ARE WE TRYING TO FIT SIMPLE CIRCLES INTO COMPLEX SQUARES ?

“For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple……..AND WRONG!.” H L Mencken.

I’ve been intrigued for some time now about the enormous and growing commentary on solving the problem of large organization bureaucracy. I think this literature is certainly meeting a need. I see a growing list of books and articles doing the rounds, all starting with the same provocation:

1 – Taylorism left us with a legacy of bifurcated factory line processes without any involvement from the workforce in owning or optimizing the outcomes.

2 – We have squandered the potential of technological efficiencies by deploying a larger and larger management cadre designed to control budgets and optimize performance.

3 – The modern business world is increasingly integrated into social networks, accelerated by real time technology and news cycles. Consequently, the analogue management tools and approaches to problem solving (complicated models) have given way to a much more dynamic set of challenges (complex problems), requiring a radical shift in thinking.

4 – Businesses who ignore the warning signs will pay with their (metaphorical) lives. Large organizations are increasingly at threat from nimble and focused new entrants who can disintermediate existing convoluted value chains and provide superior offerings, directly to customers.

5 – Large organizations must wake up and smell the coffee, and get serious about re-inventing their business models before it is too late.

Like many others, I’ve written about many of these themes before. Our journey through the Fourth Industrial revolution will be a bumpy one and many businesses will not make it. Business models that not so long ago we used to champion like GE should underline the urgency. Everyone points to Kodak, but what about Ford, GM, and Chrysler now being threatened by Tesla? What about solar and innovations in distributed power generation marking the first signs of the end for Big Oil and the Power Utilities? Does anyone really still need convincing that big corporations start to look disadvantaged in 2020 going forward, rather than the reverse?  

The question for me isn’t accepting the premise that existing large corporations are in danger, or even how they may be handicapped in responding to a dynamically changing complex world - where I scratch my head is on knowing ‘What should they do about it?’

DISSECTING CONTEMPORARY ADVICE

I’ve read some excellent books recently, General McCrystal’s stands out in its well written explanation of how relatively unsophisticated opponents can use social media to create incredibly resilient, amorphous organisations. Gary Hamel’s articles persuasively argue that large modern institutions may have 12.5 million surplus managers with a latent potential value (or cost) of $3 trillion! David Graeber takes Gary’s argument even further when he posits that most of these 12.5 million are actually quite aware they don’t currently add value. Graeber argues that beyond the cost, the phenomenon is also causing depression and mental health issues. Aaron Dignan summarises many of these arguments and talks about how organic self-directed teams may at least be part of the solution. And Richard Kelly takes a more academic approach and arrives at the conclusion that leaders of organisation will need to embrace a new role, one that is about facilitating and coaching, not directing and controlling. 

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF ADVICE ON NAVIGATING COMPLEXITY

As I read this material, I think the challenge to remove hierarchies and re-invent organisations is a given. Does anyone really disagree with that? What I’m unsure about is whether we have figured out how to deal with the complexity of the contemporary business savanna. If you will, I feel the solutions seem too simplistic. They seem to follow a single theme which is simply removing all existing middle/senior management and forming team-based ‘cells’ that self-manage to success…reinvention….glory. Might we be falling into the trap of suggesting there is a relatively straightforward antidote for this disease? 

IF IT’S A COMPLEX AND MULTI DIMENSIONAL CHALLENGE….SHOULDN’T THE SOLUTION SET FOLLOW?

I find myself thinking…..’hang on….this is complex right?’ Surely that means any solution is unlikely to fit neatly into a cookie cutter approach. Is this just me? I don’t mean to be disparaging about the above authors and their work - quite the contrary, they have inspired some thinking I may not of otherwise have attempted (in my own simplistic way). However, now they’ve stirred this whole hornets’ nest……well…..let’s think it through.

My favourite example of a tame (complicated) problem is making toast. There is a great example of this on YouTube.  If you break the toast problem down into its key parts you can reassemble it in various ways. Essentially, the task can be optimised because it has limited variables….bread, a heat source, and, well, the rest is a matter of taste.

FIGURE 1 - MAKING TOAST – COURESTY OF DRAWTOAST.COM

Complex problems differ from complicated problems in that there are a near infinite number of variables. The classic illustration is the butterfly effect (chaos theory) in weather forecasting. However, in business, the point is that problems are increasingly difficult to solve with traditional reductionist approaches (Taylorism, six-sigma, Kaizen, etc.). This is what McCrystal discussed when he talked of his challenges it trying to identify an enemy leader in Afghanistan - there wasn’t one in a traditional sense.

FIGURE 2 - COMPLEX CHALLENGES CAN'T BE SOLVED USING REDUCTIONIST APPROACHES

So, as you read these authors’ great descriptions of the problem, do you, like me, feel like the solutions are like making better toast? 

WHERE ARE THE OTHER VARIABLES?

There are more variables here surely? More complexity?  I can think of at least two which have been glossed over: the individual’s perspective and their societal anchors. I suspect there are many more. However, let’s play with these two as examples. 

FIGURE 3 - SOME HIDDEN VARIABLES

My apologies for the cliched iceberg. However, I think it might be adequate to make my point. What isn’t very clear from the current discussion on helping large organisations break down the bureaucratic and hierarchical structures of the last 50 years is whether we have taken enough time to understand all the variables and forces at play. As Lewin talked about many years ago, organisations and individuals have forces which keep them in a form of stasis. Like the iceberg, floating with a great deal of its mass below the waterline.

Forming successful self-directed, empowered teams, requires more than encouraging organisations to unleash existing talent. It requires more than tinkering with reward and promotion systems. It requires more than leaders being prepared to listen and enable, giving up the desire to control. While these may be helpful, I believe that in the wrong context they will either be ineffective or downright dangerous.

The commentary I see in current literature glosses over the readiness, willingness, and motivation of individuals to take ownership of business outcomes. The suggestion in most of these books is based on Herzberg’s two-factor motivation and McGregor’s Theory X and Y. The idea that all human beings are innately drawn to achieve ‘self-actualisation.’ To aspire for meaning and fulfilling their ultimate potential. In my view this is a massive over generalisation.

I have worked with many people over the past 30 years who have had far more modest aspirations for their work lives. I have worked across multiple cultures, where work as it is meant by Western cultures does not carry the same importance or meaning. In fact, in Middle East and some Asian countries, purpose is measured by exclusively non-work related pursuits.

ILLUSTRATING THE CONFLICTING TENSIONS

If we take the discussion above and drop it into a table where we add individual and societal dimensions, I think we see some of these challenges more clearly.

TABLE 2 - COMPLEX VARIABLES

My point here is that there is much written on the first three columns. But very little on the last two. I think some might say that individuals and Society will need to adapt to the needs of fast evolving business organisations. Technology is such a disruptor that ultimately it will be a case of ‘adapt of die.’ But is this right? Haven’t we seen societies rebel against corporate movements before? Who will win here if the tensions play out as corporate necessity versus individual and societal values?

A QUICK REFLECTION ON THE INDIVIDUAL

I don’t pretend to know all the hidden variables or how to construct a strategy to tackle all the complexity. However, let me at least offer a thought on individual skill and capability variables. In the table below I attempt to contrast a traditional set of societal beliefs around how to equip oneself for work, and the contrasting attributes that seem increasingly essential to succeed in a post 4th industrial revolution workplace.

TABLE 3 - IMPLIED CAPABILITIES VARIABLES

What I am showing above is how our belief systems influence expectations. These are reinforced by our families. Our school systems still champion degrees in narrow specialities. When even the so called millennials enter the workplace, their parents still ask them about promotions, getting their companies to pay for masters degrees, and looking out for higher level jobs in competitor organisations. 

These societal expectations create quite a significant barrier to migrating to workplaces which are absent of hierarchies. They also mean those individuals, and I know a lot of these people, who view their identities through a lens of legal, accounting, finance, or HR, will have a real struggle in coming to terms with a new identity, where their organisations increasingly value breadth and not depth of expertise. 

PROVOCATION

This blog I think fits in the contrarian perspective. Am I wrong? What do you think? I think my punchline is we must be careful not to suggest solutions to unleashing organisation capability is a simple task. There are some dimensions I do not believe we have given appropriate consideration too.

Enjoyed this blog? Read more on my website.