting an organisation’s entrenched “group mind” is an ongoing process, not a one-time event. As the world continues evolving at a rapid pace, the ability to proactively update collective beliefs and assumptions becomes critical for survival.

In her famous essay on leverage points for changing systems, Donella Meadows identified “The Power to Transcend Paradigms” as the highest and most effective point of intervention. A paradigm refers to the shared mental model or set of beliefs that shapes how we understand reality.

For organisations, the “group mind” acts as the overarching constraint that governs how information is perceived, decisions are made, and change is approached. Failing to evolve this ingrained collective psyche essentially renders an organisation unable to see and understand the world with fresh eyes.

Those organisations that can transcend their group mind by continually questioning shared assumptions and beliefs, and entertaining new perspectives, will be the ones poised to thrive amidst volatility. They make evolving their shared beliefs an integral part of operations rather than a periodic disruption.

By developing emotional intelligence, cultivating growth mindsets, and harnessing the creative friction of diverse viewpoints, these innovative entities ensure their collective thinking remains agile and future-focused. Their “group mind” becomes a flexible asset for reinvention rather than a restraint on change.

In our era of constant upheaval across industries, the greatest competitive advantage will belong to those organisations that fully embrace the perpetual journey of transcending their in-the-moment paradigm. They understand that clinging to ingrained collective mindsets inevitably becomes a source of blindness and stagnation. Their identity centers around the reality that questioning “the group mind” itself must remain an eternally iterative process of growth.

Random Walks Toward A Formula For Business Success

April 5, 2024

Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Deming

Leave a comment

Random Walks Toward A Formula For Business Success

The Elusive Formula

Contrary to popular belief, there IS in fact a universal recipe for organisational success – a one-size-fits-all formula that can unlock sustainable growth, profitability, and a thriving company culture. This recipe doesn’t come from the latest management fad or self-help book, but from the timeless wisdom of respected thought leaders like W. Edwards Deming, Eliyahu Goldratt, Gerhard von Scharnhorst, and Russell Ackoff.

The Proven Philosophies

For all the money companies pour into consultants, training programmes, offsites, and radical restructurings, the path to genuine enlightenment has been staring them in the face all along. Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge lays out a comprehensive framework for optimising business operations, fostering a nurturing environment, and driving continuous improvement. Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints provides a laser-focused approach to identifying and eliminating bottlenecks choking organisational performance. And Ackoff’s writings on systems thinking challenge conventional wisdom with powerful new paradigms for managing complexity.

The Meandering Quest

Instead of embracing and building upon these proven and time-tested ideas, companies continue to chase after the latest silver bullets and quick fixes peddled by consultants and pseudo-gurus. They cling stubbornly to antiquated command-and-control management models wholly unsuited to today’s volatile business environment. They pin their hopes on radical restructurings and top-down revolutions that merely treat symptoms rather than root causes.

In their frantic pursuit of enlightenment, organisations are engaging in a meandering quest – wandering aimlessly down one overhyped path after another while the real recipe for success remains gathering dust on the bookshelf. It’s the corporate equivalent of floundering through an endless maze, always feeling like the treasure is just around the next corner.

The Missed Opportunity

These philosophies contain profound truths about how to build resilient, adaptive organisations primed for success. And yet, the ultimate irony is that despite their brilliance, the teachings of Deming, Goldratt, von Scharnhorst, and Ackoff remain tragically underappreciated and underutilised in the business world.

The Hard Work of Wisdom

Make no mistake: Embracing such time-honoured ideas is hard work and requires diligence and much courage. That’s probably why we see it happen so infrequently. It’s far easier to be seduced by the newest fad or quick-fix solution that doesn’t require fundamentally challenging one’s mental models or way of operating. Genuinely internalising the teachings of Deming, Goldratt, von Scharnhorst, Ackoff and others demands humility, an insatiable curiosity, and a willingness to continually question shared assumptions and beliefs.

The Path Forward

The truth is, there is no complex maze to navigate. The path to organisational enlightenment is right there for those willing to open their eyes and embrace the teachings that have stood the test of time. Deming showed us how to nurture a thriving system centred on e.g. continuous learning and a deep theory of knowledge. Goldratt revealed the power of focused improvement efforts harnessing the latent potential within our companies. And Ackoff taught us to step back and see the bigger picture – to transcend reductionist thinking and operate with a holistic perspective.

The Roadmap to Success

Genuine organisational success doesn’t require the drunkard’s random walk of eternal struggle and second-guessing. It stems from having the courage to stop meandering up and down dead-end paths and instead follow the roadmap to enlightenment found within these profound bodies of work. Study them, internalise their lessons, and apply them diligently within the unique context of your organisation.

Rediscovering Wisdom

There is indeed a one-size-fits-all recipe for corporate greatness and human potential realised. We’ve had it all along. We just have to take a step back from the noise and rediscover the wisdom of the masters surrounding us. The path to enlightenment was never lost – we simply stopped paying attention.

The Corporate World’s Superficial Psychology

March 26, 2024

Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Improvement, Joy, Leadership, Organisational effectiveness, Psychology, Quintessence

Leave a comment

The Corporate World’s Superficial Psychology

Businesses Ignore Deming’s Call for Real Behavioural Insight

W. Edwards Deming, the pioneering management thinker, strongly advocated for businesses to develop a deeper understanding of psychology in order to optimise systems, drive improvement, and bring joy and pride in work to the workplace.

“Understanding psychology, the study of human behaviour, is the key to managing people.”

Deming wrote. Yet decades after Deming’s teachings, most businesses remain woefully ignorant about true human psychology and behavioural drivers.

The Superficial ‘Pop Psych’ Fixation

Instead of delving into substantive research from psychology, cognitive science, and behavioural economics, the corporate world tends to favour simplistic “pop psych” maxims and heuristics. Businesses love to tout the latest bestselling books promoting ideas like “positive thinking”, “grit”, “growth mindsets”, or “mindfulness” as the secrets to better employee engagement and productivity. Consultants peddle pseudoscientific personality assessments built on shaky Jungian foundations. Corporate training programmes regurgitate self-evident platitudes about “emotional intelligence.”

Human Behaviour Is Central to Everything

This cavalier dilettantism toward psychology is concerning because human behaviour is central to every aspect of an organisation – its culture, management practices, teamwork, decision-making processes, innovation, marketing, you name it. If companies fail to rigorously study and apply research-based behavioural insights, they are effectively driving blind.

Ignoring the Science of Human Behaviour

Psychology is a legitimate field of science that has produced a wealth of empirical findings on human cognition, motivation, bias, social dynamics, and more. And not just academic theories, but proven applications in areas like user experience design, behaviour change, survey methodology, and marketing. Ignoring this body of knowledge is akin to an engineer neglecting physics or materials science.

The System of Profound Knowledge

Deming admonished that businesses must take a fundamentally different view of work, one focused on understanding systems holistically – including the human dimensions and variation. Yet even today, businesses tend to fixate on simplistic notions like employee incentives, traditional hierarchies, coercion, and other regressive pop psych-led management dogma. They give short shrift to the scientific realities of how people actually think, feel and behave.

A True Commitment to Understanding People

Of course, as Deming taught, psychology alone does not automatically confer excellence in management. It requires a coherent philosophy, sustained practice, and an unwavering commitment to continual learning, all of which many businesses still lack. But grasping human behaviour remains a crucial foundational layer.

For companies to truly embrace people-centric management as Deming advocated, they might choose to move beyond gimmicky pop psych trends and selective, self-serving interpretations of research. They may, instead, choose to dive deep into the expansive knowledge base of rigorous behavioural science – including the inconvenient truths it reveals – and apply those insights in thoughtful, judicious ways. Only then can businesses hope to make substantive and lasting improvements. Of course, improvement of any kind seem decidedly out of favour at the moment.

The Uncomfortable Truth: Why Developer Training Is a Waste of Time

1. Nobody’s Actually Interested in Improvement

2. Developers Have No Control Over What Actually Matters

3. GenAI Has Fundamentally Changed the Equation

The Hard Truth

Share the joy :)

Are You Too Good? You’re Not Alone

The Excellence Problem

When Good Equals Different

The Cost of Being Different

The Architecture of Mediocrity

The Frustration

But Here’s the Thing…

The Fellow Travellers

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

What’s “Good”?

The Distance Problem

The Metrics Mirage

The Promotion Paradox

The Innovation Killer

What Good Actually Looks Like

The Missing Practice: Going to the Gemba

The Reality Check

The Way Forward

The Thinking Different Connection

Share the joy :)

COPE Framework: Comprehensive Organisational Psychotherapy Evaluation

Purpose

Version

Assessment Questionnaire

SECTION 1: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY & PURPOSE

Organisational Purpose Clarity

Organisational Values Integration

Organisational Identity Cohesion

SECTION 2: ORGANISATIONAL COGNITION

Organisational Learning Capacity

Organisational Decision-Making Patterns

Organisational Sense-Making Capability

SECTION 3: ORGANISATIONAL EMOTION & CLIMATE

Emotional Climate Assessment

Psychological Safety Evaluation

Organisational Trust Measure

SECTION 4: ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES

Structural Health Assessment

Resource Allocation Patterns

Organisational Justice Evaluation

SECTION 5: ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE

Change Capacity Assessment

Innovation Climate Evaluation

Organisational Resilience Index

SECTION 6: ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

Stakeholder Relations Assessment

Collective Engagement Measure

Power Dynamics Evaluation

COPE SCORING SHEET

SECTION 1: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY & PURPOSE

SECTION 2: ORGANISATIONAL COGNITION

SECTION 3: ORGANISATIONAL EMOTION & CLIMATE

SECTION 4: ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES

SECTION 5: ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE

SECTION 6: ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

COPE ORGANISATIONAL HEALTH PROFILE

Composite Scores

Interpretation Guidelines

COPE Profile Analysis

COPE Intervention Planning

COPE ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES

APPENDIX: RELATION TO EXISTING ASSESSMENTS

Share the joy :)

From Operational Value Streams to Prod•gnosis

Connecting Allen Ward and Bob Marshall’s Product Development Philosophies

Introduction

The Foundation: Allen Ward’s Operational Value Streams

Prod•gnosis: Building on Ward’s Foundation

The Product Development Value Stream (PDVS)

Challenging IT’s Role in Product Development

Incremental Implementation

Key Points of Alignment

1. Value Stream-Centric View