Evolving Unique-Value-Adding Capacity in Rapidly Changing, Unpredictable Environments

There is much talk of building the capacity of our teams to more effectively create unique value in the face of uncertainty and rapid change. Yet, arguably, most of us are struggling like never before with managing such change. Why so little progress with so much talk??

There are two common tendencies we’ll explore here, which I believe are contributing causes:

1. Over-focusing on changing what we’re doing by collecting and implementing new “best” practices.
2. The belief that changing the structure of the system can and will solve our performance problems. ?

Einstein gave us a clue as to the limits of these approaches when he said, “we can’t solve our problems from the same level of thinking we used to create them.” What does it mean to think about managing change from another level??

We’ll introduce a simple framework for exploring this question, which presents three levels of evolving unique-value-adding capacity in a changing environment:

In this framework, the fruit is the unique value we create for our stakeholders. We start with the premise that creating this value is a developmental process that requires us to make sense of a dynamic environment and our unique role within it.?

On the first level we are evolving practices, or changing what we do. These are the branches of the tree, or the decisions we make on a daily basis.?

On this level, we become stuck in a reactive state, looking to borrow and copy best practices as we find ourselves two steps behind today and three tomorrow. We create accelerating cycles of waste trying to train and retrain employees, trying to keep instructive resources up to date, increasingly overwhelmed as their shelf life shrinks by the hour and our work piles up.?

Underneath the first level is the second, often only periodically examined, which consists of evolving the structures that lead to the decisions we make and the actions we take. Here our focus shifts from changing what we’re doing to developing how we figure it out. This level is represented by the trunk of the tree: the underlying structure that supports the system’s activities.?

There is another clear and emerging tendency to see this level as the holy grail of building high-performing teams and organizations. This is reflected in many current headlines, after doing a quick search:?

“Change the system, not the people.”?

“Fix the system problem, not the people problem.”?

“Systems change is? is about fixing systems, not people.”?

“Agile Management: Managing the System, Not the People.”?

Within this view is the implicit assumption that the structure of the system is deterministic. In other words, we can resolve all of our problems if only we can create the right structure. Put the right procedures and incentives in place and watch your worries disappear.?

Such a belief goes hand-in-hand with a mechanistic view of organizations and a behaviorist view of high-performance. The aim is to predict and control behavior, supported by the assumption that people are nothing more than reactively shaped by their environment.?

Consultants tend to love this view because it creates the need for an “expert” to come in and support the implementation of new work designs that promise the world.?

Of course, in reality, it almost always fails to deliver such value. This is evidenced by “cutting-edge” work design blueprints like Agile and Holocracy that have struggled to sustain themselves in many cases. A new structure is implemented, theoretically sound, yet it fails to produce the desired results. What’s missing??

Let’s illustrate this with an example based on a recent client project.?

The R&D team within a large company was navigating a transition in their operating model, which included bringing a large number of previously outsourced roles in-house. Their focus had been primarily on redesigning standards on procedures and developing the required documentation and training resources to support performance within the new structure. The mantra was “we’re building the plane while flying it.” Yet in truth, they were taxiing around the runway at best.?

A few core lessons learned from that experience help to shine a light on what it means to be working from the third level:?

• There is much truth in Peter Senge’s idea that “People don’t resist change, they resist being changed.” When people feel coerced, there is always significant Resistance by nature.?
• Changes in process or structure are never immediate. There is no generic, one-size-fits-all blueprint that an organization can download and implement effectively. There will be many aspects of any work design that have to evolve organically to fit within a particular context and organizational culture.?
• Effectively participating in this emergent change process requires developmental capabilities that have been severely neglected in education and modern learning and development.?

As we are stuck in certain ways of thinking about change, which are rooted in following patterns laid out for us by expert authorities, we lack the capacity to participate in this generative and emergent process.?

Enter the third level of building unique-value-adding capacity in a changing environment: evolving developmental capabilities.

Reiterating Einstein’s insight, shifting our thinking as is required can’t be approached from the dominant paradigm. In other words, we can’t simply roll out out a new set of “best” practices for people to follow, or design new ways of working, and expect mindsets to shift.?

This leaves us with a challenging question. Where does this process begin??

I’ll offer up a premise that may land uncomfortably: it begins with you and your willingness to examine your own thinking. ?

How have these patterns shown up for you? To what degree have you held the belief that finding the right new set of best practices or the right new structure for your team is the answer to your problems? How often do you look to the “experts” to provide you with these answers? How often do such answers fall short of creating the impact you hoped for??

This is not to suggest that the best we can do is to simply let everyone loose to figure it out for themselves. The pattern that tends to emerge, as seen in many organizations attempting to “flatten” themselves and build more self-managing teams, is one of ineffective autonomy. The goal, in contrast, is building effective autonomy.?

The premise I’ll lift up here for your consideration is that our energies can be redirected to evolving the capabilities needed to reflect on our thinking in new ways, enabling a shift that is sourced from within. This is the heart of Developmental Leadership.?

From this view, developmental work is not something pushed onto an individual or a team from above, but rather an ongoing process whereby developmental capabilities are continuously co-evolving. New structures and practices emerge through the process of evolving such capabilities.?

Among others, this requires careful consideration of the unique context of our work. Where are we in this process? How are we thinking about our evolving role in the larger system? Where are we sourcing our motivation? What purpose do we serve?

Take a moment to observe yourself: is there a part of you resisting this idea, which sounds like a lot of effort compared to simply downloading and sharing a pre-packaged blueprint? Is there a part of you still hoping for a clear set of steps you can follow to move forward??

How are these patterns restraining your ability to evolve your capacity and the capacity of your team to create unique value in a rapidly-changing, unpredictable environment??

What is required to reconcile this creative tension??

Please share your reflections and subscribe to join us in exploring the way forward together, building developmental capabilities and cultures that enable us to create more unique value in the face of rapid change and uncertainty.?