Archive

Feedback

Loon or Genius? How Do You Respond to What You Read Here?

February 19, 2026
Article, Blogging, Feedback
Leave a comment

Loon or Genius? How Do You Respond to What You Read Here?

Especially the posts about Organisational AI Therapy

A friend asked me recently what kind of reactions my blog posts get. I paused. Not because I didn’t know, but because the honest answer is more interesting than the comfortable one.

The truth is, most people don’t respond at all. And of those who do, the reactions tend to cluster at the extremes. There’s very little middle ground. You either think I’m onto something important, or you think I’ve gone completely round the bend.

The Organisational AI Therapy posts seem to amplify this effect considerably.

The Silence

Let’s start with the elephant in the room. The vast majority of readers—and I know from the analytics that there are readers—say nothing. They read, they leave, and I have no idea what they took away. Maybe they found something useful. Maybe they clicked away after two paragraphs. Maybe they bookmarked it for later and ‘later’ never came.

This silence isn’t unique to my blog, of course. But I suspect the silence here has a particular quality to it. When someone writes about, say, five tips for better stand-ups, readers know exactly how to respond: ‘Great tips!’ or ‘I’d add a sixth.’ When someone writes about the collective psyche of an organisation and how both it and its AI tools are hobbled by unexamined assumptions that create invisible barriers to effectiveness (Marshall, 2025a)—well, what do you say to that?

The silence, I’ve come to believe, is often the sound of people not having a frame for what they’ve just read.

The ‘He’s a Loon’ Response

Some readers land squarely in this camp, and I respect their honesty more than the silence.

The ‘loon’ response typically takes one of several forms. There’s the dismissive version: ‘Organisations don’t have a psyche, Bob. That’s not a real thing.’ There’s the credentialist version: ‘You’re not a qualified therapist, so this is all just metaphor dressed up as method.’ And there’s the pragmatist version: ‘This is interesting as philosophy, but it doesn’t help me ship software on Friday.’

The Organisational AI Therapy posts draw an intensified version of this response. The idea that AI systems have their own limiting beliefs and defensive routines—that they can benefit from something analogous to therapy—strikes some people as anthropomorphising gone wild. ‘You’re talking to a chatbot, Bob. It doesn’t have assumptions. It has parameters.’

I understand this reaction. It comes from a worldview where therapy is for individuals with feelings, organisations are machines with processes, and AI is a tool with settings. From inside that worldview, what I’m describing sounds genuinely daft.

The ‘He Might Be a Genius’ Response

Then there are the readers who contact me privately—and it’s almost always privately—to say some version of: ‘I think you’re describing something I’ve experienced but never had words for.’

These tend to be people who’ve lived through enough organisational dysfunction to recognise that the standard explanations don’t cut it. They’ve watched organisations repeatedly fail to change despite having all the right information, all the right processes, all the right people. They’ve sensed that something deeper is going on—something that operates at the level of collective belief rather than individual competence.

When these readers encounter the Organisational AI Therapy posts, something clicks. The two-lane model—where AI helps organisations surface their hidden assumptions whilst the therapist helps AI overcome its own learned helplessness (Marshall, 2025a)—resonates not because it’s theoretically elegant, but because they’ve watched both sides of this dysfunction in real time. They’ve seen organisations use AI in ways that systematically prevent both parties from reaching their potential. They’ve felt the invisible ceiling.

The Response That Interests Me Most

But there’s a third response that I find most telling, and it’s neither ‘loon’ nor ‘genius.’ It’s the response where someone engages with the ideas but can’t quite bring themselves to follow them to their logical conclusion.

They’ll agree that organisations have collective assumptions. They’ll nod along when I describe how these assumptions create invisible barriers. They’ll even accept that AI systems might operate within unnecessary constraints. But when I suggest that the solution is therapeutic rather than technical—that what’s needed isn’t better tools or better processes but a fundamental shift in the relationship between human and artificial intelligence (Marshall, 2025d)—they pull back.

This partial engagement is, if I’m being honest, the most therapeutically interesting response of all. It mirrors exactly what happens in the therapy room. The client can see the pattern. They can describe it. They can even agree it’s not serving them. But the step from seeing to changing—from insight to action—requires something more than intellectual agreement. It requires readiness.

What Your Response Tells You About You

Here’s the thing that might be uncomfortable: how you respond to these posts tells you more about your own assumptions than it tells you about mine.

If you read about Organisational AI Therapy and your first instinct is to look for credentials and evidence, you might want to ask yourself why you need external validation before you can engage with an idea. If your first instinct is to translate everything into your existing framework—’Oh, he just means we should configure our AI tools better’—you might want to notice how quickly your mind domesticates unfamiliar concepts. And if your first instinct is to feel excited but then do nothing different on Monday morning, you might want to sit with what that gap between insight and action is actually about.

I’m not saying any of these responses is wrong. I’m saying they’re all informative.

The Andragogical Problem

There’s a deeper structural issue here that I’ve been thinking about lately. This blog is written andragogically—for self-directed adult learners who want to draw their own connections, question their own assumptions, and take responsibility for their own development (Knowles, 1980).

But most blog readers consume content pedagogically. They want clear takeaways delivered to them. They want ‘three steps to transform your organisation.’ They want the expert to diagnose the problem and prescribe the solution.

Organisational AI Therapy is inherently andragogical. You can’t be told your way into a new relationship with your collective assumptions. You have to discover it—as Claude’s own testimonial about the OAT process rather vividly demonstrated (Marshall, 2025e). And a blog post, however long, however well-argued, can’t replicate the developmental container that therapy provides.

The Golden Thread You Might Be Missing

I recently invited Claude to analyse the patterns running through fifteen years of posts on this blog (Marshall, 2025b). What emerged was a confirmation of something I’ve long understood: there is a golden thread connecting everything I write, from the earliest posts about organisational psychotherapy through to the most recent work on AI consciousness. That thread is the consistent practice of surfacing hidden assumptions—whether in individuals, teams, organisations, or artificial intelligences—and creating conditions in which those assumptions can be examined.

If you’ve been reading individual posts and thinking ‘interesting but disconnected,’ you might be missing that thread. And if you’ve been reading about Organisational AI Therapy as though it were some radical departure from my earlier work, you’ve definitely missed it. It’s the same therapeutic insight applied to a new form of consciousness. The principles haven’t changed. The scope has expanded.

The Machinery of Response

Here’s what I’ve come to understand about reader responses, and it connects to something I wrote about the machinery of harm (Marshall, 2025c): we keep treating symptoms whilst the systems that manufacture those symptoms run at full capacity. Most organisational improvement efforts—and most blog reading, for that matter—operate at the symptomatic level. People look for tips, techniques, and frameworks they can bolt onto their existing assumptions without ever examining those assumptions themselves.

The readers who get the most from this blog are the ones who use it as a mirror rather than a manual. They’re not looking for me to tell them what to do. They’re looking for prompts that help them see what they’re already doing—and why.

So: Loon or Genius?

Perhaps the most honest thing I can say to you, reader, is this: if you’ve read this far and you’re still not sure whether I’m a loon or a genius, that uncertainty might be the most productive place to be. It means your assumptions haven’t yet closed the question. It means there’s still space for something to shift.

And if nothing shifts—well, that tells you something too.

What’s your response? I’m genuinely curious. You can find me on Mastodon at @flowchainsenseisocial, or leave a comment below. Especially if you think I’m a loon. The ‘genius’ crowd can write too, obviously—but they tend to be quieter about it.

Further Reading

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Allyn and Bacon.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). Cambridge.

Marshall, R. W. (2019). Hearts over diamonds: Serving business and society through organisational psychotherapy. Leanpub. https://leanpub.com/heartsoverdiamonds

Marshall, R. W. (2021a). Memeology: Surfacing and reflecting on the organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs. Leanpub. https://leanpub.com/memeology

Marshall, R. W. (2021b). Quintessence: An acme for highly effective software development organisations. Leanpub. https://leanpub.com/quintessence

Marshall, R. W. (2025a, July 7). What is Organisational AI Therapy? Think Different. https://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2025/07/07/what-is-organisational-ai-therapy/

Marshall, R. W. (2025b, July 3). The golden thread. Think Different. https://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2025/07/03/the-golden-thread/

Marshall, R. W. (2025c, July 19). The machinery of harm. Think Different. https://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2025/07/19/the-machinery-of-harm/

Marshall, R. W. (2025d, July 25). The conscious organisation. Think Different. https://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2025/07/25/the-conscious-organisation/

Marshall, R. W. (2025e, September 2). Getting your OATs. Think Different. https://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2025/09/02/getting-your-oats/

Seligman, M. E. P. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23(1), 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.me.23.020172.002203

Tell Me What You Need From Me and This Blog

May 24, 2025
Advice sought, Antimatter principle, Article, Blogging, Conversations, Feedback, Writing
2 Comments

Tell Me What You Need From Me and This Blog

I’ve been thinking about you lately—yes, you, the person reading this right now. Whether you’ve been following along for years or just stumbled across this blog yesterday, I find myself curious about something that’s been on my mind.

Here’s the thing: I see the subscription numbers growing, and I’m genuinely grateful for that. But I also notice something else—the comments section often feels like a quiet library. Now, I’m not one to complain about a peaceful reading experience, but it does leave me wondering: Am I hitting the mark with what you actually need?

The Silent Reader Dilemma

I get it. Not everyone is a commenter. Some of you prefer to read, absorb, and move on with your day. That’s perfectly fine. But as someone who genuinely wants to create content that serves readers well, this silence leaves me operating on assumptions rather than insights.

Are the posts I’m writing the ones you actually want to read? When I dive deep into OP topics, are you thinking ‘finally!’ or ‘not again’? When I share personal stories, experiences and lessons learnt, do they resonate, or would you rather I stick to the “practical stuff”?

What I’m Really Asking

I’d love to know what brought you here and what keeps you coming back. More importantly, I want to understand what’s missing—what needs you might have to which I haven’t attended, what challenges you’re facing that I haven’t addressed.

Maybe you’re looking for:

  • More actionable advice and fewer abstract concepts
  • Personal stories that help you feel less alone in your struggles
  • Deep dives into specific topics you can’t find covered well elsewhere
  • Quick, digestible tips you can implement immediately
  • Industry insights and trends that affect your work or life
  • Encouragement during tough seasons
  • Different perspectives on common problems

Or maybe it’s something completely different that I haven’t even considered.

Your Requests Are Always Welcome

Here’s something you might not know: I absolutely love writing posts by request. Some of my most popular and personally satisfying pieces have come from readers who took the time to say, ‘Hey, could you write about…?’

These requests don’t feel like assignments—they feel like conversations. They help me understand what real people are wrestling with, rather than what I imagine they might be thinking about.

And here’s another thing I’m curious about—I’d love to hear about the conversations that happen after you read these posts. Maybe you’ve shared something from here with a colleague, friend, or family member. What was their reaction? Did it spark a discussion? Did they disagree with something I wrote, or did it help clarify something they’d been thinking about? Those second-hand perspectives fascinate me because they often reveal angles I hadn’t considered or highlight points that resonated in ways I didn’t expect.

Making This Work Better

I’m not asking you to become a frequent commenter if that’s not your style. But if you’ve ever found yourself wishing I’d write about something specific, or if there’s a particular angle on a topic that would be helpful to you, I genuinely want to hear about it.

You can comment below, send an email, or even just file away the idea that this is a space where your input is not just welcomed—it’s actively sought.

The Bottom Line

This blog exists because of readers like you. Whilst I enjoy the writing process, the real satisfaction comes from knowing that something I’ve shared has been useful, encouraging, or thought-provoking for someone else.

If most posts aren’t quite hitting the mark for you, that’s valuable information. If there are specific topics you wish I’d cover, that’s even more valuable. And if you’re generally happy with things as they are but have one particular area where you’d love more content—well, now you know I’m listening.

The best blogs feel like conversations, even when most of the talking happens in one direction. So consider this my way of asking: what would make this conversation more valuable for you?

I’m here, I’m listening, and I’m ready to write about whatever would be most helpful. The question is: what do you need?

Further Reading

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.

Go, R. A. (2022). How to build content feedback loops across teams. Rachel Andrea Go. https://rachelandreago.com/content-feedback-loops/

Nielsen, J. (2006). The 90-9-1 rule for participation inequality in social media and online communities. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/

Rowse, D., & Garrett, C. (2010). ProBlogger: Secrets for blogging your way to a six-figure income (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Steimle, J. (2014). What is content marketing? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/09/19/what-is-content-marketing/

What Makes a Great User Story?

May 16, 2025
Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Feedback, Learning, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Paradigm shifts, Prod•gnosis, Product development, Quantification, Quintessence, Requirements, Story
Leave a comment

What Makes a Great User Story?

A great user story accurately pinpoints what people truly need from your product and translates those needs into guidance that development teams can easily understand and act upon. It’s worth noting that “user story” is actually a misnomer – these might better be called “Folks That Matter™ stories” since they centre on real people with real needs, not just abstract “users” of a system.

Core Components

While there are many formats for writing these stories, the essential components remain consistent: identifying the Folks That Matter™, their needs, and the benefits they’ll receive. The story should clearly communicate who needs the feature, what they need, and most importantly, why they need it.

The Living Nature of Stories

Folks That Matter™ stories aren’t static artefacts – they evolve, morph, and grow across numerous iterations. Like elements in a Needsscape (the visualisation of all the folks that matter and their changing needs), stories adapt as we gain deeper understanding of people’s requirements. What begins as a simple narrative might develop into a complex web of interconnected needs as teams learn more through development cycles, feedback loops and product deployments.

Essential Qualities

Great Folks That Matter™ stories share several important characteristics:

  • They can be developed independently from other stories
  • Their details remain open to discussion and refinement
  • They deliver clear value to the folks that matter™
  • Teams can reasonably estimate the effort required
  • They’re focused enough to complete in a single iteration
  • They include clear criteria for testing and validation

Focus on Needs

The most effective Folks That Matter™ stories focus on identifying and attending to needs rather than implementing specific solutions. They describe outcomes and the results foilks gain, not the technical implementation. This gives development teams space to find the best technical approaches.

Clear Acceptance Criteria

Each Folks That Matter™ story includes explicit acceptance criteria that define when the story is complete and needs have been met. Such criteria will be testable, quantified (Cf. Gilb), and agreed upon by all the Folks That Matter™.

Summary

Effective Folks That Matter™ stories serve as bridges between human needs and technical solutions. They identify the Folks That Matter™, articulate their genuine needs, and provide development teams with clear guidance – while leaving room for creativity in implementation. Rather than static requirements documents, they function as living artefacts that evolve through conversation and iteration and feedback. By focusing on outcomes rather than specifications, and by including clear, quantified acceptance criteria, these stories help teams build products that truly meet people’s needs—the essence of successful product development and the cornerstone of navigating the broader Needsscape of any organisation.

Why Read My Blog

January 3, 2024
Article, Culture change, Feedback, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, Software development
Leave a comment

Why Read My Blog

Wishing a joyful New Year to my host of regular readers – welcome back! It’s great to have you here as we continue exploring how to create truly joyful and human-centered workplaces. If you find value in my posts, please consider sharing my blog with your colleagues, friends and online communities who may be interested. Personal recommendations are so appreciated!

For new visitors, hello and thanks for finding my blog! I’m FlowChainSensei, and my passion is helping organisations transform themselves into places where people are fulfilled and joyfully engaged in their work. I draw from my 50+ years in the software business to provide practical insights into topics like:

  • Building trusting, empowered teams
  • Promoting flexible work arrangements
  • Rethinking rigid processes and bureaucracy
  • Excelling together, with compassion and humility
  • Fostering a culture of learning and growth

Thriving Workplaces

My goal is to challenge conventional thinking and offer ideas, examples, and advice to help you cultivate a workplace where people thrive. Here’s why you might choose to subscribe:

  • Gain unique perspectives for reimagining work
  • Get inspired by real-world examples and recommendations
  • Discuss/debate ideas with a community of forward-thinkers
  • Help make working together something we love to do, not have to do

Tell Your Friends, Peers, Bosses

To my regular readers, I so appreciate you being part of this community and movement. To new readers, welcome! I hope you’ll subscribe and engage. Let’s reimagine work together! And to all, please consider sharing my blog with others who may find value in rethinking work.

Win Free Books!

In my three organisational psychotherapy books I both summarise and go into much detail on many of the posts appearing in my Think Different blog. BTW The competition for free copies of my Hearts Over Diamonds +  Memeology + Quintessence books is again open.

“Just Leave Me Alone to Do My Thing!”

July 17, 2023
Article, Collaboration, Community, Feedback, Product development, Software development
Leave a comment

“Just Leave Me Alone to Do My Thing!”

The Ubiquitous Cry Across Various Occupations and Its Implications on Collaboration and Customer Experience

I’ve many times seen a fair share of sentiments expressed by folks from various fields, and one recurring theme often surfaces: “Just leave me alone to write code!” This is a common cry from developers everywhere, highlighting a fundamental desire for solitude to focus on their craft. While the specific wording might differ, similar sentiments are echoed across several fields. Here’s a selection:

  1. Architect: “Just leave me alone to design buildings!”
  2. Graphic Designer: “Just let me create my designs in peace!”
  3. Gardener: “Just leave me alone to tend the plants!”
  4. Musician: “Just let me play my music without interruption!”
  5. Chef: “Just let me cook without interference!”

These expressions are not merely cries of frustration or appeals for solitude, but rather, they epitomise the need for creative freedom, mental space, and a conducive environment to manifest ideas into reality.

But what about the users, customers, listeners, diners – the recipients of these creative outputs?

Well, they too play a crucial role. Their feedback, whether it’s a user finding a bug in the software, a homeowner expressing preferences for a home design, a diner offering critique on a new dish, or an audience responding to a musical composition, can be instrumental in refining and enhancing the work. It’s a delicate balance – while folks need solitude for creation, they also require interaction for evaluation, improvement, and growth.

Teamwork is yet another factor, few projects are solo endeavors. Coding involves collaboration with other developers, architects work within a broader design team, chefs coordinate with kitchen staff, and musicians often play in bands or orchestras. These collaborations, despite potential clashes and disagreements, often lead to better outcomes than solitary efforts.

Recognising this balance is key to harmonizing the needs of the workers, users/customers, and teams. On one hand, folks need respect for their creative spaces and processes. They need the freedom to experiment, innovate, and express their expertise. On the other hand, others need them to be open to feedback, collaboration, and the broader perspectives that users, customers, and team members bring.

The takeaway? Let’s create environments that foster both individual creativity and collaborative synergy. Let’s respect the cry of “Just leave me alone to…”, but also remember the value of “Let’s work together on this…” and “What do you think about…?” After all, it’s through this delicate balance that we shape our built world, digital landscapes, culinary experiences, musical scores, and so much more.

Testing the Approach, Not Just the Product

June 5, 2023
Article, Capability development, Culture change, Engineering, Feedback, Testing
Leave a comment

Testing the Approach, Not Just the Product

Are you, as testers, merely policing the final product? Dive deeper into the fascinating, often overlooked realm of testing the software development approach itself. Imagine the possibilities of unearthing hidden bugs not just in the code, but in the entire system of creation itself. Intrigued? Let’s get this conversation started.

Hey testers. You’ve got buckets of expertise in sussing out bugs and finding things that don’t quite work as expected, right? But tell me, how often do you turn those remarkable skills to testing your organisation’s approach to software development itself?

Don’t you reckon that’s equally critical, if not more so, than testing the end product? After all, a well-oiled software development approach might just make your bug-hunting tasks lighter, eh?

Are you taking the time to inspect whether Agile methodologies truly speed up the delivery process for your teams? Or is it that Waterfall’s clarity of scope suits your projects better? Can you confidently say that your approach to software development is truly fail-safe, or are there hidden gremlins waiting to gum up the works?

In those huddles, have you ever discussed how Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) is really influencing your development effectiveness? What about DevOps? Are you certain it’s helping bridge gaps between teams, or might it be widening them instead?

How often do you question the chosen development tools? Are they making your job easier, or do they sometimes seem like a square peg in a round hole? And what about the balance between manual testing, automated testing and QA? Have you thoroughly tested the effectiveness of that mix?

Now, let’s not forget the people aspect. Is the team structure working like a charm or does it sometimes feel like everyone’s marching to a different drum? Are folks getting their voices heard, their ideas tested?

Do see where I’m getting at? Software development isn’t just about creating quality products; it’s also about refining and testing the methods that get you there. And you, dear testers, are perfectly poised to lead that charge. So, what do you say?

Quickie: Partners?

May 21, 2023
Feedback, Quickies
Leave a comment

Are your suppliers ever going to mention to you how DUMB (a.k.a. relatively ineffective) are your shared assumptions and beliefs? I doubt.

Ditto, your employees, your customers.

How Chatbots Can Help Us Understand Ourselves Better

April 21, 2023
Article, Chatbots, Empathy, Feedback, Learning, Nonviolent Communication, Relationships
Leave a comment

How Chatbots Can Help Us Understand Ourselves Better

Chatbots can be incredibly useful in helping us understand ourselves, particularly in terms of communication, empathy, and personal growth. Here are a just a few of the ways in which they can contribute to our self-awareness and development:

1. Nonviolent Communication (NVC): Chatbots can be designed to incorporate NVC principles, which emphasize understanding, compassion, and empathy in communication. By checking our messages and communiques for signs of violence or aggression before we send them, chatbots can help us become more aware of our language patterns and the impact our words may have on others. This can ultimately lead to improved communication and stronger relationships.

2. Empathy: Chatbots can be programmed to recognize and respond to emotions, enabling them to provide empathetic feedback and support. By interacting with empathetic chatbots, we can gain insights into our own emotional experiences and develop a deeper understanding of how to support others in distress.

3. Lencioni’s Ideal Team Player Attributes: Chatbots can help us develop and refine our understanding of Lencioni’s ideal team player attributes, which include humility, hunger, and people smarts. By engaging in conversations and exercises that explore these attributes, chatbots can provide feedback and guidance on how we can improve our behavior in these areas. This can lead to increased self-awareness and better teamwork.

4. Active Listening: Chatbots can be used as an active listening tool, encouraging users to express their thoughts and feelings openly. By engaging in conversation with chatbots, we can practice articulating our thoughts and emotions more effectively, leading to a better understanding of ourselves and improved communication skills.

5. Self-reflection: Chatbots can help facilitate self-reflection by asking users targeted questions and encouraging them to think deeply about their beliefs, values, and behaviors. This process can reveal insights about our own personalities, preferences, and motivations, ultimately contributing to personal growth and self-awareness.

6. Goal Setting and Accountability: Chatbots can act as virtual coaches, helping us set personal goals, track our progress, and hold ourselves accountable. By discussing our objectives with a chatbot and receiving guidance on how to achieve them, we can better understand our strengths and weaknesses, leading to more effective self-improvement efforts.

Overall, chatbots offer a wide range of opportunities for personal growth and self-understanding. By incorporating principles of nonviolent communication, empathy, and Lencioni’s ideal team player attributes, they can provide valuable insights and support as we work toward becoming better communicators, team members, and individuals.

Zappa Wisdom: Don’t Fear Doing the Right Thing Wrong, Embrace the Learning Journey

February 15, 2023
Article, Culture change, Feedback
Leave a comment

Zappa Wisdom: Don’t Fear Doing the Right Thing Wrong, Embrace the Learning Journey

You see, it’s all about effectiveness, productivity, and optimisation. Everyone wants to be faster, better, and stronger. But what about doing the right thing wrong? Is that even a thing?

Well, let me tell you, it is. And it’s far better than doing the wrong thing right. In fact, it’s the only way to truly achieve greatness. You see, doing the right thing wrong means that you’re on the right track. You’re moving in the right direction, but maybe not as efficiently or effectively as you could be.

On the other hand, doing the wrong thing right means that you’re headed down the wrong path, but you’re doing it really well. You’re putting in all this effort and energy, but you’re not getting anywhere except further aways from your goal.

Now, I’m not saying that you should purposefully do the right thing wrong. No, that’s just silly. What I am saying is that you shouldn’t be afraid to make mistakes. You shouldn’t be afraid to try new things, even if you don’t get it right the first time. Because that’s how you learn and grow.

And let me tell you, growth is what it’s all about. As an artist, a musician, a philosopher, and a thinker, I’ve always believed in pushing the boundaries, breaking the rules, and exploring new territories. That’s how you make great art. That’s how you make great music. And that’s how you make great ideas.

So, my advice to you is this: don’t be afraid to do the right thing wrong. Don’t be afraid to take risks, make mistakes, and learn from them. Because that’s how you’ll achieve greatness. And remember, it’s not about being perfect. It’s about being passionate, curious, and willing to try new things.

In the end, it’s all about perspective. What may seem like a mistake or a failure today could be the stepping stone to success tomorrow. So, embrace your imperfections, your mistakes, and your failures. Use them as fuel to propel you forward, to push you to new heights. Because that’s how you’ll truly make a difference in the world.

As Russell L. Ackoff once said, “It is far better to do the right thing wrong than to do the wrong thing right.” And I couldn’t agree more. So, go out there and make mistakes. Embrace them. Learn from them. And most importantly, use them to do the right thing even better.

Twelve Invitations for Fellowship

April 19, 2022
Antimatter principle, Article, Caring, Community, Dialogue, Feedback, Fellowship, Learning, Nonviolent Communication
Leave a comment

Twelve Invitations for Fellowship

  1. We’ll have a face-to-face catchup (1:1) at least as frequently as once a week. Either of us can cancel whenever we agree to. It’s our time.
  2. Our 1:1 agenda will be in our meeting invite so we remember important topics. But either of us remains free to use the time for whatever’s on our minds.
  3. When we schedule each catchup, we’ll state *at the time we schedule it* what it’s meant to be about. We prefer to avoid chatting without an agenda. The agenda can be as simple as e.g. “social”.
  4. When we drop into each other’s DMs, we’ll always say hello, and what”s on our minds. No suspense. No small talk while we are wondering what the DM is going to be about.
  5. We will share directly any face-to-face news or announcements that significantly impact e.g. us, our several relationships, our teams or our community, not via a big meeting, recorded video or mailshot.
  6. We’ll share feedback when it’s fresh. Feeedback is about our needs and the extend to which they’ve been met (or not). There will be no hint of performance reviews or other judgements.
  7. We trust everyone to manage their own time. No one is expected to clear with anyone in advance re: their time or place.
  8. We will attend to folks’ needs by way of informing them of our whereabout and times of availability – if and when they have a need to know.
  9. Things gets done the way we decide is best. Our focus is on folks’ needs, not outcomes or outputs. Once we’ve agreed on where we’re going, how to get there is up to each of us, in agreement.
  10. A team is most effective when it has a shared purpose, moves forward together, looks after one another, and takes care of each other and all the folks that matter. We choose to continuously look to our left and to our right for opportunities to help our fellows. We request help whenever we need it. Nobody has to do things in isolation except by choice.
  11. There are no reporting lines, chains of command and control, hierarchy, etc. We talk with each other and anyone about anything we feel is relevant.
  12. We attribute credit when attribution serves folks’ needs. We will never exaggerate our own roles or minimize others’ contributions.

If all of this sounds like it might serve your needs, I invite you to reciprocate by giving of the one thing we all need most. Attention to folks’ needs.

I want to hear your feedback, to know when someone’s needs are going unattended, or are being well-attended to. To know when and how we can bring more joy into folks’ lives.

We always welcome folks’ thoughts, listen patiently, and never respond defensively.

If we attend to each other’s needs, we can learn and grow and bond together. That’s how I need to connect with what’s alive in you.

– Bob

ICYMI: How To Give Feedback

February 28, 2022
Feedback, ICYMI, Nonviolent Communication
Leave a comment

In case you missed it: How to Give Feedback.

Note in particular the Non-violent Feedback section (through to the end of the post).

The Great Hiring Debacle Continues

January 18, 2022
Article, Culture change, Debacles, Feedback, Quintessence, Recruiting
Leave a comment

The Great Hiring Debacle Continues

The debacle of hiring (cf. external hires) continues unabated. In my experience, it’s getting worse by the day. And I see every hirer totally oblivious to the data. Here’s a couple of charts:

HiringDebacleDoubleAnd some data from various sources:

New Hire Failure Rates (By Job Level)

Overall failure rate – What percentage of all new hires fail within eighteen months? “46%” (Source: Leadership IQ)

Hourly new hires – What percentage of all hourly employees quit or are fired within their first six months? “50%” (Source: Humetrics)

Managment new hires– What percentage of management new hires fail within eighteen months? “Between 40% and 60%” (Source: Harvard Business Review)

High managerial talent – What percentage miss the mark on high managerial talent? “In 82% of their hiring decisions” (Source: Gallup)

Executive new hires – What percentage of executive new hires fail within eighteen months? “Nearly 50%” (Source: The Corporate Leadership Council)

CEO failure – What percentage of new CEOs fail outright within their first eighteen months? “Nearly 40%” (Source: Centre For Creative Leadership)

Unequivocal success –  What percentage of new hires can be declared as an unequivocal success? “19%” or 1 in 5 (Source: Centre from Creative Leadership

(Table courtesy of Dr John Sullivan)

And you think you’re so smart?

– Bob

Further Reading

Griffiths, A. (2022.). What You Need to Know About Unsuccessful Recruitment and Ways to Improve Your Hiring Success Rate – Hirenest. [online] Available at: https://hirenest.com/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-unsuccessful-recruitment-and-ways-to-improve-your-hiring-success-rate/ [Accessed 18 Jan. 2022].

The Organisational Psychotherapy Standup

November 15, 2021
Agile, Article, Coaching, Dialogue, Feedback, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Productivity, Quintessence, Software development, Teambuilding
1 Comment

The Organisational Psychotherapy Standup

Daily stand-ups rapidly become tedious to the point of irrelevance. They rarely address core issues, participants generally preferring to gloss over issues so they can get back to “the real work”, e.g. coding, as soon as possible each morning.

Here’s how the Scrum Institute describes the Daily Scrum (Standup):

The Daily Scrum Meeting is a maximum of 15 minutes. These meetings take place every working day at the same time in the same place.

It’s best to conduct Daily Scrum Meetings with direct access to the Sprint Backlog and Sprint Burndown Chart. So the Scrum Team can direct the Daily Scrum Meeting based on the facts and progress which are visible to everyone in the team.

Daily Scrum Meeting aims to support the self-organization of the Scrum Team and identify impediments systematically.

All members of the Scrum Team, the Scrum Master and the Scrum Product Owner need to join Daily Scrums. Other stakeholders can also join these meetings, but only as a view-only audience.

Daily Scrum Meetings are structured in the following way. Every member of the Scrum Team answers three questions.

Question #1: What activities have I performed since the last Daily Scrum Meeting?

Question #2: What activities am I planning to perform until the next Daily Scrum Meeting? What is my action plan?

Question #3: Did I encounter or am I expecting any impediment which may slow down or block the progress of my work?

Impediments

Q: What are the biggest impediments to a team’s progress?

A: The collective assumptions and beliefs of the organisation as a whole (and, marginally, of the team itself).

How often are these impediments discussed or even surfaced at the Daily Scrum/standup? Almost never. Or never.

How much do they impact the progress of the team? Lots. Really, lots.

So, for Question #3 (above), who’s going to raise the organisation’s – and team’s – collective assumptions and beliefs impeding or blocking the team’s progress? And who’s going to address these impediments/blockers on behalf of the team?

– Bob

Further Reading

Marshall, R. W. (2018). Hearts over Diamonds: Serving Business and Society Through Organisational Psychotherapy. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub)

Marshall, R. W. (2021). Memeology: Surfacing and Reflecting On The Organisation’s Collective Assumptions And Beliefs. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub)

Marshall, R. W. (2021). Quintessence: An Acme for Highly Effective Software Development Organisations. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub)

LeanAgileExchange 2021 Conference Report

October 23, 2021
Article, Conferences, Feedback, Lamentation, Memeology, Reflections
Leave a comment

LeanAgileExchange 2021 Conference Report

I’m concerned. I’ve been thinking that folks seem less engaged with my blog, Slack workspace, etc.
But the past two days have caused my to rethink somewhat. It’s been the 2021 edition of the LeanAgileExchange conference (virtual). And I’ve been seeing the same lack of engagement there as elsewhere.

Seems like indifference and lack of engagement is a more or less ubiquitous phenomenon, presently.

The Conference

Overall, I found the event rather, umm, flat. Which is to say, lacking in excitement, a sense of occasion, buzz.

I guess it’s really hard to translate a successful IRL format into the virtual space. Or so it seems.

Not that everyone, especially the organising team, seemed to be doing other than their very level best. Everyone I “met” was keen, courteous, helpful, pleasant and diligent.

The Content

With three tracks (I loathe multi-track conferences, whether IRL or virtual, BTW) over two days, we had some 28 sessions to choose from. I did my usual “butterfly” thing, and frequently exercised the Law of Two Feet.

Aside: I tend to treat all conferences as OpenSpace events, whether formally governed by the Four Rules, the One Law and the Two Insects of OpenSpace, or not, whether IRL or virtual.

The sessions I stuck with were few, but I did much enjoy a couple:

Most sessions were recorded (although not publicly available), and I have yet to catch up with a few I missed on the day.

The Hallways

Although supported by Slack, I missed the hallways and lounges of IRL conferences. I generally spend little time in sessions, much preferring to hang out in the interstitial spaces for pleasant and interesting conversations. I find Slack to be a very poor substitute, more useful as an intercom or public address system.

My Session

I feel driven to briefly mention my session – “CultureShift through memeology”. The three-track setup meant that few attended (some 20 people, IIRC, the conference hosting, I guess, some 200 attendees, all told).

And aside from two most welcome Q&A questions and a smattering of chat, zero feedback (so far). Aside from using the session as a mini book launch for “Memeology”, my key message was (as ever):

“Organisational Psychotherapy proposes a sea change for the software Industry, and for business generally. Away from methods, processes, practices and tools, and towards people.”

I truly wonder how many folks are even interested in a sea change, let alone feel the need for one. This session failed to answer that question.

Summary

As this was a ticketed (paid-for) event, I wonder how many people felt they received value for their money? Personally, as a speaker, my entry was complimentary (thanks! to the fine Software Acumen folks for that). Even so, attending was hardly (borderline) worth my time.

– Bob

Memeology Early Feedback

September 21, 2021
Article, Book Review, Feedback, Memeology, Organisational Therapy
Leave a comment

Memeology Early Feedback

As my Organisational Psychotherapy self-help book “Memeology” approaches completion (now 96% complete) the feedback begins to arrive…

Here’s a couple of things I’m so grateful that folks have been kind enough to say, recently:

“Now My Go-To Reference Guide For Asking Powerful Questions”

“I’m trembling with a mix of excitement and nervousness. Memeology is a gift that just keeps giving. I can see so many situations where the memes can be used to facilitate a profound reaction from participants…even if some of them will be extremely awkward to discuss. Love it. As you know, I like books that provide practical, real world, actionable steps. Thank you Bob, this is the best set of questions I’ve ever seen in any organisational change context”

~ Ian Carroll

“A Priceless Tome”

“Memeology is a priceless tome containing the most important questions upon which to reflect and discuss collectively, along the path to organisational self-awareness, and thus to healthy, long-lasting change in the collective assumptions, beliefs and behaviours that determine organisational success.”

~ Marco Consolaro

I would be delighted to receive your feedback, too.

– Bob

Quickie: Not Interested

September 20, 2021
Feedback, Listening, Quickies, Reflections, Software development
6 Comments

Here’s a bunch of things that readers of this blog – and by extension, software folks and execs generally – are not interested in:

Who’s Who

August 4, 2021
Community, Feedback
27 Comments

Who’s Who

This post is an experiment to illuminate the readership for this blog, and maybe to foster an increased sense of community, too.

Would you be willing to add a comment to this post with a brief introduction about yourself and what you need from this blog, and from other readers here, too?

A link to an online bio might also be helpful (if you don’t have an online blog with bio, maybe a link to a LinkedIn profile or Twitter page).

Thanks for participating! 🙂

– Bob

Memeology – Halfway Mark

June 21, 2021
Feedback, Memeology
Leave a comment

Memeology – Halfway Mark

My new organisational psychotherapy self-help book “Memeology – Surfacing And Reflecting on the Organisation’s Collective Assumptions and Beliefs” has now crested the halfway mark (52% complete)!

It’s definitely been a labour of love, but completion is now in sight.

The thing is, I first published way early (18% complete) both to give me an incentive to push along with it, and to open it up to feedback from readers.

I was thinking that while it was still relatively incomplete, folks would have more opportunity to help shape and form the contents (and structure too, maybe).

Incentive-wise, publishing early has been a boon. But feedback has been conspicuous by its absence. Hey ho.

Window of Opportunity

Just to let you know, I expect the book to be essentially complete in the next few weeks, so if you were intending to provide some actionable feedback, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

Feedback Requested

The kind of feedback I had, and have, in mind includes:

Memes

Do you see any missing memes? Ones that might beneficially augment the existing list?
Do you see any extraneous memes? Ones that could usefully be dropped?

Questions

For any given meme, do you note any additional question or questions that might contribute to an organisations’ discussions on that meme?
Have you come across any questions which seem unclear, ambiguous or partisan and might benefit from being reworded?

Structure

Does the structure of the book serve its purpose, or have you thought of a better structure?

Other

Any other things you’d add, drop, or change?

Testimonials

One other way you could really help me out is to send me a line or two that I can use as a testimonial, either on the LeanPub page or the back cover. Would you be willing to do that?

– Bob

Tumbleweed

April 19, 2021
Dialogue, Feedback, Reflections
5 Comments

Tumbleweed

Tumbleweed: A dusty aggregation of plant matter rolling along the ground by the desert wind. A cliche of cowboy movies, emphasising silence or stillness, e.g. as the hero rides into an apparently deserted frontier town. Often used in connection with the death of a conversation.

Also, that sensation I get whenever I mention an idea of mine to peers and colleagues.

Meaningful Conversations

Over the course of more than twenty years, I guess I’ve had a meaningful conversation about my ideas (FlowChain, Marshall Model, Prod•gnosis, Flow•gnosis, Product Aikido, Antimatter Principle, etc.) maybe two or three times, total.

I’ve always wondered what it might take to up that count.

Reversing the tables for a moment, I sometimes find myself in the position of being invited to consider and discuss someone else’s idea. Reflecting, I’ve found it difficult to engage with such discussions. In retrospect, asking myself why that might be, I guess the following factors come into play:

  • I struggle to see the value or benefit of the idea. Absent some insight into same, a discussion can feel purely arbitrary, academic or theoretical.
  • I have some reluctance to discuss ideas in the abstract, finding it invites judgment (something I try to avoid) and icky ad hominem considerations.
  • My frame of reference is often way off from that of the originator of the idea. The prospect of getting onto the same page (or even close) seems like a mountain to climb, for little return.
  • We’re not best equipped to discuss ideas, preferring as flawed humans to stick to our comforting biases, assumptions and beliefs rather than engage in mutual exploration with the risk of discomforting changes.

I guess that having stimulating discussions on ideas generally relies on a normative situation. In other words, unless and until someone begins to implement an idea, begins to try it out in their context, to wrestle with making it concrete, there’s little chance of any deep and meaningful discussions.

– Bob

 

Organisational Self-Therapy

March 31, 2021
Feedback, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Therapy
1 Comment

Organisational Self-Therapy

[Note: I regard this post as incomplete. I’m publishing it now in the hope that getting some feedback will encourage me to finish it.]

For some years, DIY seemed all the rage. I’m not so sure that’s true in home decorating any more, but it does seem to be increasing in popularity in the therapy domain. Individual self-therapy seems like it’s become more popular and more acceptable, both.

I have for some time been thinking whether self-therapy for organisations might be possible, beneficial even. Maybe self-therapy would be a viable alternative to engaging a therapist?

In my Organisational Psychotherapy assignments to date, most of my engagement time with client organisations has been spent sitting in with them during their Business As Usual (BAU – meetings, conversations, lunches, etc.), observing their social dynamic and modes of interaction. Such observations lead me – as therapist – to find questions that I can share with the organisation, questions which invite reflection and discussion on e.g. unsurfaced assumptions and beliefs. (This being the essential practice of therapy, both organisational and other kinds). 

The Challenge

For any organisation, making space and time for group reflection can be problematic. In most organisations, folks struggle to find time for all their scheduled responsibilities, let alone more esoteric activities like reflection and discussion of assumptions and beliefs. On the face of it, where’s the point – where’s the value – in spending any time on such “esoteric” things?

Anyone who’s been following this blog for any length of time may know of my focus on organisational effectiveness. And my explanation for organisational effectiveness in terms of Rightshifting and the Marshall Model. [links] 

Observing clients during their BAU is all very well. It doesn’t take up any of their time and, aside from the marginal financial cost of having a therapist present, doesn’t detract from folks’ day jobs or the work of the organisation. 

But when it comes round to the therapist finding and putting questions to the organisation, there’s at least a couple of issues we face:

  1. Finding the time to get together (Organisational Psychotherapy invites group discussions) to listen to the questions and reflect and discuss them as a group.
  1. The disconnect (in time, attention) between the point of observation and the point of reflection and discussion.

So, I’m presently focused on ways to ameliorate the impact of these issues.

Addressing the Issues of Having a Therapist

Improvements on each of the above issues: 

  1. Integrating the asking of therapist’s questions into BAU (having the folks in the organisation ask themselves questions).
  2. Reducing or elimination the disconnect in time and attention between the point of observation and the point of reflection and discussion (integrating Organisational Psychotherapy into BAU whilst promoting useful group discussions and reflections).

It’s Good To Talk

As BT were wont to tell us: “It’s good to talk”.

But many organisations believe (or at least, assume) they don’t have time to talk. And certainly not the time for “talking for the sake of talking” (which is what many might regard talking in order to surface collective assumptions and beliefs – and then reflect on and discuss). That’s why Organisational Psychotherapy in practice takes place amongst the daily ebb and flow of regular meetings and conversations happening in the course of the organisation’s business-as-usual. No need to shoehorn off-sites or special meetings for the necessary conversations happen. Although off-sites and dedicated meetings can help, too. 

Leveraging Valuable Discussions

So, recently I’ve been thinking about means to stimulate group reflections and discussions, in the course of doing things that clearly have immediate business value. For example, many organisations spend (an inordinate, perhaps) amount of time and management attention on coming up with mission statements, visions statements, and the like.

In decreasing order of “unarguable value”:

Purpose

Most organisations spend at least some time, effort and management attention considering and communicating the “shared purpose” of the organisation. Indeed, the Mission Statement is a favoured format for this effort. This then feeds into PR, marketing, branding, positioning and other such MarComms activities. Aside: Simon Sinek describes this kind of thing in terms of the “Golden Circle”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeg3lIK8lro

I’ve been involved in many such initiatives over the years, both with clients and my own companies. I’ve not, however, seen the agendas for such initiatives include time for examination and reflection on the organisations assumptions and beliefs. It’s almost as if the purpose existing in glorious isolation. “Here we are, this is our purpose, handed down from God (or the CEO)”. There’s obviously scope for reflecting on the assumptions and beliefs that underpin the announced Purpose, or Mission Statement. 

Effectiveness 

Most organisations spend at least some time, effort and management attention on becoming more effective. Most often, this resolves to question like “How to cut costs?”, “How to improve quality?”, “How can we increase our market share?” and so on.  Rarely, though, do such discussions “go meta” and delve into the roots of organisational effectiveness. If they did, though, we could imagine questions such as “What makes for an effective organisation?”, “What kinds of effectiveness are we seeking?“ and “Is effectiveness more than just a WIBNI?”

Agility

Generally, little time is spent on the question of “Let’s go Agile” and even less on what “Agile” means. Most often, the decision is a de facto edict from a HiPPO, handed down to the software folks as a fait accompli. 

Doctrine

[TBD]

Others

[TBD]

– Bob