Archive

General

The Power of Ow

Research suggests that vocalising pain through exclamations like “ow” might actually help reduce the experience of pain. This natural response appears to serve as more than just a communication tool—it may be an evolutionary mechanism that helps us cope with discomfort. But could these insights extend beyond physical pain to the psychological discomfort experienced in workplace settings, particularly in high-pressure tech environments?

The Science Behind “Ow”

When we stub our toe or burn our hand, saying “ow” is often an automatic response. Researchers have found evidence that these pain vocalisations aren’t merely symbolic—they may serve a biological function.

There is growing scientific interest in how vocalisation might influence our experience of pain. While specific research on saying “ow” is limited, studies examining related forms of vocal expression suggest that verbalization may play a role in pain modulation.

This phenomenon is similar to the well-documented finding that swearing can increase pain tolerance—a discovery made by psychologist Richard Stephens and colleagues at Keele University. Their research demonstrated that participants who swore during painful experiences could endure discomfort significantly longer than those who used neutral words. Interestingly, they also found that this pain-relieving effect was stronger in people who swear less frequently in everyday life. Regular swearers appeared to develop a tolerance to the pain-relieving effects, suggesting that the emotional impact of verbal expression may diminish with overuse.

Beyond Physical Pain: Emotional Expression in the Workplace

The question arises: if vocalising physical pain helps us process and potentially reduce that discomfort, could expressing emotional or psychological pain serve a similar function in workplace settings?

Tech environments, particularly software development teams, often experience unique stressors:

  • Tight deadlines and sprint pressures
  • Debugging complex problems
  • Navigating team dynamics and communication challenges
  • Balancing quality with time constraints
  • Micromanagement and unreasonable expectations

Yet in professional settings, particularly in tech culture, there’s often an implicit expectation to remain stoic and solution-focused rather than acknowledging discomfort.

The Cost of Suppressing Workplace “Ow” Moments

Research in organisational psychology suggests that emotional suppression—holding in negative feelings rather than acknowledging them—can lead to increased stress levels, reduced job satisfaction, and eventually burnout.

Studies in workplace psychology have found that environments where team members feel comfortable expressing concerns and acknowledging difficulties tend to show better team performance and employee wellbeing. Research indicates that teams perform better when members can exclaim about challenges without fear of embarrassment or rejection.

Creating Space for “Ow” in Tech Workplaces

Those tech companies concerned with engagement and productivity are beginning to recognise the value of creating environments where team members can express discomfort without fear of judgement. Practices that support this include:

  • Regular retrospectives where team members can openly discuss challenges
  • Normalised language around struggle (“This is really hard right now”)
  • Leadership that models vulnerability and acknowledges difficulties
  • Mental health resources and support systems

By creating environments where the equivalent of saying “ow” is not just permitted but recognised as healthy, organisations may help team members process their difficulties more effectively and build resilience.

The Balancing Act

Of course, there’s a delicate balance to maintain. Constant complaining without problem-solving can create toxic environments. The goal isn’t endless vocalisation of pain but rather acknowledging real discomfort as part of the process of addressing it.

Just as saying “ow” doesn’t fix a stubbed toe but helps us process the pain, acknowledging workplace challenges doesn’t immediately solve them—but it may give us the emotional capacity to address them more effectively.

Conclusion

The instinctive act of saying “ow” reveals something fundamental about human psychology: expression helps us process discomfort. As workplace cultures evolve, particularly in high-pressure tech industries, creating space for the psychological equivalent of “ow” may prove crucial for sustainable performance and wellbeing.

By understanding and applying the science of pain vocalisation to emotional and psychological stressors, organisations can potentially create more resilient, honest, engaging, and ultimately more productive work environments—where acknowledging difficulty becomes not a sign of weakness, but a step toward strength.

Getting the Breaks

For every one person that “gets the breaks” there’s a million that don’t.

This statement underscores the essence of resilience and perseverance. While it may seem disheartening to acknowledge that only a few people “get the breaks”, it’s important to remember that this is just a facet of the vast diversity of human experiences.

Every person who doesn’t immediately “get the breaks” contributes to a collective narrative of resilience, building strength, wisdom, and character through the challenges they face. These people often turn out to be some of the most tenacious, hardworking, and empathetic individuals, inspiring others with their determination and resilience.

Furthermore, they offer us lessons in courage, the capacity to keep going despite odds, and the will to forge our unique path. They remind us that while “breaks” might be an immediate route to success, there are countless roads to reach our destination, each one filled with its unique experiences and rewards. It emphasises the importance of valuing our journey as much as the destination.

In a way, this statement celebrates the human spirit, its indomitable will, and its ability to hope, strive, and grow irrespective of the challenges it encounters. It illustrates that success isn’t always about “getting the breaks”, but often about the strength we build, the resilience we foster, and the individuals we become through our unique journeys.

Unfettered Capitalism Equals Plutocracy

The question of whether we should burn down capitalism is a complex one that requires a deep understanding of the system and its flaws. Capitalism, as an economic system, is based on the principles of private ownership, competition, and profit. It has been widely adopted around the world and is credited with driving economic growth and prosperity. However, in recent years, there has been a growing movement to question the value of capitalism and to call for its replacement with a more equitable system. One of the main criticisms of unfettered capitalism is that it is inherently unequal, leading to a small percentage of the population controlling a large proportion of the wealth and creating a plutocracy, where a small group of wealthy individuals or corporations hold disproportionate power and influence in a society. This inequality is often seen as a fundamental flaw in capitalism, as it creates a society where a small elite have disproportionate power and influence.

Another criticism of unfettered capitalism is that it is environmentally destructive, resulting from the focus on profit and growth that disregards the natural world.

However, it is important to separate capitalism from plutocracy. Capitalism, as an economic system, might be reformed and regulated to ensure that it operates in a way that is equitable and sustainable. This can be achieved through progressive taxation, regulations that limit the influence of the wealthy in politics, and ensuring that the media is independent and represents the views and interests of the majority of the population. By doing so, we can create a more equitable and democratic society where the voices and interests of the majority are represented.

Blog Resurrected

Back last July I posted my Last Post. I don’t propose to begin posting here again in the same vein as previously. That seems…retrograde.

ChatGPT

Since December I’ve been looking into ChatGPT and begun using it to generate a host of posts on LinkedIn. I’m not at all sure LinkedIn gives its posters much in the way of exposure or reach. And certainly its UX is lamentable in many ways, particularly with reference to making anthologies of posts easily accessible. Here and gone again in the blink of an eye, describes LinkedIn posts AFAIC.

So I propose to take my LinkedIn posts dating back to Septermber-ish and repost them here. You may find their style(s) somewhat different than before, but I guess the content topics are much the same.

If you can get over their AI generated nature, I hope you find them at least as insightful as my prior posts here on WordPress.

Your thoughts and ideas welcomed, as ever.

– Bob

 

I Miss Punk

I miss the energy, the hunger for change, the cameraderie, the hope, the anger, the love, the stupidity.

I’m coming over all weepy with nostalgia and reminiscences.

So many punk friends, venues, nights (and days) out.

Whatever happended to youth? To living? To rebellion?

– Bob

You Don’t Understand Software Delivery

And the more senior you are, the less you understand. Even if you were once a developer, given that most developers don’t understand software development / software delivery, a developer background is not going to help you much.

Who does understand software delivery? Folks who have studied it as a discipline. And that’s precious few indeed. Of all the “development” folks I’ve met over the years – and that’s thousands – wayyy less than one percent actually have an effective understanding of the field.

Yes, there’s thousands upon thousands of folks who understand coding (programming). But that’s not much help at all in forming a broader and effective understanding of the wider software delivery discipline.

The upshot? The software industry is stacked to the gills with folks who have no clue what they’re doing, except in the narrowest of specialism. And worse, no ability to recognise the one percent. Result? The blind leading the blind. And the hegemony of the one-eyed man.

– Bob

Isolation

Over the past five years I’ve hardly ever left the house. And rarely spoken to anyone, even virtually, excepting two or three stalwarts.

In 2018-2019 this state of affairs was entirely by choice. I was wrapped up in writing my first Organisational Psychotherapy book – Hearts over Diamonds. And then along came COVID-19 and leaving the house became problematic for millions.

In 2020 and 2021 I made lemonade out of them lemons, doubling down on writing, and penned my second and third OP books: Memeology and Quintessence. I would have gone crazy without the focus this brought. Social media proved to be no substitute for face to face interactions and in-person conversations. Even my blog, which had been a source of interactions 2010-2015, tailed off and every post now receives next to zero comments.

So here we are, five years on. And I can honestly say that there’s zero demand for my skills, and precious little interest in effective software delivery and my insights thereinto. The software industry has never really embraced the idea of improvement – continuous or otherwise – and I see little prospect of this changing in my lifetime. The field of software delivery seems consigned to the same old torpor, indifference and the hegemony of the status quo. Fresh ideas and innovations appear unwanted – or is that unneeded?

– Bob

How To Navigate A Think Different Blog Post

Having been blogging here at Think Different for over a decade now, I feel very familiar and thus comfortable with the format of my blog post pages. I guess though that other folks may face some challenges in navigating around the site, and around a typical post. Here’s some hints and tips on how to find your way around.

The Think Different Home Page

The Think Different home page is an endlessly scrolling sequence of individual blog posts, in date order, with the most recent post appearing first. Navigate to a particular post by clicking on the post’s title in the left-most column (on the home page, each post’s metadata includes the title of the post).

Anatomy Of A Typical Think Different Post

  1. Blog title
  2. Blog strap line
  3. Main menu
  4. Search box
  5. Post title
  6. Post metadata
  7. Post title (repeated)
  8. Subscribe
  9. Recent posts
  10. Categories
  11. Author
  12. Blogroll
  13. Goodreads selection
  14. Social media share buttons
  15. Like button
  16. Related posts
  17. Previous/next post navigation
  18. Posts through the months
  19. Top posts and pages
  20. Map
  21. Comments section

If you’d like me to elaborate on any or all of the above elements, I’d be more than happy to do so.

Other Pages

There’s also a bunch of non-post pages accessible via the main (top) menu, including:

  • About
    About me, mainly.
  • Rightshifting
    Stuff to do with Rightshifting, including the Community and my Giants (heroes)
  • Therapy
    Introduction to Organisational Psychotherapy
  • NoCV
    Stuff about the NoCV campaign
  • Research
    Various ideas and research I have ongoing
  • Archive
    A comprehensive list of ALL posts (including links) on the Think Different blog, in date order, most recent first.

– Bob

Second Time Around

Y’all may like to know that Ian Carroll (of Solutioneers fame) and I are launching a new venture named TheQuintessentialGroup, offering a range of services in the software delivery space. First out of the gate will be “Quintessential Teams“. You can find out more at our shiny new website: TheQuintessentialGroup.com.

TQG-Banner2

Note: We’re looking to revolutionise the world of software delivery, along quintessential lines, and we’d love for you to consider joining us.

First Time Around

Back in 1996 we* found ourselves with the opportunity to demonstrate what we had been telling clients for years – that our** approach to software delivery was way more productive than:

a) the industry norm

b) their current approaches

c) what they could ever believe possible

*myself and some colleagues at the Java Centre within Sun Microsystems UK, along with some mutual friends.

**the company we named “Familiar”.

Second Time Around

Now, we*** find ourselves in the same situation once again. Our**** approach to software delivery is again way more productive than:

a) the industry norm

b) our clients’ current approaches

c) what our clients and prospects could ever believe possible

***Ian Carroll and myself

****the company we’re naming TheQuintessentialGroup

Nothing Like Agile

The first time around, commencing circa 1996, our approach could be described as an Agile approach (Scrum-like, albeit risk-based).

The second time around our – distinctly different – approach can be described as the Quintessential approach (nothing like Agile, Scrum, etc. – albeit still very risk-oriented).

Alien Tech For Human Beings

And this second time around, we again lead the industry in breaking the mould and demonstrating the validity and sheer awesome power of the Quintessential approach.

The Quintessential approach is no secret. It’s all laid out, in detail, in my book(s). And yet we defy anyone to replicate this game-changing alien tech. At least, until they have thrown off the shackles of outmoded and crippling beliefs about work and how work should work.

And that ain’t likely to happen any time soon. Although TheQuintessentialGroup.com can help with effecting such changes, too – see my book Memeology, for starters.

If you’re at all interested in the quality, cost, timescales, and predictability of software delivery, you might like to take a look at our newly launched website: TheQuintessentialGroup.com. We have big ambitions and big plans – and we’re hiring too!

Yes there’s more than a little déjà vu here at Sensei Towers at the moment. Familiar was an outstanding success, vindication, trailblazer and golden goose back in the late 90’s. We have every expectation that TheQuintessentialGroup will surpass even that outstanding benchmark.

Putting a dent in the Universe.

– Bob

Further Reading

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Quintessence: An Acme for Software Development Organisations. [online] leanpub.com. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub). Available at: https://leanpub.com/quintessence/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2022].

Marshall, R.W. (2021). Memeology: Surfacing And Reflecting On The Organisation’s Collective Assumptions And Beliefs. [online] leanpub.com. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub). Available at: https://leanpub.com/memeology/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2022].

Marshall, R.W. (2018). Hearts over Diamonds: Serving Business and Society Through Organisational Psychotherapy. [online] leanpub.comFalling Blossoms (LeanPub). Available at: https://leanpub.com/heartsovediamonds/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2022].

From The Beginning

I started my blog here on Think Different in June 2009. First on Amplify.com, then migrating to WordPress. To date there’s been something like 1175 posts (including 275 of the recently invented “Quickies”). In that time there’s been 769,615 views, and 432,849 visitors.

If you’d like to read everything, from the beginning – which probably makes for easier reading than reading backwards – here’s a handy link to all the posts in ascending (date) order.

Enjoy!

– Bob

Let’s keep our children ignorant, lest they build a better world than we have.

#Florida #Lgbtq+Education

Just Bloody Ask

How many assumptions do you make in a day? Hundreds, probably. Maybe even thousands. And how often do those assumptions limit your choices, constrain your relationships, and detract from finding joy?

How would you like to make fewer assumptions, or at least, suffer less from the assumptions you do make?

Here’s a tip: Just bloody ask.

Assume that you’ve annoyed someone? Just ask them. Simply showing interest in their state of mind and status of your mutual relationship goes a long way to addressing the issue. 

Assume that someone doesn’t want what you’re offering? Just ask them.

Assume that the collaboration you need to get something done isn’t going to happen? Just ask.

Assume that everyone wants to go to Abilene, and it’s only when tyou get there you find no one did? Just ask first.

For all kinds of assumptions, until you ask, you won’t know. And when you finally ask, you’ll likely be pleasantly surprised.

– Bob

Irrelevant

It seems clear to me that my skills, experience and insights have become irrelevant to the majority of folks toiling in the software industries.

No Need

We might say that they have no need of my ideas or my help. 

And as my views and ideas are mostly directed at improving the effectiveness – and results – of software development efforts, I draw the inference that their employers and managers have no interest in such things. 

This seems a relatively recent phenomenon. Even five or ten years ago, organisations and managers seemed at least marginally more interested in productivity, effectiveness, success, and so on.

I suspect it’s connected to COVID and the consequent Great Resignation.

Solutions Ignored

Ironically, my works – Organisational Psychotherapy, the Antimatter Principle, FlowChain, Product Aikido, etc. – are an ideal fit to addressing the issues wrapped up in the Great Resignation. But I guess folks are already too resigned to bother.

What might be more relevant content for these times? “How to Find a Fulfilling Job”? “How to Suck Up to Your Boss”? “How to Give the Finger to the Man”? “How to Whack the Employees You Have Left”? “How to Look Like You”re Doing Something Without Risking Your Credibility”?  Probably more relevant content. But not quite my style.

If you’re one of the very few who haven’t given up just yet, enjoy studying new ideas and learning for its own sake, I’m always happy to help. Pro bono or pro pretio, either, both.

– Bob

Doing Things Properly

I’m a little prim and proper. In that I like to do things properly. And I find comfort and fellow-feeling in seeing others doing things properly, too. Some have suggested this looks a tad OCD-ish.

What is “properly”?

For me, “properly” means with intentionality, deliberateness, and a modicum of tidiness.

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”

~ Aristotle

Doing Software Development “Properly”

As regards software development, some folks conflate “properly” with some specific approach (waterfall, Agile, software engineering, software craftsmanship, w.h.y.). As if there’s “One True Way” and all other approaches are the work of the devil.

I choose to eschew faith and dogma, and focus on what works. Where “works” means “meets the aggregate and individual needs of the Folks That Matter™”.

“What works” can vary – depending on a multitude of more or less regularly changing variables. (Implication: the approach must be as flexible as the dynamics of these variables).

And then there’s all those folks for whom “doing things properly” offers zero attraction. Pirsig guesstimated that these folks number around 85% of the species (Cf. Classical vs Romantic understanding).

How do you feel about doing things properly? And the folks around you?

– Bob

Further Reading

Pirsig, R.M. (1980). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values. Bantam Books.

Cthulhu-Shaped People

Complementary to Kent Beck’s paint-drip people, I also like the notion of “Cthulhu-shaped people”.

Cthulhu (normally pronounced ke-TOO-loo or ka-THOO-loo) is a fictional god-like monstrosity invented by 20th-century horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. First appearing in Lovecraft’s short story “The Call of Cthulhu”, this creature is a cosmic being of terrifying power.

The most defining feature of Cthulhu is its head, which closely resembles an octopus. The head is mostly a large, bulbous, pulsating sac, and numerous writhing tentacles sprout from where one would expect a mouth to be. Cthulhu’s height reaches hundreds of metres tall, but it is capable of altering its size and shape at will, being anywhere between the size of a man to the size of a continent and capable of spawning any number of limbs as it chooses.

Translating this to people and their skills/capabilities, for me the Cthulhu-shaped person has multiple powerful skills, which sprout, writhe and grow (and sometimes shrink) in mysterious and unpredictable ways.

Plus, I like Lovecraft.

– Bob

 

Changing Culture

Let’s say you’re driving along in your car, and you want to change your speed. Would you grab hold of the speedo needle and bend it, expecting the car to change speed accordingly?

Of course not. Yet this is how organisations often attempt to change their “culture”. Grab hold of the culture “needle”, bend it and expect the culture to change.

Like the car speedometer, culture is just a visual indicator instrument, a read-only device.

To actually change the speed of the car requires an understanding of how the throttle pedal controls the amount of air/fuel mixture entering the engine, how the engine is connected via the transmission to the wheels, and how the rotational speed of the wheels (minus tyre/road slip) dictates the speed of the vehicle. More simply, an understanding of how one’s right foot on the throttle controls the speed of the car, not the needle on the speedo.

Similarly with organisations, controlling the culture invites an understanding of how changing assumptions and beliefs (gas pedal) changes the culture, not bending the culture “needle”.

– Bob

Designing the Memeology Cover

I enjoy designing my own artwork and graphics for my blog posts, papers, articles, and books.

This is a short post about my design for the cover of my latest book “Memeology

The general style (size, fonts, layout, colours) follows that of my previous Organisational Psychotherapy book “Hearts over Diamonds”:

(Note: the gradient fills to the left and right margins helps the cover stand out from white backgrounds on sites like Leanpub.)

The cover for Memeology differs from Hearts Over Diamonds mainly in the central image.

The image is inspired by the ancient mystical diagrams (yantra) used in the Shri Vidya school of Hinduism. A yantra consists of nine interlocking triangles that surround a central point known as a bindu. These triangles represent the cosmos and the human body. Devotees of the Shri Yantra believe the symbol enables achieving of a higher level of consciousness, and that it confers the ability to create one’s own reality. Devotees also believe the Sri Yantra brings peace, harmony and good fortune.

I’ve adopted this image – created by myself – to stand for the natural beauty, harmony and love that I feel in regard to Organisational Psychotherapy. There’s also research suggesting the yantra helps “to bring its viewers to a more meditative state”. Appropriate, I think, for the idea of surfacing and reflecting on beliefs and assumptions.

In Sanskrit, the word “yantra” comes from the root word “yam,” which means “instrument” or “support,” and “tra,” derived from “trana,” meaning “release from bondage.” A yantra is an instrument or tool, for meditation and contemplation and supports spiritual liberation.

Shri Yantra

The Shri Yantra, called the “queen of yantras,” (rajayantra) is the symbol of the great divine mother principle, the source of all energy, power, and creativity.

The Triangles

In the Hindu tradition, the triangles of the yantra have specific associations:

Starting at the lowermost outer triangle and moving in a counterclockwise circle, these associations are: agitation, pursuit, attraction, delight, delusion, immobility, release, control, pleasure, intoxication, an accomplishment of desire, luxury, mantra, and the destruction of duality.

The next circle has the same sequence and direction, starting from the lowest triangle and moving counterclockwise. The first triangle is the giver of all accomplishments. Next is the giver of wealth. The third is the energy of activities that please all. Fourth is the bringer of all blessings. The fifth is the granter of all desires. Next is the remover of all suffering. The seventh is considered the appeaser of death. Eighth is the overcomer of all obstacles. Ninth is the bringer of beauty, and the tenth is the giver of all good fortune.

The ten smaller triangles in the third circle represent, beginning at the same, lowermost triangle and moving counterclockwise: omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, knowledge, destruction of all disease, unconditional support, vanquishment of all evils, protection, and the attainment of all desires. The fourth circle of triangles, again starting at the same point and moving counterclockwise, represent: sustaining, creating, dissolution, pleasure, pain, cold, heat, and the ability to choose action.

In the final inner space, the yogi or yogini visualises five arrows representing the world of the senses, a bow, representing the mind, a noose, representing attachment, and a stick, representing aversion. The central triangle is the giver of all perfection. In the middle of the central triangle is a Bindu, representing pure consciousness and the original state of being.

– Bob

 

The Path to Organisational Psychotherapy

Lots of people ask me a question about Organisational Psychotherapy along the following lines:

“Bob, you’re smart, insightful, brilliant, and with decades of experience in software development. How come you’ve ended up in the tiny corner of the world which you call Organisational Psychotherapy?”

Which is a very fair question. I’d like to explain…

Background

But first a little background.

I started my lifelong involvement with software development by teaching myself programming. I used to sneak into the CS classes at school, and sit at the back writing BASIC, COBOL and FORTRAN programs on the school’s dial-up equipment, whilst the rest of the class “learned” about word processing, spreadsheets and the like. In the holidays I’d tramp across London and sneak into the computer rooms at Queen Many Collage (University) and hack my way into their mainframe to teach myself more esoteric programming languages.

My early career involved much hands-on development, programming, analysis, design, etc.. I did a lot of work writing compilers, interpreters and the like.

After a few years I found people were more interested in me sharing my knowledge of how to write software, than in writing software for them.

Flip-flopping between delivering software and delivering advice on how best to write software suited me well. I allowed me to keep close to the gemba, yet get involved with the challenges of a wide range of developers and their managers.

The years passed. I set up a few businesses of my own along the way. Selling compilers. Supporting companies’ commercial software products. Doing the independent consulting thang. Providing software development management consulting. Starting and running a software house.

By the time I got to Sun Microsystems’ UK Java Center, I had seen the software development pain points of many different organisations. From both a technical and a management perspective. Indeed, these two perspectives had come to seem indivisibly intertwingled.

I spent more and more of my time looking into the whole-system phenomena I was seeing. Embracing and applying whole-system techniques such as Theory of Constraints, Systems Thinking, Lean Thinking, Deming, Gilb, etc..

Slowly it became apparent to me that the pain points of my clients were rarely if ever caused by lack of technical competencies. And almost exclusively caused by the way people interacted. (I never saw a project fail for lack of technical skills. I often saw projects fail because people couldn’t get along.)

By the early 2000s I had arrived at the working idea that it was the collective assumptions and beliefs of my clients that were causing the interpersonal rifts and dysfunctions, and the most direct source of their pain.

So to My Answer

Returning to the headline question. It became ever clearer to me that to address my clients’ software development pains, there would have to be some (major) shift in their collective assumptions and beliefs. I coined the term “Rightshifting” and built a bunch of collateral to illustrate the idea. Out of that seed grew the Marshall Model.

And yet the key question – how to shift an organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs – remained.

Through conversations with friends and peers (thanks to all, you know who you are) I was able to focus on that key question. My starting point: were there any known fields addressing the idea of changing assumptions and beliefs? Of course there were. Primarily the field of psychotherapy. I embraced the notion and began studying psychotherapy. A field of study to which I have continued to apply myself most diligently for more than ten years now. After a short while it seemed eminently feasible to leverage and repurpose the extensive research, and the many tools, of individual psychotherapy, to the domain of organisations and their collective assumptions and beliefs.

Summing Up

Organisational Psychotherapy provides an approach (the only approach to which I am acquainted) to culture change in organisations – and to the surfacing of and reflecting on the memes of the collective mindset – the organisational psyche. And because I see the dire need for it, I continue.

– Bob

Further Reading

Marshall, R. W. (2019). Hearts over Diamonds. Falling Blossoms.
Marshall, R. W. (2021). Memeology. Falling Blossoms.
Richard Dawkins. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Blackmore, S. J. (2000). The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press.
The Power of Memes. (2002, March 25). Dr Susan Blackmore. https://www.susanblackmore.uk/articles/the-power-of-memes/

Management Monstrosities

Michele Sollecito (@sollecitom) kindly responded to a recent tweet of mine with the following question: 

“Why do so many well intentioned founders and companies end up creating management monstrosities?”

The “management monstrosities” referred-to are the (dysfunctional, ineffective) tech organisations we find just about everywhere these days. My work on #Rightshifting illustrates just how ineffective is the average tech company, compared with how effective they could be (and how effective Rightshifted outliers are known to be).

But Michele’s question is: “Why?”

Over twenty years and more, I’ve seen dozens of organisations up close and personal.  In none of these organisations have the folks in charge appreciated the difference between collaborative knowledge work (Cf. Drucker) and other categories of work. We can call this a Category Error.

Category Error

Collaborative knowledge work is NOT like:

  • Factory Work
  • Manufacturing
  • Office work
  • Service work (e.g. Call centres, Help desks, etc.)
  • Individual knowledge work

Collaborative knowledge work is in a distinct category all its own, and demands a fundamentally different approach to the way the work works, if we’re to see effective working.

Attempting to manage collaborative knowledge work by means common to other categories of work will inevitably lead to ineffectiveness, and all the monstrous consequences that follow from that.

Assumptions and Beliefs

Put another way, organisations import or retread the assumptions and beliefs of the category of work they believe applies to software development. As the category they assign is (almost) never “collaborative knowledge work”, the prevailing assumptions and beliefs are similarly almost never aligned to effective working.

You may now be asking “Why is the category they assign almost never ‘collaborative knowledge work’?”. I’ll leave that question for another post (if there’s any demand for such a post).

– Bob

Grendels

I have of late been reading (well, listening-to via Audible) many of the science fiction classics from yesteryear, by authors I missed out on in my youth (in those days mainly reading Van Vogt, Moorcock, Herbert, Harrison and Heinlein).

The most recent of these books is The Legacy of Heorot by Larry Niven et al.

The book has been described as “reworking the Beowulf legend in science fiction”. Niven amplifies Beowulf’s antagonist, Grendel, into a whole species of pseudo-reptilian super-monsters. Without revealing the whole plot, suffice to say that these creatures are portrayed as solitary, voracious, cannibalistic, and murderously territorial.

Whilst reading (listening), I’ve been struck by the parallels between these “Grendels” and prominent figures in the software community (individual consultants, opinioneers, etc.):

Solitary

I see many such figures (including but not limited to folks in the Agile space) ploughing their own furrows, ignoring others of a similar ilk, minimising productive interactions and community.

Voracious

Niven’s grendels are forever eating, and looking to eat. Eating is their core driver. The folks I have in mind seem likewise voracious in their hunt for revenues and clients (prey).

Cannibalistic

I see many such figures taking the ideas of others, retreading them, and selling them on as original and even proprietary. Analagous to intellectual cannibalism.

Fiercely Territorial

The grendels in the book each assiduously guard their own stretch of water (being basically amphibian), murderouly opposing any intrusion into their territory, with the utmost prejudice. I see parallels with (some, most?) of the aforementioned members of the software thought-leaders and opinion-makers “community”.

Upshot

In the book, the human colonists eventually triumph over the grendels, through a combination of technology, self-sacrifice and strategic thinking. “They’re just animals” the colonists remark, by way of explaining their victory.

I’ve long sought to reach out and connect with our grendels, in an attempt to further the collective knowledge and impact of the software community at large. To little or no avail. Maybe our grendels’ fate is predicted by the fate of the grendels in the book – irrelevance and extinction.

– Bob