Building Adaptability with a Team of teams
Niklas Osslén
Curious leader and tech enthusiast. Innovating for a resilient world class supply chain.
Technology advances have made the world less predictable, despite what we would expect. Making long-term roadmaps and strategies, is today as difficult as forcasting the weather in two months, even if we have more data than ever before. We need to be prepared for change. If it starts to rain, or a snowstorm hit, we need to adapt and adjust our behaviours even if the forecast predicted sunshine.
The new complexity we are facing cannot be governed by a traditional Command and Control hierarchy. Instead we could find the strength in a team of teams, develop an agile mindset - moving from predictability to rescilience.
Therefore I recommend the interesting book "Team of teams - New rules of engagement for a complex world (2015)
"The old rules no longer apply: When US General Stanley McChrystal took command of the Joint Special Operations Task Force in 2004, he quickly realized that conventional military tactics were failing. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a decentralized network that could move quickly, strike ruthlessly, then seemingly vanish into the local population. The allied forces had a huge advantage in numbers, equipment, and training—but none of that seemed to matter."
The answer lay in the organisation, not in a more efficient machine. They had to became a team of teams — faster, flatter, more flexible organisation that was able to change faster than their counterpart.
For a very long time our focus have been on efficiency. Getting the most of a desired output (y), with the least available input (x). 20th century Taylorism, that made wonders to efficiency in the assembly lines, is no longer enough. We need build our adaptability, already knowing and accepting that it will come at the expense of efficiency.
The founder of modern management Peter Drucker described it as ”Efficiency is doing the things right; effectiveness is doing the right thing.”
The sentence ”Great landing, wrong airport!” explains it well.
In the book McChrystal further explain how they experimented to become more adaptable; to build Trust and a common sense of purpose in their large organisation, connecting the teams to create a shared consciouness, how to work with empowered execution and the strength of making real-time information widely available.
What you think? How is it applicable in the business world, beyond the battlefield?
Industrial Enterprise Architect and Industrial digitalisation advisor at AFRY
6 年We are moving from a world of complicated systems to a world of complex system. Complicated systems requirements experts to try to figure out and troubleshoot, complex systems are much more simple at the micro level, but they can be just as hard to predict as the weather. The advantage of complex systems are that they are much easier to scale. The ripe the benefits, but at the same time we pay the price. It requires a shift in how we think, as you say. Instead of the word Agile, it might sometimes use the word Resilient. At times it can better capture the essence of being robust and be able to take hits in a VUCA world. Animal populations are very much in the same situation as you describe. They constitute a complex system in an uncertain world, with limited resources, and tough competition. We can learn a lot from these battle proven forerunners.
reducing complexity / creating value with EA
6 年Have I heard about customers, have I heard about your markets? Have these on your team's ... Spread out
Great article!
Independent Digital Transformation Consultant | Fractional CIO | Chief Architect | Strategy Execution | C-Suite Advisor
6 年Just talking about this today! Totally agree!
Head of Site Security, Group Security Saab AB
6 年Inom F?rsvarsmakten kallas detta uppdragstaktik och har varit grundbulten i hur man leder allt fr?n bataljoner till enskilda stridspar i ?rtionden. D? man, precis som du po?ngterar, vet att en bra plan endast fungerar tills kulorna b?rjar flyga s? leder chefen genom grova slutm?l (jmf visioner). Hur underlydande team eller individer n?r m?let ?r inget h?gre chef l?gger sig i. Om vi anv?nder din referens som utg?ngspunkt s? ?r det viktigt att inse att dennes citat r?r extremt specialiserade team med obegr?nsade resurser och s?rskilt utvald personal. Att nyttja samma principer p? regulj?ra f?rband fungerar generellt sett INTE. Enligt mig s? ?r den privata sektorn duktig p? att ”visionera” men d?liga p? att organisera riktigt agila team (och det fackliga hj?lper inte till...). Det privata missar ?ven slutm?let d? de vill att hela organisationen skall verka p? samma agila principer. Agila team b?r likst?llas med det som diverse f?rsvarsmakten kallar specialf?rband. Dessa ska ha s?rskild utbildning och ledning. Kan inte detta uppn?s skall man fundera p? alternativa l?sningar!