Moving beyond pushing rope in innovation and transitions: focus on social relationships.
Emile Mazerant ??
PhD researcher | Developing impactful organizational creativity and innovation
“I’ve worked my entire life to get where I’ve gotten. So, if I can’t be a cop anymore, I don’t know who I am.”
Kate Moretti, character in Perception, S2E10, 18’47-19’01
In his much-cited 1996 essay, Karl Weick talks about two cases where firefighters in intense bushfires were told to drop their heavy tools and run for their lives, as the winds strengthened and quickly changed direction. Some obeyed and survived, while others couldn’t let go of their gear and periled in the fire. Weick argues that to understand why people cling to their tools, we need to look at how these tools are part of a bigger social system, visible only when we focus on relationships. He suggests the following reasons why the firefighters struggled to drop their tools when needed:
In interviewing experienced designers in multiple different disciplines, countries, and contexts, I have learned that they overall tend to speak of three key moments in a reframing process (core to designerly practices) involving organizational actors.
The first key moment is when organizational actors are to engage in an iterative designerly approach of problem-solution co-evolution, involving an uncertain outcome and skills that are new to them compared to known rational problem-solving approaches. The latter are characterized by linearity and project shaped from problem towards solution and best operated in complicated, but not in complex operational contexts. What helps is to build trust in the process and the facilitator by focusing on learning outcomes instead of detailed project results. In complexity, there is not one solution, and thus thinking in projects makes little sense. A designerly approach moves towards uncertainties to reduce them, instead of away from risks to mitigate them. That’s exciting for many and needs acknowledging. Much of the required confidence and trust is built in the social relationship.
The second key moment is when actors are to accept a novel frame, i.e., a new way to make sense of – and give meaning to – a situation, possible subsequent futures, goals, actions, and how they relate to that new perspective as a person and as a professional. This is not something done through a ‘powerpoint roadshow’ visiting all of the organization’s weekly’s, yet by active involvement in understanding the field and engagement with its stakeholders. In addition, people need to feel respected and being listened to (e.g., through organizational leadership participating) and by being given the time to digest. This includes the organizational decision-makers. Although this seems to be about content - the new thing - mostly, empathy, respect and a sense of being listened to are again built in the social relationship.
领英推荐
A third key moment that is being explicated, appears to be the moment where actors are to engage in the new frame, manifested by a commitment of resources (time, people, money, etc.) to its subsequent actions. Here, a responsibility bias seems to be in place: what responsibility do I take vis-à-vis the situation as I’ve come to see it, and how does that relate to the responsibilities I have for my team, my organization, as is? And who is it that asks of me, of us, to change my current activities and that of my team? Dynamics seem to pertain to actors showing leadership that are being ‘licensed to influence’ by the recipients. In improv we tend to live by the rule: “We do this together. I will make the other shine, watch their backs and catch them if they fall. And if the others return this favor, I don’t need to bother about myself too much.” One could call that flexibility in leader- and followership. Feeling the support to make such an existential decision can be built and found in the social relationship.
In discussing innovating (the verb), instead of innovation (e.g., the thing, or the process), we focus on the behavior over time that allows for the development and introduction of something that is new into an existing context, which for its absorption will have to change. At least a bit, depending on the radicality of the new thing that is to be absorbed. Interestingly, this perspective allows us to better understand the tensions we experience in between the cracks of innovation processes. From both the conceivers’ as well as the receivers’ point of view. This drives the social dynamics we experience at the three key moments described before.
In transitions, our underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions of how we once shaped our organizations, our lives, our actions, and our tools (in the broadest sense!) are being questioned and challenged. We have been taught to deal with problems in a certain way, assuming (can be) known cause-effect relationships. We have been trained in our professions within the existing ways of making sense of the world and have felt confirmed when making promotions, when sales got up, etc. We have based our roles, our (professional) identities, our social relations, and thus even our social status on these perspectives. Many transitions now require us to change our course of action. That is to say: the wind has turned and is threatening us. People are being urged to drop their tools and do something that they’re not (yet) comfortable with compared to all that has brought their comfort. That’s exciting enough for many of us. More than about pushing the new thing in, innovating requires a focus on the social relationships.
Now, take another look at the ten possible reasons that Weick philosophized about for people not being able to drop their tools, considering the current ways in which transitions are set-up and dealt with. All Weick’s factors fall between the cracks of any innovation model and are about – and only visible when paying attention to – the social relationships and processes between people that develop and try to introduce conceptual ideas and those in the existing context that need to absorb this newness – and drop their tools. At least to some extent, implicitly arguing against all they have been doing thus far.
Perhaps not all Weick’s reasons apply. And some more than others. Mind you, if we’re not capable of addressing these, not only will transitions move (too) slow, but we also run the risk that the same groups in society are left behind in many a transition. As a society, as transition leaders, designers, and as innovation professionals, we need to find ways to operationalize what is required of the social relationships to support our transitions. Perhaps by starting to understand what it really means for others to drop their tools. And make them feel understood.
?Reference: Weick, K. E. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative science quarterly, 301-313.