Management by Discovery

One of the joys of studying is discovering that someone has already beaten a path through the mental thicket that our minds sometimes encounter. For me, conventional approaches to planning and organisational change are one of those thickets. In an increasing complex, fast-paced and unstable world, I find these conventional methods of planning and change management are proving increasing unsuitable for the challenges we now face. Indeed I would argue, these conventional approaches are creating rigidity and organisational sclerosis, and thus exacerbating the problem.

In this article, I consider Gary Klein’s alternative to this problem, his concept of Flexecution. I’ll start by outlining the problem with conventional methods, before providing an overview of Flexecution and Klein’s concept of Management by Discovery.

Management by Objectives

The conventional method of planning is often described as Management by Objectives (MBO). Underlying MBO are several assumptions, such as the ability to accurately forecast eventualities and clearly define the outcome/s. It is thus deterministic and assumes steady state, where the context, conditions and environment will not change, and thus, objectives can be fixed and methods defined. MBO drives the 4P’s model of planning (i.e. predict, plan, proceduralize and prevent) and is at the heart of management systems, such as ISO. It also links to the false premise that to manage something it is necessary to measure it, and hence all objectives must have S.M.A.R.T. goals, milestones are measured through R.A.G. status. MBO offers predictability, certainty and ease of tracking. But what if these processes were themselves the problem? Many argue that it is a fundamental mistake for planning to become too specific about goals too early. Determinism can kill the exploration that underlies innovation and discovery. And where is cognitive diversity when the goals and plans have been pre-defined by a select few?

This level of determinism certainly works in highly stable situations, where the problem is fully understood, goals are clearly defined and there are few influencing factors. But in our increasingly connected and dynamic workplaces which are frequently buffeted by external events, can we clearly define the end state at the outset? In a permacrisis world where there are conflicting goals and constraints and the outcomes cannot be neatly defined, do we need to question the notion that everything can be foreseen, defined, measured and considered before we have engaged with the problem? We certainly saw the need for flexible execution during the pandemic and successful organisations increasingly rely on agility and adaptation.

Many organisations had plans for the pandemic. Few survived Day 1

At this point, some people may be thinking that the problem is not with the method but the individual. Surely, if they have just spent more time defining the end state, the goals can be defined and hey presto, MBO works just fine. Problem with user not method you may be thinking. But what about if:

• New information comes to light, or the original plan was based on partial information.
• The environment is dynamic and changes, assumptions and inferences look less certain.
• Early interventions cause the pre-defined end goal to change.
• Different perspectives and experience redefine the end state. New views, after all, can fundamentally affect the aspiration of the original end state.
• More is learnt about the interdependencies, the trade-offs, constraints and goal conflicts.
• Conflicting, complementary challenges or opportunities emerge.
• The initial goals were vague, incomplete, or inconsistent, and thus the fullness of the challenge was not understood.

All these factors can prompt us to explore the limitations of the conventional method. Now let’s consider the alternative method, where plans respond to changing needs and goals adapt through discovery.

Management by Discovery

Central to Management by Discovery is the idea where more is learnt about the goals as they are pursued. It is encapsulated in the lovely term ‘Flexecution’, one the many great concepts that has emerged from the field of Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM). As the title suggests, management by discovery, involves modifying the goals and outcome through the process. It is about learning through doing, where the original goals may well not only adapt, but prove irrelevant over time. This is a simultaneous assimilation of new information, revising planned action and reframing of the goals. The elaboration cycle on the lefthand side of the diagram below represents assimilation, and the reframing cycle on the right is accommodation. And hence, revising the goals is intertwined with updating the details and priorities. Try representing this interplay on a waterfall diagram or a PERT chart, which are designed for ordered, predictable and measurable problems.

Gary Klein, who created the concept of Flexecution, highlights how that in pursuing their goals, people go through the cycle of fixing and flexing (or relaxing) goal properties. This is the Cycle of Flexecution shown above. Some actions will be fixed, constrained perhaps by time or organisational demand, while other actions flex. While some goals and actions are temporarily fixed, others flex. This is a delicate interplay, where some goals and plans are temporarily fixed, and then, as the team discover what they really need (needs and goals emerge and are discovered through the process), they reflex and reset on those initial objectives and move on.

It is worth noting at this point that ‘Flexecution’ is not really a method or technique, but rather challenge to rethink how we approach planning and change management, particularly when it entails the unfamiliar, uncertain, ambiguous and dynamic. Borrowing from Maslow’s Hammer, it challenges us to consider if we’re wrongly using the same tool for very different situations. Or put bluntly, are we trying to use conventional simplistic deterministic approaches to planning to challenge that are ill-defined, complex, intractable and maybe even, as Rittel and Webber suggest, wicked problems?

When a problem is not fully understood, when goals cannot be clearly defined or are conflicting, and when situation is highly dynamic, adopting a process of discovery (versus determinism) is preferable. Indeed, the higher the degree of complexity, the greater the degree of uncertainty, the more likely that attempts to solve a problem will lead to more information, understanding and increase complexity, but not actually solve the problem. But to be clear, this is not about replacing unsuitable objectives midway through a change with another set of containing goals, it is about embracing agility and recognising the adaptation through discovery. Potentially uncomfortable for some.

At this point, I’m probably hearing many scream ‘Scope Creep’ at this point, but rigidly stickly to goals established when the problem was not fully understood is as much, arguably, a greater problem. Dare we mention Plan Continuation Bias, that cognitive bias where individuals continue with an original plan in spite of changing conditions.

Emergence, where the process changes the goal.

Klein highlights that as managers increase in seniority and face more complicated problems with vague goals, they cling to conventional planning tools. Unfortunately their earlier success using defining objectives and stringently sticking them worked for simpler problems but frequently fails when attempting to tackle more complex problems. This begs the question how often we teach newly promoted leaders different methods and techniques to address the more complex challenges they face?

One of the reasons I’d argue MBO remains the dominant approach is organisational psychology and politics. People like certainty and it creates confidence in leaders, even if that certainty is illusionary. It is natural for people to get frustrated by dramatic shifts in direction if they see their efforts as wasted. To suggest that solutions will emerge and goals will change creates doubt, even it is how many successful change programmes succeed. Leaders fear that change reduce their credibility, and hence they can resist, complain and even lobby to preserve the initial goal and plan, even when benefits of flexing are compelling. The table below summarises the two approaches.

The Components of Flexecution

There are some interesting concepts within Flexecution worth highlighting:

• Adaptation: By not defining the end state, it allows for problems that had not been anticipated to considered, different user needs can be incorporated. Too often the interdependencies and relationships and assumptions that often underlie complex problems are only really understood as the work is undertaken.
• Emergence: Central to the idea of management by discovery is the concept of emergence. This is where the depth of understanding of a problem, it’s complexity, conflicting goals and dependencies lead to the emergence of new and alternative potential interventions. Solutions emerge through the process of meaning-making, clarification and revising the goal.?
• Leaning: Because it is difficult with defined methods to adapt to change and new information, fixed goals and approaches often result in conflict, frustration and blame. Conversely, when goals and the method can adapt through discover, plans become a source of learning.
• Planscape: Flexecution uses Planscapes to display a “landscape” of goals, actions, goal conflicts. Unlike a fixed Gantt chart, a Planscape enables uses to see the interplay linking goals and actions, as well as view and juggle a range of goals, goal conflicts, and potential actions. They also represent antigoals, outcomes to be avoided.
• Doing: When we make change, we often separate planning and doing, but our false separation leads to a misconception that we have fully understood and considered an issue. ?Flexecution places a great emphasis by understanding through doing, where they are simultaneously achieving goals, understanding, clarifying and redefining them.

?

Final words

If the idea of changing goals and plans, and solutions emerging through discovery sound a little strange, it shouldn’t. This is the reality of managing change in complexity, but too often it is unrecognised because acknowledging uncertainty is discomforting. Certainty and predictability, albeit false, support the ‘Masters of Complexity’ narrative. Successfully navigating complexity involves muddling through, discovering, learning and adapting the goal and the plan in response to changing conditions, emerging insights and new perspectives.

With more uncertainty and interdependency, Flexecution provides an alternative to conventional objective based planning. I think it has real value when tackling vague and poor understood problems which may involve conflicting goals. I’ll leave the last word to Gary Klein from the papers listed below: Flexecution isn’t simply being flexible about how to achieve a plan’s goals. The essence of Flexecution, discovering and refining goals while pursuing them, is also the basis of adaptation.

But what do you think? Do you think this is worth considering?

Here’s hoping to learn more different methods and approaches in coming week.

?

References

• Management by Discovery: Sometimes we have to give up on our original goals. Gary Klein. Psychology Today.
• Flexecution as a Paradigm for Replanning, Part 1. Gary Klein. IEEE Intelligent Systems
• Flexecution, Part 2: Understanding and Supporting Flexible Execution. Gary Klein. IEEE Intelligent Systems.

?