Improvement

The Continuous Improvement Delusion

Philip Crosby’s Case Against Kaizen Culture

You may not like Phil Crosby’s perspective on continuous improvement. You may have even never heard of him. But this influential quality management expert who revolutionised manufacturing with his “Zero Defects” philosophy had something provocative to say about our modern obsession with Kaizen—the Japanese word for continuous improvement (Imai, 1986).

Whilst the business world embraced the delusion of incremental optimisation, Crosby saw something fundamentally broken in our approach to getting better.

Crosby criticized gradual improvement (like Kaizen) in favor of immediate, complete fixes. His position was that incremental improvement was insufficient.

His critique wasn’t just contrarian—it was mathematically and economically devastating to the entire continuous improvement industrial complex. And decades later, his warnings about optimisation theatre have proven prophetic.

Organisational Learned Helplessness Dressed Up as Diligence

Crosby’s primary objection to continuous improvement was practical: instead of incrementally improving flawed processes, focus on do things right the first time. Why accept that our processes are broken and then spend endless energy making them slightly less broken?

The continuous improvement model starts with a defeatist assumption—that defects are inevitable, that error is natural, and that our job is to gradually reduce the rate of failure. Crosby saw this as organisational learned helplessness dressed up as diligence.

Just as learned helplessness teaches individuals that they have no control over their circumstances, continuous improvement teaches organisations that they have no power to actually solve their problems—only to marginally reduce their severity over time. We’ve built elaborate approaches around the core belief that we’re powerless to fix things properly.

This isn’t common sense; it’s institutionalised resignation with metrics attached.

Crosby saw statistical quality control and e.g. the ISO 9001:2015 standard as contributing to this through acceptable quality levels—a concept that allows a certain number of acceptable defects and reinforces the attitude that mistakes are inevitable.

The Economics of Actually Fixing Things

Whilst continuous improvement focuses on elegant frameworks, cadres of quality workers, and extensive metrics, Crosby cut straight to what matters: money. He understood something that the continuous improvement culture has forgotten: every day you don’t fix a known problem, that problem costs you money. Real money. Calculable money.

His “Price of Nonconformance” wasn’t just theory—his programmes netted manufacturing cost-of-quality reductions from $30 million in 1968 to $530 million in 1976 at ITT Corporation. Something like 20% to 25% of revenues could be saved by simply doing things right the first time instead of continuously improving broken processes.

Caution: Cost of Quality: Financial Sophistication Can Fail Too

The continuous improvement model, by contrast, creates expensive improvement theatre. We measure defect rates, track improvement metrics, run kaizen events, and celebrate marginal gains whilst the actual problems—the ones everyone knows about—continue bleeding money every single day.

Zero Defects vs. The Improvement Treadmill

Crosby’s ZeeDee philosophy stood in stark contrast to the widespread mantra of “kaizen”—the relentless pursuit of small, incremental optimisations. His approach was brutally simple: identify what’s wrong, fix it completely (to meet requirements), and do it right from that point forward.

Not “reduce defects by 5% this quarter.” Not “implement a continuous improvement culture.” Simply: Zero. Defects.

This wasn’t perfectionism—it was pragmatism. Most quality problems aren’t complex engineering challenges requiring months of analysis. They’re obvious failures that everyone knows about but nobody fixes because we’re too busy optimising our approach to optimisation.

The Prevention vs. Detection Fallacy

Crosby distinguished between two fundamentally different approaches to quality:

Detection Approach (Continuous Improvement): Find defects as early as possible and continuously improve the detection and correction process. Build better inspection systems. Implement more sophisticated monitoring. Celebrate reducing defect rates.

Prevention Approach (Zero Defects): Build systems that eliminate problems at their source. Stop the defects from happening in the first place.Phil Crosby advocated celebrating Zero Defects achievements and error-free performance.

Continuous improvement puts all the energy into getting better at handling problems rather than eliminating them. We become incredibly sophisticated at damage control whilst the root causes keep generating new damage.

The Management Commitment Problem

“Quality starts to go to hell when you delegate it. So when I say commitment, I mean CEOs in there working and doing things, not just saying, ‘Yes, I bless this thing, and here’s some money to do it.'”

~ Phil Crosby

Continuous improvement programmes are perfect for delegation. They create committees, frameworks, and ongoing initiatives that make middle management look extremely busy whilst allowing executives to avoid the hard work of actually fixing fundamental problems.

Crosby’s zero defects approach, by contrast, requires executives to identify specific problems, commit resources to fix them completely, and take direct responsibility for results. “It doesn’t work that way. It’s like parenting. You can’t delegate the cuddle and the evening prayer; you have to do that yourself.”

Why We Choose Comfortable Failure

The continuous improvement delusion persists because it’s psychologically comfortable. It allows us to feel good about making progress without the scary commitment of actually solving problems. We can always point to our improvement trajectory, our kaizen events, our metrics.

Crosby’s approach is terrifying because it demands binary outcomes. Either the problem is fixed or it isn’t. Either you meet requirements or you don’t. Either you have zero defects or you’re failing.

This binary approach functions as a perfect litmus test for leadership commitment. There’s no middle ground where executives can sound supportive whilst hedging their bets. As Crosby observed: “All you need is for the CEO to say, ‘Quality is the most important thing we have around here, but don’t forget we still have to make a buck. Don’t get carried away with this thing [the zero defects initiative].’ Say that, and it’s all gone [the entire quality programme is destroyed].”

That single mixed message—quality matters, but not more than short-term profits—destroys any possibility of zero defects. Everyone immediately understands that when push comes to shove, defects are acceptable if fixing them costs money or takes time.

The Modern Vindication

Today’s optimisation theatre—our productivity apps, improvement frameworks, and continuous improvement cultures—perfectly validates Crosby’s critique. We’ve created an entire industry around the performance of getting better whilst actual performance often remains unchanged or gets worse.

We track habits without changing behaviour. We measure metrics without improving outcomes. We run improvement initiatives whilst the fundamental problems everyone knows about continue costing money, frustrating customers, and burning out employees.

A Different Path Forward

Crosby’s alternative isn’t to abandon improvement—it’s to abandon the delusion of gradual improvement and commit to actual solutions:

Identify Real Problems: Not opportunities for optimisation, but actual failures that cost money and frustrate people.

Fix Them Completely: Don’t improve them incrementally. Fix them immediately to zero defects—to the point where they meet requirements consistently.

Do It Right From Then On: Build prevention into the process so the problem doesn’t recur.

Measure Real Costs: Track the price of nonconformance in actual dollars, not abstract improvement metrics.

Demand Executive Commitment: Leadership that personally owns problem resolution, not just improvement initiatives.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth about Crosby’s critique is how obviously correct it is. Most of our “improvement opportunities” are actually known problems that we choose not to fix completely because fixing them would require difficult decisions, uncomfortable conversations, and significant resource commitments.

It’s easier to run a continuous improvement initiative than to fire the incompetent manager. It’s easier to optimise the customer service process than to fix the product defect that creates most customer service calls. It’s easier to improve the hiring process than to address why good people keep leaving.

Continuous improvement becomes organisational avoidance behaviour—a sophisticated way of doing everything except the hard work of actually solving problems.

Crosby’s legacy isn’t just about quality management—it’s about choosing the courage of decisive action over the comfort of perpetual improvement. In a world addicted to optimisation theatre, perhaps the most radical act is to simply fix what’s broken and do it right the first time.

Releasing the Pent-Up Potential of Your Organisation: Liberation Through the Five Patterns

June 1, 2025

Article, Collective psyche, Improvement, Patterns, Systems thinking, Thinking tools

Leave a comment

Releasing the Pent-Up Potential of Your Organisation: Liberation Through the Five Patterns

You can’t think your way into organisational transformation—you have to live it. All the elegant frameworks in the world don’t matter if people haven’t felt what it’s like when a team suddenly gets honest about what’s really going on. Or experienced the shift when a group stops performing competence and starts actually solving problems together. Or been in the room when people realise they’ve been fighting symptoms whilst the real issue was something completely different.

The real work happens when someone gets curious enough to try something different in their next meeting. When they stop avoiding that difficult conversation. When they start noticing their own patterns in real-time. When they risk being vulnerable about what’s actually happening instead of what they think should be happening. Those moments—when someone experiences their organisation differently, even briefly—that’s where change actually begins.

What follows is scaffolding that might help you make sense of experiences you’ve already had, or give language to something you’re sensing. But it won’t create the experience itself. The real evangelism happens in the work itself, not in the writing about the work.

The Foundation: Why Organisations Get Stuck

Most organisational problems stem from cognitive and psychological causes rather than technical ones. This occurs because organisations consist fundamentally of people. People operate through mental frameworks, beliefs, and assumptions that shape how they interpret reality and make decisions. Organisations get stuck not because they lack resources or good strategies. They become trapped by invisible mental frameworks—shared beliefs, assumptions, and thinking patterns that feel like reality but actually function as constructs.

OP and the Five Patterns drive organisational liberation through collective and individual consciousness. They help groups of people wake up to their own thinking patterns. People realise they have far more choices than they imagined. The five patterns of Thinking Different provide the cognitive tools for this liberation. They function as systematic ways of breaking out of mental traps. They consistently produce breakthroughs because they operate at the level of assumptions rather than actions.

Understanding Organisational Psychotherapy

Organisational psychotherapy represents a fundamentally different approach to organisational transformation than conventional consulting or change management. Rather than focusing on structures, processes, or skills, OP works with the unconscious psychological dynamics that drive organisational behaviour. Just as individual therapy helps people become aware of unconscious patterns that limit their aliveness and authenticity, organisational psychotherapy helps groups and systems recognise the invisible assumptions and emotional dynamics that constrain their potential for meaning, joy, and positive impact.

Unlike traditional change management that typically focuses on implementing new systems or procedures, OP practitioners work as skilled facilitators who help organisations surface and examine their deepest beliefs about how work should happen, how people should relate, and what’s truly possible. This is therapy applied to organisational systems—using therapeutic insights and methods to help groups of people create work cultures where they can flourish, contribute meaningfully, and experience genuine satisfaction in their collaboration.

The OP practitioner operates more like an organisational mirror, reflecting back patterns the system cannot see about itself. Through careful observation, strategic questioning, and creating safe spaces for difficult conversations, they help organisations recognise how their current challenges emerge from unconscious collective assumptions rather than external circumstances. The goal extends far beyond efficiency to encompass purpose, aliveness, social contribution, and the creation of regenerative cultures that serve both their members and the wider world.

The Core Insight: Invisible Mental Traps and Pattern-Based Solutions

The core insight reveals that organisations become trapped by invisible mental frameworks. When an organisation believes ‘people resist change’, that belief literally creates resistance. These shared assumptions feel like unchangeable reality. But they actually function as the source of most organisational limitations.

The five patterns offer a systematic approach to organisational transformation. They include: Transform Constraints Into Advantages, Enable Systems-Level Perception, Generate Unexpected Connections, Develop Metacognitive Awareness, and Build Comprehensive Mental Models. They work by making invisible assumptions visible. They turn limitations into opportunities for breakthrough thinking.

Organisational psychotherapy operates through these same patterns. It works at the deepest level to help organisations see and change the fundamental beliefs that create their problems. Instead of treating symptoms (poor performance, communication breakdowns, resistance to change), it addresses the root. It targets the collective mindset that generates these problems.

Why This Approach Differs So Much from Traditional Change Management

Most organisational change efforts fail because they operate at the surface level of behaviours and structures whilst ignoring the deeper psychological dynamics that drive those behaviours. Traditional change management typically follows a predictable pattern: diagnose problems, design solutions, implement changes, and measure results. This approach assumes that rational planning and clear communication will overcome resistance, but it rarely addresses the deeper questions of meaning, purpose, and human flourishing.

The OP and Five Patterns approach works differently. It recognises that organisational behaviour emerges from unconscious collective assumptions, unspoken emotional dynamics, and invisible mental models that groups develop over time. These psychological patterns operate like the organisation’s ‘immune system’—they automatically reject changes that conflict with core beliefs, regardless of how logical or beneficial those changes might be.

Instead of fighting this immune system, OP works with it. Rather than imposing external solutions, it helps organisations discover their own capacity for transformation by becoming conscious of what currently limits them. This creates what we might call ‘inside-out change’—transformation that emerges from the organisation’s own recognition of its patterns rather than external pressure to adopt new behaviours.

This difference in approach explains why OP interventions often produce dramatic results where traditional change efforts have failed. By working at the level of consciousness and assumptions rather than behaviours and structures, the changes become self-sustaining because they align with the organisation’s own evolved understanding of itself and its deeper purpose. The results often extend far beyond improved performance to include greater sense of meaning, increased social impact, and genuine joy in collective creation.

Pattern One: Transform Constraints Into Advantages

Organisational psychotherapy works on the insight that shared beliefs and assumptions constitute any organisation’s biggest limitation. This matches what systems thinker Donella Meadows discovered. Changing basic worldviews creates the most powerful change in any system.

The organisation’s shared worldview sets adamantine boundaries on what seems possible or even thinkable. These assumptions—about leadership, human nature, change, or success—shape every decision. They remain mostly unconscious.

What makes this pattern revolutionary stems from how these limiting beliefs actually contain the seeds of breakthrough change. When an organisation recognises that its basic beliefs hold it back, these same beliefs become the raw material for transformation.

The limiting belief literally becomes the source of freedom. OP gives organisations ways to make these invisible assumptions visible and workable. It turns their biggest limitations into their greatest opportunities.

Example: A technology company believed ‘our engineers hate meetings and avoid collaboration’. This belief created policies that isolated developers and reduced communication. Through OP, they recognised this assumption actually revealed their engineers’ need for focused, purposeful interaction. They transformed the constraint by creating ‘code pairing sessions’ and ‘technical storytelling’ formats. The engineers’ preference for meaningful dialogue became their competitive advantage in building cohesive, innovative products.

Pattern Two: Enable Systems-Level Perception

This pattern aligns most closely with OP’s core approach. Organisational psychotherapy always looks at the whole system. It recognises that individual behaviour emerges from organisational context and relationships rather than existing alone.

OP practitioners develop strong abilities to see organisational ecosystems. They see the complex web of formal structures, informal networks, cultural norms, hidden assumptions, and emerging properties that shape how people behave together. They see how leadership stress flows through organisational levels. They see how unspoken conflicts show up in seemingly unrelated work problems. They see how changes in one department affect the entire system.

This whole-system view enables interventions that address root causes rather than just symptoms. Instead of treating individual performance problems in isolation, OP examines the system conditions that either support or undermine human flourishing and meaningful contribution.

Example: A manufacturing company struggled with quality issues that management blamed on ‘careless workers’. Systems-level perception revealed that quality problems emerged from a complex web: production quotas that rewarded speed over accuracy, a bonus system that penalised downtime for equipment maintenance, and informal networks where experienced workers felt undervalued and stopped mentoring newcomers. Addressing the whole system—changing incentives, recognition patterns, and knowledge-sharing structures—eliminated the quality issues.

Pattern Three: Generate Unexpected Connections

Organisational psychotherapy excels at revealing hidden connections between apparently unrelated organisational assumptions and beliefs. This pattern requires particular skill and sensitivity, as it involves recognising how personal and organisational dynamics mirror each other without overstepping professional boundaries or creating inappropriate psychological interpretations.

OP practitioners work within clear ethical guidelines when exploring these connections. They focus on observable organisational patterns rather than personal psychological analysis. When they notice that leadership styles or organisational dynamics seem to reflect personal backgrounds, they work with the organisational manifestations rather than the personal origins. The goal remains organisational transformation toward greater aliveness, authenticity, and positive impact, not individual therapy.

The skill lies in recognising systemic patterns without making the work about individual psychology. For instance, an OP practitioner might observe that an organisation’s risk-averse culture mirrors its founder’s approach to decision-making, but they would work with the cultural pattern rather than the founder’s personal psychology. They help the organisation recognise how certain assumptions limit not just effectiveness but also creativity, joy, and meaningful contribution, regardless of where those assumptions originated.

These unexpected connections between belief systems often provide the most powerful intervention points. OP helps organisations recognise how their technical assumptions connect with interpersonal assumptions. These include the often unconscious beliefs about how people should interact, communicate, share power, handle conflict, and build trust. OP creates opportunities for solutions that address multiple levels of the organisational psyche at once.

Interpersonal assumptions operate beneath the surface of formal policies and procedures. They shape everything from how meetings get conducted to how decisions get made to how conflicts get avoided or addressed. They include beliefs like ‘showing vulnerability demonstrates weakness’, ‘hierarchy equals competence’, or ‘people need to be controlled to become productive’.

The pattern also shows up in drawing insights from other fields. It applies family therapy ideas to organisational dynamics. It uses counselling techniques to address business challenges. It recognises how individual psychological processes play out at organisational scale.

Example: A financial services firm experienced persistent client retention problems. The OP practitioner observed that the organisation’s obsession with ‘professional distance’ and ‘maintaining objectivity’ created barriers to genuine client relationships. Rather than exploring personal backgrounds, they worked with the organisational pattern itself. Through careful questioning and observation, they helped the leadership team recognise how their definition of ‘professionalism’ actually prevented the trust-building that clients valued most. By reframing professionalism as ‘trusted expertise’ rather than ’emotional distance’, they developed a new client relationship model that dramatically improved retention.

Pattern Four: Develop Metacognitive Awareness

This pattern represents perhaps the most crucial element of organisational psychotherapy. OP helps organisations develop awareness of their own thinking patterns, decision-making processes, and hidden assumptions that shape behaviour.

Organisations often operate from unconscious patterns. These function as ways of approaching problems, making decisions, and relating to each other that have become so automatic they remain invisible. OP creates opportunities for collective metacognitive awareness. It asks: ‘How do we typically respond to crisis? What assumptions do we make about change? How do our past experiences shape our current perceptions?’

This metacognitive development enables organisations to recognise when they get stuck in limiting patterns. They consciously choose different approaches. Teams begin to notice their default responses to conflict. They see their assumptions about leadership. They recognise their unconscious strategies for avoiding difficult conversations.

The process often involves developing what might get called ‘organisational mindfulness’. This functions as the ability to observe collective thinking patterns whilst they happen. It enables conscious choices about how to proceed.

Example: A consultancy noticed they repeatedly lost potential clients during final presentations. Through metacognitive awareness work, they discovered their unconscious pattern: when nervous about a big opportunity, they unconsciously shifted into ‘prove we’re smart’ mode rather than ‘understand client needs’ mode. They began to notice this pattern happening in real-time during meetings. Team members developed signals to alert each other when they detected the shift, allowing them to consciously return to client-focused dialogue. Their closing rate improved dramatically.

Pattern Five: Build Comprehensive Mental Models

Organisational psychotherapy helps organisations develop integrated understanding of how multiple systems interact. These include technical systems, social systems, psychological systems, and cultural systems. Rather than treating these as separate areas, OP builds comprehensive mental models. These show how they connect and influence each other.

These integrated models enable organisations to understand why technical solutions sometimes fail. It happens because they ignore social dynamics. They understand why training programmes may not stick. It occurs because they conflict with cultural norms. They understand why strategic initiatives meet unexpected resistance. It happens because they trigger unconscious organisational defences.

The mental models developed through OP demonstrate particular sophistication. They integrate multiple levels of analysis—individual psychology, interpersonal dynamics, group processes, organisational structures, and broader environmental forces. This integration enables more effective interventions and lasting change.

Example: A retail chain struggled with inconsistent customer service across locations. Their comprehensive mental model integrated multiple systems: the technical point-of-sale system that frustrated staff, the social dynamics between managers and frontline workers, the psychological impact of commission structures on staff behaviour, and the cultural differences between urban and suburban locations. They discovered that excellent customer service emerged from the intersection of intuitive technology, supportive management relationships, collaborative rather than competitive rewards, and locally adapted cultural norms. By designing interventions that addressed all four systems simultaneously, they achieved consistent service excellence across all locations.

The Revolutionary Power: Pattern Integration for Organisational Liberation

The real power emerges when these five patterns work together. Once you see invisible constraints through pattern-based thinking, they become the raw material for transformation. Your biggest limitation becomes your biggest opportunity. That makes this approach revolutionary rather than just reformative.

When organisations develop sophisticated awareness across all five patterns simultaneously, they often experience breakthrough capabilities that surprise even the participants. These breakthroughs frequently extend far beyond improved efficiency or performance to include deeper questions: What do we really want to create together? How can our work serve something larger than ourselves? What would it look like if people actually loved coming to work here? How can we be a force for healing and positive change in the world?

This emergence happens because the patterns work synergistically rather than additively. Systems-level perception reveals constraints that can get transformed into advantages. Metacognitive awareness enables the recognition of unexpected connections. Comprehensive mental models provide the framework for integrating insights across all patterns. The result transcends the sum of individual improvements to create what we might call ‘regenerative organisations’—systems that enhance both human flourishing and positive social impact.

When these patterns combine in organisational psychotherapy, they create powerful transformation dynamics. Organisations develop what we might call ‘collective wisdom’—the capacity to recognise their own patterns, learn from their experiences, and consciously evolve their ways of thinking and interacting toward greater authenticity, purpose, and contribution. This collective wisdom becomes self-reinforcing: the more conscious an organisation becomes about its own dynamics, the more choice it has about how to respond to challenges and opportunities for meaningful impact.

Example: A healthcare organisation struggled with staff burnout and patient satisfaction issues that seemed impossible to resolve through conventional approaches. When all five patterns combined, transformation emerged: They transformed their constraint of ‘limited resources’ into an advantage by recognising it forced creative collaboration (Pattern One). Systems-level perception revealed how administrative burdens, shift patterns, and emotional support systems interconnected to create burnout cycles (Pattern Two). They generated unexpected connections between their staff’s caregiving motivations and effective patient care approaches, recognising that supporting staff wellbeing wasn’t separate from patient care but essential to it (Pattern Three). Metacognitive awareness helped teams notice when they shifted from patient-centred to task-centred thinking, allowing real-time course corrections (Pattern Four). Their comprehensive mental model integrated clinical protocols, team dynamics, patient psychology, and organisational culture into a coherent framework (Pattern Five). The result: a self-reinforcing system where staff wellbeing and patient satisfaction enhanced each other, creating what they called ‘regenerative care culture’. Most remarkably, this transformation sustained itself because it aligned with the organisation’s deepest values rather than contradicting them.

This integration suggests that organisational psychotherapy and the five patterns of Thinking Different function as fundamentally complementary approaches to transformation. They work both individually and collectively. They operate both cognitively and systemically. They offer a systematic path from organisational limitation to organisational liberation. This happens through the profound act of becoming conscious of what previously remained invisible.

The Fatal Flaw of Piecemeal Culture Change: Why Your Transformation is Doomed to Fail

April 21, 2025

Agile, Agility at Scale, Alignment, Article, Change management, Collective psyche, Culture change, Drucker, Improvement, Management, Marshall Model, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, Rightshifting, Systems thinking, xenopsychotherapy

Leave a comment

The Fatal Flaw of Piecemeal Culture Change: Why Your Transformation is Doomed to Fail

Organisations frequently embark on cultural transformation initiatives to stay competitive. However, attempting to change organisational culture and thinking in isolated pockets—rather than holistically—is a strategy destined for inevitable frustration and failure. Here’s why piecemeal cultural change rarely works and what alternative approaches yield better results…

The Interconnected Nature of Organisational Culture

Organisational culture is not merely a collection of independent practices and attitudes; it’s an intricate web of shared values, assumptions, beliefs, and behaviours that permeate every level and department. When we attempt to transform culture in isolation—focusing on just one or two departments or teams—we ignore this fundamental interconnectedness. See also the orthogonal concept ot memeplex interlock.

Consider an organisation where the marketing department embraces innovation and risk-taking while other departments maintain rigid hierarchies and risk-averse decision-making. Marketing’s initiatives will inevitably collide with established processes elsewhere, creating friction rather than progress.

The Inevitable Outcomes of Siloed Cultural Change

When cultural transformation is attempted silo by silos, several entirely predictable outcomes emerge:

1. Cultural Clash and Resistance

Departments operating under different cultural paradigms will naturally clash. The “changed” department begins operating with different assumptions, priorities, and methods than the rest of the organisation. These differences breed misunderstanding, resistance, and often outright conflict. See also: OrgCogDiss.

2. Change Regression

Without organisation-wide support and reinforcement, cultural changes within a single department inevitably regresses over time. The gravitational pull of the dominant organisational culture eventually overwhelms localised efforts, particularly as employees interact with colleagues outside their immediate team. Hint: for a short-term palliative, keeping localised culture changes in a protective bubble can help.

3. Talent Frustration and Exodus

Employees within the “changed” department often become frustrated when their new ways of working clash with the broader organisation. This frustration frequently leads to disengagement and ultimately departure—especially among the most talented individuals who were most enthusiastic about the new cultural direction.

4. Erosion of Credibility

Failed attempts at cultural transformation damage leadership credibility. When employees witness cultural initiatives that start with fanfare but ultimately fizzle or create more problems than they solve, they become cynical about future change efforts.

A More Effective Approach: Systemic Cultural Transformation

So how do we break free from the cycle of failed piecemeal change efforts? What would it take to transform an organisation’s culture in a way that actually sticks? And is there an approach that addresses the entire organisation as a system rather than just its isolated components?

Rather than siloed interventions, successful cultural transformation necessitates a systems thinking approach that recognises the integrated nature of organisational culture. Organisational psychotherapy stands out as the only approach that comprehensively addresses the shared values, beliefs, assumptions and behaviours of the organisation as a whole. Unlike piecemeal interventions, organisational psychotherapy works at the collective level, helping the entire organisation understand and transform its deeply ingrained patterns of thinking and interacting, more or less in parallel.

How Organisational Psychotherapy Differs from Traditional Change Management

Traditional change management approaches often focus on processes, structures, and explicit behaviours, treating organisational transformation as primarily a managerial challenge. Organisational psychotherapy, by contrast, recognises transformation as fundamentally psychological in nature and differs in several important ways:

Focus on collective mindset rather than individual behaviour – While traditional approaches might target the visible behaviours of individuals or teams, organisational psychotherapy addresses the collective mindset—the shared mental models, beliefs, and assumptions that drive behaviour throughout the organisation. This collective focus prevents the “immune system response” that typically rejects isolated change efforts.
Uncovering unconscious dynamics – Organisations, like individuals, develop unconscious patterns and defence mechanisms that resist change. Organisational psychotherapy specifically works to bring these hidden dynamics to consciousness, examining unspoken rules, taboos, undiscussables, and emotional undercurrents that conventional approaches typically miss but which powerfully influence organisational life.
Enabling authentic dialogue and reflection – Effective cultural change requires vulnerability and honesty about dysfunctional patterns. Organisational psychotherapy invites environments where people can speak difficult truths, enabling genuine examination of cultural assumptions rather than superficial compliance with new directives.
Addressing the organisation as a living system – Rather than treating people or departments or functions as mechanical components to be reengineered, organisational psychotherapy approaches the organisation as a complex, adaptive system with its own identity, history, and emotional life. This systemic view prevents the common mistake of solving symptoms rather than underlying causes.
Working through, not around, resistance – Traditional change management often tries to overcome or bypass resistance. Organisational psychotherapy views resistance as valuable information about the system’s fears and needs, enabling the organisation itself to work through its resistanc,e collectively, rather than dismissing it.
Sustainable integration vs. imposed change – Instead of imposing change from outside, organisational psychotherapy facilitates a process where the organisation develops increased self-awareness and capacity for self-directed evolution, leading to change that is internally coherent and sustainable.

NB. For more details, see: The definitive book on Organisational Psychotherapy fundamentals: Hearts over Diamonds

These distinctive elements make organisational psychotherapy particularly effective for deep cultural transformation, addressing the root causes of organisational dysfunction rather than merely treating symptoms. This means:

1. Unified Vision

Effective cultural transformation begins with a clear, compelling vision embraced by folks across all levels and departments. Without this alignment, mixed messages and contradictory priorities will undermine change efforts.

2. Aligned Systems and Structures

Organisational systems—from performance metrics to decision-making processes—must align with the desired culture. Misalignment between cultural aspirations and operational realities guarantees failure. See also: Change always demands we change the rules.

3. Cross-Functional Integration

Effective cultural transformation requires cross-functional coordination and communication. Creating networks and communities that span departmental boundaries helps ensure consistent cultural understanding and application. See also: Moving to the Synergistic Mindset

4. Incremental but Organisation-Wide Implementation

While transformation doesn’t happen overnight, any successful approach must be organisation-wide even when implemented incrementally. This means starting with foundational elements that touch every department rather than completing transformation in one area before moving to the next.

Conclusion

The interconnected nature of organisational culture means that piecemeal approaches to cultural transformation are fundamentally flawed. Organisations that recognise culture as a system—rather than a collection of independent parts—are far more likely to achieve meaningful and lasting cultural change, and the consequent improvement in business outcomes.

By adopting a whole-system perspective and ensuring alignment across people, systems, and departments, organisations can navigate the complex journey of cultural transformation successfully. The path may be challenging, but the alternative—fragmented cultural initiatives that create more problems than they solve—is ultimately much more costly in both human and financial terms.

PS: This is why Agile transformations limited to a team or software department almost never succeed. When Agile assumptions, principles and practices are confined to technical teams whilst the rest of the organisation continues to operate under traditional management assumptions and beliefs, the cross-functional collaboration essential to effective agility is stifled. The result is most often a frustrated development team caught between Agile aspirations and waterfall business realities—reinforcing the critical need for organisation-wide cultural alignment in any transformation effort.

Why Change Management Fails

April 16, 2025

Article, Business, Change management, Collective psyche, Digital evolution, Improvement, Marshall Model, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence, Rightshifting

Leave a comment

Why Change Management Fails

The Hidden Culprit Behind Failed Transformations

When organisations embark on change initiatives, the statistics are sobering: approximately 70% fail to achieve their objectives. The knee-jerk reaction is to blame change management itself—the practices, frameworks, and approaches designed to shepherd organisations through transformations. But this critique misses the mark entirely.

Change management isn’t failing us. Rather, it’s the underlying mindset through which we apply these methods that dooms so many initiatives even before they begin.

The Marshall Model: A Framework for Understanding Organisational Evolution

The Marshal Model – “A Model of Organisational Evolution” provides a powerful context for understanding why so many change initiatives fail. Described as a “Dreyfus Model for organisations,” it maps the journey of organisational effectiveness through seven stages across four fundamental collective mindsets (a.k.a. organisational psyches):

Ad-hoc: Characterised by chaos, making up how to do things on the spur of the moment, in tha face of e.g. crises
Analytic: Focused on rules, processes, hierarchies and structured approaches
Synergistic: Systems-thinking oriented, recognising interdependencies and the key role of “socio-” in “socio-technical systems”
Chaordic: Intuitive, adaptive, and thriving at the overlapping edge of chaos and order

According to the Marshall Model, most organisations cluster in the left-most portion of this spectrum—primarily in the Ad-hoc and Analytic mindsets (Marshall, 2010). These mindsets are precisely where our change management problems begin.

Diagram illustrating the four mindsets of organisational transformation, with the Rightshifting curve behind 3d diagram of the Marshall Model

The Analytic Mindset Trap

The Analytic mindset, as the Marshall Model defines it, “exemplifies, to a large extent, the principles of Scientific Management a.k.a. Taylorism.” Typical characteristics include:

A Theory-X posture toward staff
A mechanistic view of organisational structure (hierarchies and functional silos)
Local optimisation over system-wide effectiveness
Middle-managers as owners of “the way the work works”
Command-and-control style management

This mindset dominates modern corporates and thus modern corporate change management, manifesting in detailed change plans, comprehensive stakeholder analyses, meticulously documented communication strategies, and carefully plotted implementation roadmaps.

On paper, this approach appears obvious, thorough and professional. In practice, it most often fails spectacularly.

Why the Analytic Mindset Fails Change Initiatives

The Analytic mindset appears to offer what traditional change management values—structured processes, documentation, clear rules, and methodical planning. However, these very characteristics that seem beneficial actually create fundamental problems when applied to complex human systems. The Analytic approach fails change initiatives in several critical ways:

1. It treats organisations as machines rather than living systems

The Marshall Model notes that Analytic organisations view themselves mechanistically, with functional silos and local optimisation. This approach fundamentally misunderstands the organic, emergent nature of human systems.

As the Marshall Model suggests, more effective organisations (those in the much rarer Synergistic and Chaordic mindsets) recognise that “individual tasks within an organisation are co-dependent on each other, and only have relevance in getting some larger end purpose accomplished.”

2. It overvalues rigid adherence to rules

The Marshall Model characterises Novice Analytical organisations as showing “rigid adherence to rules” with “little or no discretionary judgement.” When this mindset is applied to change management, it creates brittleness precisely when adaptability is most needed.

The model suggests that more effective, e.g. Quintessential, organisations evolve beyond this rule-fixation towards seeing situations holistically, using maxims for guidance where “meaning may vary according to context.”

3. It fragments the organisation into disconnected parts

In the Competent Analytical stage, “all areas of the business are treated separately and given equal encouragement to improve,” with a “situational perception still unwittingly focussed on local optima.”

This fragmentation creates change initiatives that optimise departmental functions at the expense of the whole system, missing what the Marshall Model describes as the Synergistic awareness of “constraints, whole-system throughput and capabilities.”

4. It remains unconsciously incompetent

Perhaps most critically, the Marshall Model notes that organisations in the Ad-hoc and Analytic mindsets share a common characteristic: they are “unconsciously incompetent.” They don’t know what they don’t know.

This explains why so many change initiatives powered by the Analytic mindset proceed with supreme confidence despite fundamental flaws in their approach. The organisation lacks the metacognitive capacity to recognise its own limitations.

(Note: We speak here mainly of the shortcomings of Analytic-minded organisations, as Ad-hoc minded organisations are unlikelt to even consider change management as an option).

Moving Toward More Effective Change: The Synergistic Mindset

The Marshall Model suggests that to improve effectiveness, organisations might choose to evolve toward the Synergistic mindset, characterised by:

A Theory-Y orientation (respect for people)
An organic, emergent, complex-adaptive socio-technical system view
Organisation-wide focus on learning, flow of value, and effectiveness
Middle-managers respected for experience and domain knowledge and redeployed as servant leaders
Self-organising teams and systemic improvement efforts

This evolution doesn’t happen easily. The Marshall Model notes that between eachof the four mindset lies a “transition zone” where “major upheaval—in the form of a shift of mindset—is required to proceed further.” See: Organisational Psychotherapy as explained in detail and at length in my book “Hearts Over Diamonds”.

Practical Implications for Change Management

Understanding the Marshall Model fundamentally shifts how we might choose to approach change management and organisational change:

Recognise our current mindset: Most organisations attempting change initiatives operate from the Analytic mindset, with all its accompanying limitations
Build awareness of the transition challenge: Moving from Analytic to Synergistic thinking requires what the Marshall Model calls “major upheaval” that preserves “the momentum of change at major decision points”
Adopt systems thinking: Seeing the organisation as an interconnected whole rather than separate parts to be optimised independently
Embrace conscious incompetence: The Early Synergistic stage involves “conscious, deliberate consideration of the organisation as a system” and acknowledging what we don’t yet know
Expect resistance: The Marshall Model warns of the “potential for reversion to Analytical thinking” during the transition, indicating the need for vigilance and persistence

Conclusion: Change Management Through a New Lens

Change management approaches aren’t inherently flawed—they’re being applied through an constraining mindset that guarantees suboptimal results. The Marshall Model helps us understand that lasting organisational change requires more than process improvements; it demands fundamental shifts in how we perceive organisations themselves – in our collective assumptions and beliefs about work and how work works. See alseo: Quintessence.

As the author himself notes, “The prevailing mindset of an organisation comprehensively determines how effective it is, and moreover, how effective it can hope to become.”

Perhaps the most important step in improving change outcomes isn’t adopting new change mangement practices but evolving the mindset through which we apply them—moving from the mechanistic Analytic view that dominates most change initiatives toward the more holistic, systemic perspective that characterises truly effective organisations.

The Great Pretence of Software Craftsmanship

February 6, 2025

Article, Honesty, Improvement, Motivation

2 Comments

The Great Pretence of Software Craftsmanship

[Tl;Dr: Almost everyone’s just play acting.]

The software industry has an open secret: almost everyone pretends to care deeply about improving their craft, yet almost no one actually does.

Watch any tech conference, browse any developer forum, or step into any engineering office. You’ll hear the same tired, rehearsed lines about continuous learning, staying current with technology, and pursuing excellence in software development. Developers share links to technical articles they’ll never read, star GitHub repositories they’ll never explore, and enthuse about side projects that will never see a single line of code.

The Theatre of Technical Excellence

The pretence runs deep. Developers maintain carefully curated LinkedIn profiles highlighting their “passion for clean code” and “dedication to software craftsmanship.” They nod sagely in architecture discussions about SOLID principles whilst their own codebases remain tangled and brittle. They advocate for comprehensive testing whilst making excuses for why their own code can’t be tested “right now.”

A Cultural Phenomenon

This widespread insincerity isn’t malicious – it’s human nature colliding with industry expectations. We’ve created a culture where expressing devotion to craft improvement isn’t just encouraged, it’s practically mandatory. So developers play along, maintaining the illusion of constant growth whilst remaining comfortably static in their skills and practices. Or even going backwards, given the rate at which things change.

The Rare Authentic

The truly remarkable ones – perhaps one in ten thousand – actually live what others merely preach. They’re the developers who spend evenings understanding how their tools work under the bonnet, who rewrite their own code multiple times to explore better approaches, who genuinely struggle with difficult concepts – like Lean, Quality, psychology, etc. – until they master them. They don’t talk much about improvement because they’re too busy actually doing it.

The Comfortable Reality

Some developers are competent professionals who reliably deliver working software. But they’ve mastered the art of appearing more invested in improvement than they really are. They’ve learnt that saying “I should really learn about that” is an acceptable substitute for actually learning it.

The Cost of Pretence

This collective play acting serves a purpose – it maintains the fiction that we’re all part of a craft-focused profession rather than just people doing a job. But it also creates an exhausting environment of constant posturing, where genuine growth becomes harder to distinguish from well-practised performance.

The Statistical Reality

Given the rarity of truly dedicated craftspeople – maybe one in ten thousand – the mathematical reality is stark. In a company of say 500 developers, the probability of having even one sincere craftsperson is vanishingly small. Most developers will go their entire careers without ever working alongside someone truly committed to mastery. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where mediocrity masquerading as excellence becomes the unquestioned norm, as no one in the organisation has ever experienced anything different.

The few genuine craftspeople tend to gravitate toward specific roles and organisations where they can find their peers, leaving the vast majority of companies in a state of comfortable stagnation, each developer reinforcing the others’ pretence of professional growth.

Perhaps it’s time we were more honest about this reality. Most developers aren’t passionate craftspeople constantly honing their skills – they’re practical professionals doing their jobs more or less adequately. And maybe that’s okay. But let’s stop pretending otherwise?

The next time you catch yourself nodding along to discussions about best practices you’ll never implement, or agreeing that you should really learn that new framework, ask yourself: are you actually going to do it, or are you just playing your part in tech’s longest-running show? More fundamentally, do you need to be honest with yourself?

Beyoncé Time

November 15, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Business, Improvement, Management, Motivation

Leave a comment

Beyoncé Time

The Corporate World’s Most Delusional Management Theory

The Origin Story

Legend has it that Beyoncé once remarked that even in her downtime – whilst eating, showering, or doing mundane tasks – she’s constantly thinking about her music, choreography, and empire-building. Fair play to her, really. When you’re passionate about your art and it’s made you one of the wealthiest entertainers on the planet, who wouldn’t be all in?

The Corporate Hijacking

Some bright spark in management consulting caught wind of this and thought, “Brilliant! Our Karen from Accounts should feel the same way about quarterly VAT returns!” Thus, “Beyoncé Time” was born – the absolutely barmy notion that employees should spend their personal time obsessing over spreadsheets and synergy with the same devotion Beyoncé brings to crafting chart-topping albums.

The False Equivalency

Why It’s Bonkers

Beyoncé owns her empire; Karen owns her cat
Queen Bey’s creativity leads to millions; reorganising the storage cupboard doesn’t
When Beyoncé succeeds, she gets richer; when employees go above and beyond, they might get a pizza party

The Management Delusion

Picture a CEO, sitting in their corner office, genuinely believing their staff lie awake at night thinking, “You know what would streamline our procurement process?” They’ve confused occupational commitment with artistic passion, rather like comparing a hamster on its wheel to an Olympic athlete.

The Reality Check

What Employees Actually Think About in Their Free Time

What to watch on Netflix
Whether to have chips or a jacket potato for tea
If they remembered to put the bins out
Literally anything except work

The Toxic Implementation

This misappropriated concept has spawned countless “voluntary” weekend workshops and “optional” after-hours brainstorming sessions. It’s the corporate equivalent of telling someone, “You don’t have to come to my birthday party, but I’ll remember if you don’t.”

Breaking Free from Beyoncé Time

For Managers

Understand that Beyoncé’s dedication to her art isn’t comparable to Janet’s dedication to data entry
Accept that work-life balance isn’t just a buzzword
Realise that paying people properly works better than expecting unpaid devotion

For Employees

Remember that Beyoncé gets paid millions for her dedication
Understand that your free time is yours, full stop
Know that thinking about work 24/7 isn’t dedication – it’s just unpaid overtime

The Final Word

Until your company offers Beyoncé-level rewards, perhaps stop expecting Beyoncé-level devotion. And let’s be honest – even if you did pay them millions, most people would still rather think about their dinner plans than your company’s five-year strategy whilst in the shower.

Besides, I reckon even Beyoncé occasionally just sits on her sofa, eating crisps, and thinking about absolutely nothing. She’s just too savvy to tell us about it.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

November 10, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Careers, Improvement, Innovation, Lamentation, Management, Organisational behaviour, Psychology, Quintessence, Toxic behaviours, Violence

Leave a comment

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

The Morning Meeting That Says It All

Nine AM, Monday. Sarah presents her team’s findings: a novel approach that could save the department 30% of its budget. As she speaks, her manager’s expression shifts from surprise to disapproval. The innovation isn’t the problem—it’s that she didn’t seek permission to innovate. By 10 AM, she’s been quietly reminded about “proper channels” and “established procedures.”

Welcome to the modern workplace, where the unwritten rule trumps all others: conformity is king.

What Is Workplace Compliance?

In its purest form, workplace compliance means following orders exactly as given, without deviation – even when those orders conflict with:

Common sense
Business efficiency
Proven best practices
Your own expertise
Previous contradictory orders
The company’s stated values
The manager’s own behaviour

The Golden Rule of Compliance

The fundamental principle is simple: When a manager issues an instruction, your role is to execute it precisely as specified, regardless of:

Whether you know a better way
If it contradicts yesterday’s instruction
How the manager themselves would handle it
Whether it will actually solve the problem
If it creates new problems
The existence of more efficient alternatives
Your professional judgment

Measuring Perfect Compliance

How do managers evaluate compliance? Here are the key metrics:

Speed of execution (how quickly you say “yes”)
Absence of questions or suggestions
Exact replication of specified approach
No unauthorised improvements
No reference to contradictions with other instructions
Silence about obvious flaws
Willingness to abandon your own ways of doing things

The Only Metric That Matters: Compliance

Beneath the inspirational posters and values statements, past the buzzwords about disruption and innovation, lies an uncomfortable truth: what truly matters isn’t your ability to create value, but your willingness to colour within the lines.

Consider the typical hiring process. That revolutionary problem-solver who increased their last company’s efficiency by 40%? Passed over for someone who “better fits our culture”—corporate speak for “follows instructions without question.”

The Psychology Behind the Paradox

What drives this contradiction between proclaimed values and actual rewards? Several factors converge:

Status: Managers feel they must appear to be in control. Especially, in control of their employees.
Risk Aversion: In most organisations, the potential downside of unauthorised innovation far outweighs the upside. A failed process followed correctly is safer than a successful deviation.
Control Systems: Traditional management structures are built around predictability and measurement. Innovation, by definition, disrupts both.
The Peter Principle in Action: Managers promoted for their conformity naturally select for the same trait, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

The Annual Review Theatre: A Case Study in Doublethink

Scene One: The Metrics Matrix

Picture the standard performance review form, with its ambitious categories:

Innovation and Creative Thinking
Leadership Potential
Problem-Solving Ability
Strategic Vision

Yet beneath these lofty metrics lies the actual evaluation criterion: “Did they do exactly as they were told?“

Scene Two: The Compliance Paradox

James automated a manual process, saving his department countless hours and dollars. His review? “Shows difficulty adhering to established procedures.”

Meanwhile, Linda meticulously followed an obsolete protocol that everyone knows wastes time and money. Her review? “Demonstrates strong process adherence and reliability.”

The Management Mythology

The supreme irony? Many managers achieved their positions through past acts of controlled rebellion. Now safely ensconced in authority, they:

Reminisce about their “game-changing” career moves
Share LinkedIn posts about “challenging conventional wisdom”
Give speeches about “thinking differently”

While simultaneously ensuring their teams do anything but.

The Way Forward

While the conformity paradox may never fully disappear, awareness is the first step toward change. Progressive organisations are beginning to implement:

Innovation sandboxes with different rule sets
Reverse mentoring programs where junior staff can safely challenge norms
Performance metrics that explicitly highlight valuable deviations

Conclusion: Navigating the Paradox

Until organisational cultures truly evolve – if that ever happens – success requires a delicate balance: knowing when to conform and when (and how) to challenge the status quo. The real skill isn’t blind obedience or reckless innovation, but rather understanding how to navigate between them.

Perhaps the ultimate irony is this: true organisational change will come not from dramatic rebellion, but from the patient, persistent efforts of those who learn to work within the system to gradually transform it.

The next time you hear a call for “disruptive thinking,” remember: the art lies not in the disruption itself, but in making that disruption acceptable to those who unconsciously fear it most.

John Seddon – Manifesto For Improved Regulation

November 5, 2024

Article, Improvement, Regulation

Leave a comment

John Seddon – Manifesto For Improved Regulation

John Seddon’s latest campaign is for better regulation of i.e. UK public services. Here’s his manifesto:

MANIFESTO: A better method of regulation

In every organisation there is a systemic relationship between purpose, measures and method. The
system works for you or against you.

The problem with the UK’s system of regulation has been that politicians and regulators specify
measures and methods. This is diametrically wrong, killing the experiment and innovation on which
improvement depends. Politicians and regulators should not be involved with management and
delivery. Instead, to them should fall the important and necessary role of establishing the purpose of
the service (a purpose defined in terms of the citizen or the customer). Isn’t that, after all, what every
MP should be most concerned about?

This simple change will shift the locus of control from the specifiers to those who are being
regulated. The leaders of our public services will then be responsible for making their own decisions
about how they will achieve the purpose laid down by Parliament: that is, the methods and measures.
Indeed, they will be obliged (as they should be) to make these decisions, For some this will be a big
challenge.

This, in turn, will change the nature of inspection. Rather than inspecting against centrally specified
checklists and protocols, the inspector will ask about the choice of measures and methods in use. The
inspector will then go on to observe their effect on the ground, where services are delivered.

Seeing the methods and measures in action will provide real transparency. No longer will ingenious
actors be able to cheat the system. The measures in use – how are we doing in terms of achieving our
purpose? – will be used to inform and improve service quality and to give a true picture of
performance to regulators and citizens.

Changing the locus of control from the regulator to the regulated will provide much-needed
opportunities for innovation. New and better solutions can only emerge when service leaders are free
to make choices about methods and how they measure their effectiveness. Leaders should be free to
‘pull’ help from the many available sources. No longer will the regulator mandate what it believes to
be right. Of course, inspectors will learn a lot about what is working, but they should only signpost
useful innovation for others to consider.

Inspection judgements will be based on knowledge and objective criteria. Improvement will be
palpable, as will failure to improve. Learning from each other, both parties will contribute to a
growing fund of well-founded knowledge about what works and what doesn’t.

Changing the locus of control drives out fear, which is the blight of our current method. Its cousin,
demoralisation, is felt by every public servant who knows that they are being prevented from doing
what matters by burdensome and unnecessary documentation, which can now be limited to that which
is useful in meeting the purpose of a service.

Regulation based on how well an organisation achieves the purpose it has been set will avoid the
persistent problem of regulation running behind events, shutting the stable door after another horse has
bolted. Having a clear statement of purpose will enable regulators to apply sanctions immediately if
and when an organisation is found to be undermining its allotted purpose.

It is time to liberate public servants from the prison of suspicion and distrust that our current
method of regulation locks them in, demeaning their professionalism and casting them as part of the
problem rather than as active creators of solutions.

To the contrary, our proposed model of regulation assumes that people are motivated by pride in
their work, that they are vocational – they want to serve – and that they are eager and able to use their
ingenuity and initiative to serve that purpose. Their behaviour is a product of the system; it is only by
changing the regulatory regime that we can expect a change in behaviour

The full Manifesto is available at the Vanguard site.

Organisational Psychotherapy: Helping Organisations Find Their Own Truths

September 18, 2024

Article, Business, Collective psyche, Dialogue, Improvement, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Quintessence, Rightshifting

2 Comments

Organisational Psychotherapy: Helping Organisations Find Their Own Truths

What Is Organisational Psychotherapy?

Organisational Psychotherapy is a relatively new field that applies psychotherapeutic (talk therapy) principles to the workplace. It aims to help organisations surface and reflect on their own dynamics, behaviours, and underlying issues. Much like individual talk therapy, this approach encourages organisations to explore their own truths and discover shared assumptions and beliefs that work best for them.

The Need for Organisational Self-Discovery

The Complexity of Modern Organisations

In the world of business, organisations face numerous challenges. From rapid technological advancements to shifting market demands, companies must adapt quickly to survive. However, many struggle to understand the root causes of their problems, leading to ineffective solutions and recurring issues.

The Limitations of Traditional Consulting

Whilst traditional consulting can offer valuable insights, it often focuses on external solutions rather than internal understanding. Organisational Psychotherapy, on the other hand, encourages companies to look inward and discover their own truths.

How Organisational Psychotherapy Works

Embracing the Current Reality

Organisational Psychotherapy begins by acknowledging and working within the organisation’s existing environment, and within its gamut of existing shared assumptions and beliefs, regardless of how “safe” or “unsafe” it may be. The therapist recognises that creating a completely safe space is often an unrealistic expectation, especially at the outset.

Navigating Organisational Dynamics

The OP practitioner helps the organisation explore its dynamics in the current context, including:

Communication patterns
Decision-making processes
Power structures
Unspoken rules and norms
(See my OP books Quintessence and Memeology for a full list of 70+ contextual elements)

This exploration occurs even if—and sometimes especially when—these dynamics are fraught with tension or conflict.

Gradual Trust-Building

As the OP process unfolds, trust may gradually build among participants. However, this is a byproduct of the work, not a prerequisite. The therapist skillfully facilitates discussions and exercises that can yield insights even in challenging or adversarial environments.

Uncovering Hidden Truths

Through the OP process, hidden truths begin to emerge. These might include unacknowledged conflicts, ineffective leadership styles, or misaligned values. By bringing these issues to light—even in an environment that isn’t fully “safe”—the organisation can begin to address them effectively.

Adapting to Resistance

Resistance to the OP process is often valuable data in itself. The therapist works with this resistance, using it to gain insights into the organisation’s deeper dynamics and challenges (see also my book introducting OP: Hearts over Diamonds)

The Benefits of an Organisation Finding Its Own Truths

Sustainable Change

When organisations discover their own truths, they are more likely to implement lasting changes. Changes that come from within are often more readily accepted and maintained than those imposed from outside.

Improved Organisational Health

By addressing underlying issues, organisations can improve their overall health (Cf. Lencioni’s book The Advantage. This often leads to better communication, increased productivity, and higher employee satisfaction.

Enhanced Adaptability

Organisations that understand themselves are better equipped to adapt to changing circumstances. They can draw on their self-knowledge to navigate new challenges with confidence.

Conclusion: A Journey of Self-Discovery

Organisational Psychotherapy offers a unique and highly effective approach to improving workplace dynamics. By helping organisations find their own truths, it empowers them to create meaningful, lasting change. As more companies embrace this method, we may see a shift towards more self-aware, adaptable, and healthy organisations in the future.

Theory P

August 9, 2024

Article, Business, Collective psyche, Culture change, Improvement, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence, Rightshifting

Leave a comment

Theory P

Aligning Shared Beliefs for Organisational Success

Introduction to Theory P

In the world organisational management, Theory P emerges as a compelling framework for understanding and improving collective behaviour. At its core, Theory P posits that organisational success is inextricably linked to the shared assumptions and beliefs held by its members. This innovative approach introduces the concept of Organisational Psychotherapy (OP) as a vital tool for aligning these shared mindsets with the company’s objectives and purpose.

The Foundation of Collective Behaviour

Shared Assumptions and Beliefs

Theory P argues that the behaviour of an organisation as a whole is not merely the sum of individual actions. Instead, it is profoundly influenced by a network of shared assumptions and beliefs that permeate the entire structure. This collective mindset shapes how employees interpret situations, make decisions, and interact with one another.

Impact on Organisational Success

The alignment—or misalignment—of these shared beliefs with the organisation’s goals can significantly impact its success. When employees’ assumptions are in harmony with the company’s objectives, it creates a synergy that drives productivity, innovation, and overall performance.

The Role of Organisational Psychotherapy (OP)

Defining Organisational Psychotherapy

Organisational Psychotherapy, the ‘P’ in Theory P, is a systematic approach to understanding and reshaping the collective psyche of an organisation. It involves surfacing the underlying assumptions that guide behaviour and strategically aligning them with the organisation’s purpose through group dialogue and reflection

Key Objectives of OP

Uncovering Hidden Beliefs: OP practitioners work to enable organisations to bring their subconscious assumptions to the surface.
Facilitating Alignment: Through various interventions, OP aims to bridge the gap between existing beliefs and desired organisational outcomes.
Fostering Adaptability: By making beliefs visible and explicit, OP helps organisations become more self-aware, more flexible, and more responsive to change.

Implementing Theory P in Practice

Surfacing and Reflection

The initial phase in applying Theory P involves a process of surfacing latent organisational beliefs and encouraging collective reflection. This entails creating safe spaces for open dialogue where team members can articulate and examine their assumptions without fear of judgement. Facilitated group discussions, storytelling sessions, and reflective exercises are employed to bring subconscious beliefs into conscious awareness. This process of surfacing and reflection allows the organisation to gain a clearer understanding of its underlying mental models and how they influence day-to-day operations and decision-making.

Targeted Interventions

Based on the surfacing and reflection, OP practitioners design interventions tailored to the organisation’s specific needs. These might include:

Group workshops to explore and challenge existing beliefs
Leadership coaching to model desired mindsets
Structural changes that encourage and reinforce new ways of thinking

Continuous Evaluation and Adjustment

Theory P emphasises the importance of ongoing evaluation and refinement. As the organisation evolves, so too must its approach to aligning shared beliefs with its objectives.

The Benefits of Embracing Theory P

Enhanced Organisational Cohesion

By actively working to align shared beliefs, organisations can achieve a greater sense of unity and purpose among their members.

Improved Change Management

Organisations that understand and can influence their collective mindset are better equipped to navigate periods of significant change.

Increased Innovation and Performance

When the collective psyche of the organisation is better aligned with organisational goals, it creates an environment ripe for innovation and high performance.

Conclusion: The Future of Organisational Development

Theory P offers a fresh perspective on organisational behaviour and success. By recognising the power of shared assumptions and beliefs, and employing Organisational Psychotherapy to align them ever more closely with company objectives, organisations can unlock new levels of performance and adaptability. As the business world continues to evolve, Theory P may well become an essential tool in the arsenal of forward-thinking leaders and organisational development professionals.

Empowering Organisational Self-Reflection: The Path to Authentic Change

June 24, 2024

Article, Collective psyche, Culture change, Dialogue, Improvement, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy

Leave a comment

Empowering Organisational Self-Reflection: The Path to Authentic Change

Introduction

In the realm of organisational psychotherapy, practitioners – a.k.a. organisational therapist – play a pivotal role in supporting organisations on their journeys of self-discovery and transformation. This post explores the rationale behind focusing efforts on willing organisations and the profound impact of shared surfacing and reflection of assumptions and beliefs.

The Power of Organisational Self-Awareness

At the heart of meaningful organisational change lies a simple yet powerful concept:

Organisations, just like individuals, can benefit immensely from increased self-awareness
True transformation emerges when an organisation gains insight into its own dynamics
Sustainable change occurs when driven by internal understanding rather than external pressure

Why Focus on Willing Organisations?

Directing energy towards receptive organisations is crucial because:

Readiness facilitates deeper exploration
A willing organisation engages more authentically in the process
Resources are used more effectively
The potential for lasting impact is significantly higher

The Process of Shared Surfacing and Reflection

This approach involves:

Creating safe spaces for open dialogue
Encouraging diverse perspectives within the organisation
Inviting attention to long-held assumptions and beliefs
Facilitating collective sense-making

By engaging in this process, organisations can uncover hidden strengths, address underlying issues, better align their culture with their goals, and chart their own course for growth.

Benefits of Self-Directed Change

When organisations drive their own “therapy”:

Changes align more closely with organisational values, culture and goals
There’s greater buy-in across all levels
The organisation develops internal capacity for ongoing reflection and adaptation
Transformations tend to be more sustainable long-term

The Practitioner’s Role in Facilitation

Organisational psychotherapy practitioners serve as:

Guides in the process of self-discovery
Mirrors reflecting organisational dynamics
Catalysts for productive conversations
Supporters of the organisation’s own change initiatives

By maintaining this supportive role, practitioners empower organisations to take ownership of their development.

Fostering a Culture of Continuous Reflection

The ultimate goal is to help organisations develop:

Regular practices for collective introspection
Skills in surfacing and reflacting upon shared assumptions
Comfort with constructive disagreement and dialogue
Adaptability in the face of changing circumstances

Conclusion

Supporting willing organisations in their journey of shared surfacing and reflection is not just effective—it’s transformative. By focusing on those organisations ready to engage in this process, practitioners can facilitate profound and lasting change. This approach respects the organisation’s autonomy, leverages its internal wisdom, and cultivates a sustainable capacity for ongoing growth and adaptation.

The path of organisational self-discovery may be challenging, but for those organisations willing to embark upon it, the rewards are profound. As practitioners, our role is to illuminate this path, providing support and guidance as organisations navigate their own unique journeys of transformation.

Continuous Improvement Is The Enemy

May 16, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Business, Crosby, Culture change, Improvement, Innovation

Leave a comment

Continuous Improvement Is The Enemy

The Obsolescence of Incremental Change

“Continuous improvement is obsolete,” boldly declared Philip Crosby, the influential quality management expert. Crosby argued that instead of incrementally improving flawed processes, the focus should be on developing things right the first time. His ZeeDee philosophy stood in stark contrast to the widespread mantra of “kaizen” – the relentless pursuit of small, incremental optimisations.

Kaizen’s Unintended Consequences

In the business world today, the kaizen mindset of continuous improvement is deeply embedded in organisational culture. While well-intentioned, taken to the extreme, an obsession with kaizen can potentially inhibit truly transformative progress from occurring.

Getting Stuck in a Rut

When teams concentrate solely on incremental kaizen, they can get trapped making small, incremental improvements without ever questioning shared assumptions and beliefs, nor the fundamental process, product, or business model itself. Their efforts stay narrowly confined within the existing paradigm.

Descending into Bureaucracy

Over time, layer upon layer of new policies, checks, and overhead accumulate through kaizen-based refinements. Once streamlined systems slowly devolve into bureaucratic tangles choking on their own complexity – optimising themselves into inflexibility.

Missed Opportunities

Another subtle byproduct is the opportunity cost incurred by devoting resources exclusively to tiny enhancements rather than exploring bold new assumptions, and new new innovations. While teams tinker with diminishing marginal gains, disruptive competitors can leapfrog ahead.

Balancing with Kaikaku

To Crosby’s point, organisations have the option to balance kaizen’s continuous improvement with intense periods of “kaikaku” – the complete reexamination and reinvention of core assumptions, beliefs, processes, technologies, and paradigms – from a clean slate perspective. Kaikaku catalyses the breakthroughs while kaizen optimises within the new model.

An iterative cycle alternating between kaikaku-driven transformation and kaizen-driven refinement allows enterprises to realise their fullest potential. Reinvention precedes meaningful optimisation, just as Crosby advocated getting things right before perpetually enhancing them.

Limiting Kaizen’s Scope

Front-line process experts can still identify real-time improvements, but the scope is limited to enhancing defined workflows rather than redesigning entire operating models through kaizen.

Achieving Ambidexterity

A limitation of kaizen purists is embracing continuous improvement as a sequential, single-threaded process. Breakthrough companies are ambidextrous – simultaneously driving kaizen-based operational discipline on current offerings while proactively investing in kaikaku innovation streams to reimagine the future (See also: Prod•gnosis) .

Organisational success demands the ability to concurrently optimise for today’s profits while exploring transformative opportunities for tomorrow’s growth An imbalanced focus on kaizen alone can breed complacency and blindness to disruptive innovations on the horizon.

Crosby’s Lasting Wisdom

As Crosby suggested decades ago, getting it truly right up front through kaikaku is a vital prerequisite before the incremental refinement of kaizen. Continuous improvement is indeed a potential pitfall when it becomes an excuse for continually enhancing flawed models rather than reimagining entirely new ones.

The Instincts of the C-Suite are Way Off Base

April 15, 2024

Alien tech, Article, Business, Collaboration, Improvement, Management, Motivation, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Quintessence, Self-organisation, Software development, Teambuilding

Leave a comment

The Instincts of the C-Suite are Way Off Base

In industries where collaborative knowledge work is key – software development, product design and the like – those at the top often have deeply flawed instincts about what drives productivity and creativity. Their assumptions about what motivates people and maximises value are frequently undermined by research and real-world results.

Conflating Activity with Productivity

A common managerial blind spot is the belief that more hours in the office equates to more productive output. Stemming perhaps from an industrial era mindset, executives often implement policies aimed at maximising “bums on seats.” Open plan officing, strict monitoring of attendance, limiting work-from-home – these are championed as means of fostering focus and accountability.

However, studies consistently show that knowledge workers are not production line operatives. Their optimal productive hours are limited and their cerebral tasks demand periods of distraction, refocusing and recharging. Trying to squeeze every possible minute out of them is counterproductive. Strict activity monitoring simply promotes insincere behaviour – employees pretending to be working while daydreaming or cyberloafing.

The Mythology of Keeping Them on a Tight Leash

Another frequent executive instinct is the desire for control and direct oversight. There is a notion that people must be micro-managed and kept on a tight leash lest they become complacent or distracted. Draconian monitoring of tasks, delivery and deadlines is viewed as essential in driving progress.

Yet autonomy has been shown time and again to be a powerful and essential motivator for collaborative knowledge workers. These are people who can be trusted to manage their own workflow within flexible guidelines. Injecting needless stress through oppressive oversight actively hampers productivity and alienates. The most engaged and high-performing teams are those afforded autonomy in executing their responsibilities.

Misunderstanding Intrinsic Motivation

Perhaps the most egregious executive blindspot relates to motivation itself. The traditional management view is that people are primarily motivated by money and status. The pursuit of higher salaries and promotions is seen as the catalyst that drives them.

While fair compensation and opportunities for growth are certainly baseline factors, study after study demonstrates the key drivers of motivation for knowledge workers are:

The inherent interest and enjoyment of the work itself
The opportunity to learn and develop mastery
A sense of purpose in creating something valuable

Environments injecting excessive financial rewards or top-down pressures to produce actively dampen these powerful intrinsic motivators. Meanwhile, cultivating working conditions that promote autonomy, mastery and purpose is proven to amplify productivity. And Cf. Dan Pink’s Drive).

Misunderstanding Collaborative Knowledge Work Itself

At a more fundamental level, many executives fail to grasp the very nature of collaborative knowledge work. They incorrectly view it as a assembly line process with discrete tasks to be delegated and combined into final deliverables. In their minds, software is built by having teams of coders each complete coding assignments that are integrated together. New products arise from different designers, analysts and specialists fulfilling their prescribed roles.

In reality, fields like software development and product design involve dynamic problem-solving where roles are fluid and team situations evolve rapidly. The work is fundamentally exploratory, requiring cycles of trial, testing, and incorporated learnings. Solutions emerge iteratively through interdisciplinary collaboration across all roles.

Trying to impose rigid, segregated workflows is antithetical to this reality. Successful collaborative knowledge work demands organisational models that are adaptive and non-siloed. People must be able to fluidly cross roles and swarm around emerging problems or opportunities as a cohesive team. Excessive process formality and, especially, hierarchy only gums up the works.

In Closing

While difficult to shed, executive instincts around managing collaborative knowledge work are often diametrically opposed to evidence-based best practices. What those at the top intuit rarely enhances outcomes – rigidly controlled activity, draconian oversight, and financial or status-based motivators actively undermine outcomes. True high performance comes from nurturing inherent motivation, respecting folks’ autonomy and needs, affording flexibility around working practices, and enabling an adaptive team-based model of execution.

Exploring Shared Assumptions and Beliefs with the Help of an AI Chatbot

March 27, 2024

Actionable Insights, AI, Alien tech, Article, Business, Chatbots, Collective psyche, Conversations, Dialogue, Improvement, Leadership, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence

Leave a comment

Exploring Shared Assumptions and Beliefs with the Help of an AI Chatbot

Introduction

As businesses strive for innovation and growth, they often find themselves running up against unseen barriers – ingrained ways of thinking and behaving that can severely limit their ambitions and ability to adapt. In many cases, these constraining (shared) beliefs and assumptions live under the surface, making them extremely difficult to identify and uproot.

This sample dialogue (below) aims to illustrate how engaging with an AI chatbot like Claude can provide a fresher, more impartial perspective to help bring those unconscious blockers into the light. By asking probing questions and suggesting reframes, an AI can serve as a cooperative thinking partner to explore the root causes behind an organisation’s collective blind spots.

Let’s take a look at how this conversational process might unfold:
(Note: this is an actual dialogue generated by ClaudeAI)

Overcoming Organisational Blind Spots: A Candid Dialogue

Are Collective Mindsets Holding Us Back?

Business Team: We’re really struggling as a team at work. Our growth and innovation have hit a plateau, and we can’t seem to get over this hump. We feel like there are some underlying assumptions or beliefs that we all unconsciously share that are limiting our thinking, but we can’t quite put our finger on what they are. Any thoughts?

Claude: That’s an insightful observation. Could you elaborate on the areas where your team has faced repeated roadblocks or struggled to adapt? Have you noticed any patterns in how new ideas get instantly dismissed or shut down?

The Perils of Risk-Aversion

Business Team: You know, now that you mention it, we do tend to instinctively shut down ideas that seem too ambitious or radically different from our current model. There’s an assumption that taking big swings is too risky and that we’re better off sticking to incremental innovations.

Claude: I see, so there seems to be an excessive aversion to risk-taking that could be crippling your team’s ability to innovate more boldly. Where might this belief originate from? Perhaps past failures that bred excessive caution within the team?

Overconfidence from Past Successes

Business Team: And you’re right, we may be overly reliant on past glories and successes rather than pushing for true disruption these days.

Claude: Overconfidence and complacency from previous successes is a common pitfall for teams. Have you explored where those constraining beliefs originated within your group? Sometimes they start from overcorrecting after a past failure. Or they take root from excessive short-term focus and risk-aversion in decision making over time.

Business Team: You’ve hit the nail on the head. We can trace the risk-aversion back to a few high-profile product launches that failed a few years ago. And the reverence for our old products stems from the founders still being closely involved, constantly reminiscing about how we initially disrupted the market.

Shattering Ingrained Narratives

Claude: Those do seem like major sources of the limiting beliefs constraining your team’s thinking. But how can you start dismantling and changing those ingrained narratives collectively? Here are some suggestions:

Make the limiting beliefs explicit and discuss them openly together as a team. Bringing these unconscious biases into the light is key.
Have you analyzed instances where those beliefs caused you to miss opportunities and calculated the cost of leaving innovation on the table as a group?
Could you find examples of competitors or companies in other industries who have succeeded by doing the opposite – embracing risks, continuously reinventing themselves? Study how they cultivated a different organizational mindset.
Implement structural changes to counteract the limiting beliefs. For instance, explicitly weighing the cost of inaction, having an “innovation ombudsman” role, or celebrating failed experiments more than static successes.
Bring in fresh perspectives through new hires, industry experts, or even customers who can challenge the status quo assumptions.

The ultimate ambition might be to make curiosity, experimentation, and an appetite for disruption core cultural values for your team and organisation.

Business Team: This is immensely helpful. We have a much clearer picture now of how to diagnose and deliberately shift our unhelpful collective beliefs as a team. Change starts by bringing those unconscious biases into the light through open discussion. We really appreciate you laying out such a detailed framework – we’re energized to start implementing these ideas right away.

Bringing in an Organisational Psychotherapist

Sometimes, even with the best intentions, it can be extremely difficult for a team to identify and overcome their own deep-seated collective assumptions and beliefs on their own. This is where bringing in an outside organisational psychotherapist can be invaluable…

By prompting deeper reflection, offering new perspectives, and designing tailored interventions, an experienced organisational psychotherapist or AI assistant can catalyse the crucial process of surfacing and reflecting upon an organisation’s dysfunctional beliefs and narratives.

While working with a human expert may ultimately be advisable for any complex organisational transformation, this dialogue demonstrates how an AI like Claude can provide a potential first step. Through probing inquiries and analytical detachment, an AI chatbot can shed light on the obscured mental models that might be unwittingly obstructing an organisation’s path to greater innovation and growth.

The Corporate World’s Superficial Psychology

March 26, 2024

Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Improvement, Joy, Leadership, Organisational effectiveness, Psychology, Quintessence

Leave a comment

The Corporate World’s Superficial Psychology

Businesses Ignore Deming’s Call for Real Behavioural Insight

W. Edwards Deming, the pioneering management thinker, strongly advocated for businesses to develop a deeper understanding of psychology in order to optimise systems, drive improvement, and bring joy and pride in work to the workplace.

“Understanding psychology, the study of human behaviour, is the key to managing people.”

Deming wrote. Yet decades after Deming’s teachings, most businesses remain woefully ignorant about true human psychology and behavioural drivers.

The Superficial ‘Pop Psych’ Fixation

Instead of delving into substantive research from psychology, cognitive science, and behavioural economics, the corporate world tends to favour simplistic “pop psych” maxims and heuristics. Businesses love to tout the latest bestselling books promoting ideas like “positive thinking”, “grit”, “growth mindsets”, or “mindfulness” as the secrets to better employee engagement and productivity. Consultants peddle pseudoscientific personality assessments built on shaky Jungian foundations. Corporate training programmes regurgitate self-evident platitudes about “emotional intelligence.”

Human Behaviour Is Central to Everything

This cavalier dilettantism toward psychology is concerning because human behaviour is central to every aspect of an organisation – its culture, management practices, teamwork, decision-making processes, innovation, marketing, you name it. If companies fail to rigorously study and apply research-based behavioural insights, they are effectively driving blind.

Ignoring the Science of Human Behaviour

Psychology is a legitimate field of science that has produced a wealth of empirical findings on human cognition, motivation, bias, social dynamics, and more. And not just academic theories, but proven applications in areas like user experience design, behaviour change, survey methodology, and marketing. Ignoring this body of knowledge is akin to an engineer neglecting physics or materials science.

The System of Profound Knowledge

Deming admonished that businesses must take a fundamentally different view of work, one focused on understanding systems holistically – including the human dimensions and variation. Yet even today, businesses tend to fixate on simplistic notions like employee incentives, traditional hierarchies, coercion, and other regressive pop psych-led management dogma. They give short shrift to the scientific realities of how people actually think, feel and behave.

A True Commitment to Understanding People

Of course, as Deming taught, psychology alone does not automatically confer excellence in management. It requires a coherent philosophy, sustained practice, and an unwavering commitment to continual learning, all of which many businesses still lack. But grasping human behaviour remains a crucial foundational layer.

For companies to truly embrace people-centric management as Deming advocated, they might choose to move beyond gimmicky pop psych trends and selective, self-serving interpretations of research. They may, instead, choose to dive deep into the expansive knowledge base of rigorous behavioural science – including the inconvenient truths it reveals – and apply those insights in thoughtful, judicious ways. Only then can businesses hope to make substantive and lasting improvements. Of course, improvement of any kind seem decidedly out of favour at the moment.

The Personal Upside of Business Improvement

March 26, 2024

Actionable Insights, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Capability development, Improvement, Learning

1 Comment

The Personal Upside of Business Improvement

[Or – what’s all this business improvement malarkey, and what’s in it for me?]

Waning Interest Post-Pandemic

As we’ve learned to live with COVID, much has changed in how businesses operate. Remote work is now the norm rather than the exception. Supply chains have been disrupted. Customer behaviours have shifted significantly. In the midst of this turbulence, it feels like interest in business improvement initiatives has waned and taken a backseat.

Survival Mode

The sluggish economy and persistent inflation have put many companies in survival mode, just trying to keep the lights on. Ambitious programmes to reengineer the way the work works, implement new systems, or drive improved effectiveness now feel like costly distractions. After all the chaos of the last few years, who has the bandwidth for that right now?

The Personal Upside

While the economic arguments for deprioritising business improvement are understandable, I think we’re missing something important – the personal upside. Streamlining operations, updating shared assumptions and beliefs, developing better practices, and finding ways to work smarter don’t just benefit the business. They allow each of us to be more successful and fulfilled as individuals.

The Costs of Inefficiency

Think about it – what does bloated, inefficient business activity translate to on a personal level? Wasted time on tedious manual tasks. Constant firefighting and rework thanks to poor ways of working. Headaches and frustrations navigating clunky systems and workarounds. At its worst, organisational dysfunction mentally drains and demotivates employees to the point they burn out or quit.

The Benefits for Individuals

On the flip side, smart business improvements that simplify and optimise how we execute allow us to flow through high-value work with less friction. We spend more time on the energising aspects of our roles utilising our skills and making an impact. Our days feel more productive and purposeful rather than mired in busywork and cleanup. More gets done, with less expended effort.And we learn.

From streamlined reporting that saves hours a week, to improved workflows that reduce costly errors, to delighting customers through superior service – the personal benefits of working at a well-oiled operation are massive in terms of satisfaction, growth, and work-life balance.

The Workplace Attraction Issue

Given the intensely competitive landscape for people, any organisation looking to attract and retain commited and engaged people might choose to prioritise continuous improvement as part of their employee value proposition. When people can channel their energies into engaging, rewarding work day after day, that’s when we build exceptional teams delivering exceptional results.

Don’t Brush It Aside

So don’t just brush business improvement aside as a nice-to-have these days. See it as key driver of personal success and engagement, helping your teams flourish while fuelling joy and delight in the (distributed) workplace.

What Are You Missing Out On?

March 22, 2024

Article, Business, Capability development, Collective psyche, Culture change, Improvement, Innovation, Joy, Leadership, Management, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence

Leave a comment

What Are You Missing Out On?

In any organisation, the beliefs and assumptions that everyone holds in common can have a profound impact on culture, productivity, and overall success. By neglecting shared assumptions and beliefs you may be missing out on harnessing the power of aligning them for optimal performance. But what exactly could this approach unlock for your organisation?

For Executives and Senior Managers

Shaping the Organisational Mindset

As a leader, you set the tone for the entire company’s culture and worldview. However, failing to examine and actively shape the company’s ingrained assumptions can lead to misalignment and hinder performance. Organisational psychotherapy illuminates existing belief systems – a.k.a. the collective mindset – and provides means to cultivate an organisational mindset centered on the things that matter to you, and a unified vision for success.

Transcending Limiting Assumptions

Over time, organisations develop deep-rooted assumptions that act as invisible shackles, limiting innovation, adaptation and achievement of goals. You could be missing out on breaking through these limitations by not exploring the underlying group psyche. Organisational psychotherapy techniques identify and reframe constraining assumptions, allowing you and your peers, and your workforce, to operate from an empowered, possibility-focused perspective.

For Middle Managers

Bridging Misaligned Beliefs

In the pivotal role of middle management, you navigate the shared assumptions of both leadership and frontline teams. Unaddressed, differing beliefs between groups can breed misunderstanding and hinder synergy. Organisational psychotherapy provides a framework for uncovering disconnects and fostering more cohesive, aligned assumptions across all levels.

Fostering Trust and Psychological Safety

Highly effective teams are built on a foundation of trust and the ability to take interpersonal risks. You could be missing out on this key ingredient if psychological barriers rooted in distrustful and deleterious assumptions remain unaddressed. Psychotherapeutic interventions help everyone examine and reshape beliefs around vulnerability, conflict, and collaboration.

For Technical Workers

Unleashing Pioneering Thinking

For technical roles requiring cutting-edge solutions, limiting assumptions around “how things are done” stifle innovation. You may be missing out on radically more effective approaches by not exploring and expanding your team’s collective assumptions about e.g. what is possible. Psychotherapy illuminates blind spots and reframes beliefs to open minds to truely different thinking.

Fostering Knowledge-Sharing

In highly specialised technical domains, knowledge-sharing is critical but often obstructed by entrenched assumptions of competence hierarchies or domain territoriality. Organisational psychotherapy provides means to surface and reflect on these counterproductive beliefs, instead opeing the door to assumptions that celebrate joyful work, collaborative growth and learning.

Summary

Embracing organisational psychotherapy unlocks an often-overlooked yet powerful source of competitive advantage – the shared assumptions and beliefs that underpin an organisation’s culture, communication, and performance. By neglecting this dimension, you may be missing out on by not giving organisational psychotherapy serious consideration as a powerful tool for your toolbox:

For Executives and Senior Managers:
The ability to purposefully shape an organisational mindset aligned with your shared vision and strategic objectives. As well as the opportunity to transcend limiting assumptions that constrain innovation, adaptation, and achievement.

For Middle Managers:
A framework for bridging misaligned beliefs across levels that breed misunderstanding and hinder synergy. And fostering a bedrock of trust and psychological safety that enables teams to take interpersonal risks and collaborate effectively.

For Technical Workers:
Unleashing pioneering, radically different thinking by reframing beliefs around “how things are done.” And cultivating knowledge-sharing by dispelling assumptions of competence hierarchies and domain territoriality.

At every level of an organisation, insidious assumptions and beliefs can act as unseen forces, obstructing potential and stalling progress. You could be missing out on dismantling these forces and instead harnessing the power of shared vision, alignment of mindsets, and collaborative beliefs.

Organisational psychotherapy provides the insight and means to illuminate, examine, and reflect on the collective beliefs and assumptions influencing your organisation’s culture and performance. Is it yet time you explored how to unleash this underutilised power and stop missing out on achieving new heights of success?

The Patent Racket: How Monopoly Rights Insulate Corporate Deadwood

March 18, 2024

Article, Business, Improvement, Patents

Leave a comment

The Patent Racket: How Monopoly Rights Insulate Corporate Deadwood

[A slight departure from my usual topics, but given that one of my clients was a multinational firm of Patent Lawyers…]

Or: How Patents Negate Business Improvement Incentives

For decades, policymakers and capitalists have peddled a revisionist fairytale about the patent system. We’re assured that these government-granted monopolies are a necessity, incentivising the innovation that fuels economic progress. But is this intellectual property fiction obscuring an uglier truth?

Dig deeper, and it becomes clear that rather than driving competition and creative destruction, patents are too often a grotesque corporate lifeline perpetuating stagnation and inefficiency. By erecting fortresses around mediocre inventions, they empower underperforming firms to evade the brisk winds of true market forces.

The Monopoly Malaise

At their core, patents gift companies a temporary but ironclad monopoly over their claimed inventions. During this protective window, other firms are legally barred from independently developing or commercialising that technology without harsh penalties. Rent seeking abounds.

This monopolistic power acts as a force-field, enabling inefficient, unproductive corporations to shrug off the pressures and disruptive threats that typically weed out business deadwood. With competitors theoretically kept at bay by infringement risks, the impetus for continuous operational improvement or cost optimisation is dismayingly diminished.

Low Patent Quality Compounding the Problem

Indeed, many jurisdictions grant objectively low patent quality thresholds. Coupled with the broad patent eligibility for software and business methods, it becomes evident how easily patents can solidify corporate malaise and market stagnation under the guise of “promoting innovation.”

Obstructing Disruptive Innovation

The negative effects of this dysfunctional system spread far beyond individual companies, harming national economies and society as a whole. By propping up and protecting incumbents that underperform, patents directly impede the process of creative destruction described by economist Joseph Schumpeter. This “creative destruction,” where new innovative companies can challenge and replace stagnant incumbents, is crucial for sustained economic prosperity and growth. However, the monopoly power granted by patents obstructs that renewal process.

Disruptive startups and nimbler challengers with truly innovative and efficient technologies face imposing patent armouries held by establishment titans. Even when their novel solutions markedly improve upon what came before, outdated titans can brandish their government-approved monopolies to litigate or hamstring these competitive threats.

The Patent Arms Race Distortion

In many industries, incumbents nowadays compete not through fireworks of innovation but via gamesmanship of their patent portfolios. Funds that could be productively reinvested into R&D and operations are instead diverted into securing banal patents or defending against infringement claims from rival rent-seekers.

Escaping the Captive State Cycle

This myopic reliance on patents actively impedes dynamism and resilience across economic ecosystems. It perpetuates an entrenched corporatocracy of lumbering, low-productivity enterprises shielded from disruptive competitive renewal.

Apologists may well cite patents as an imperfect necessity somewhere on the policy tradeoff curve. But the self-serving delusion that this suspect monopolist nonsense improves business productivity or customer outcomes would be almost comical if the consequences weren’t so pernicious.

Perhaps it’s time to interrogate whether today’s patent system is beyond saving from its own contradictions. Productive companies might choose the freedom to thrive or wither based on their operational merits in a free market rather than fight subsidised stagnation behind legalised fortresses. Only then can vibrant innovation and economic paradigm shifts truly flourish.

The Heavy Tolls of Patent Protectionism

To recap, some of the key ways patents restrict open competition and shield inefficient businesses:

Funds diverted away from productive operations toward paying licensing fees to rent-seekers
Reduced freedom to operate and delays from patent thickets
Resources squandered on defensive patenting and “design-arounds”
Geographic constraints on market access from having to pay licensing fees across jurisdictions
Difficulties attracting talent due to patent liabilities and litigation risks from rent-seekers

While patents may incentivise some innovation, their monopolistic downsides appear to be increasingly overpowering any societal benefits in many industries. As we strive for a more dynamic, competitive, and productive economy, its it past time to soberly reassess outdated patent doctrine driving the opposite?

The End of Improvement – The Managers’ Perspective

March 18, 2024

Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Improvement, Management

Leave a comment

The End of Improvement – The Managers’ Perspective

[A follow-on to my previous post: The End of Improvement]

For years, organisations have pretended to be on a relentless pursuit of “continuous improvement.” Executives and managers at all levels have been pressured to implement “new initiatives”, “reengineer” processes, and hit ambitious targets—all part of an elaborate act putting improvement at centre stage. But has this endless improvement malarkey actually improved anything?

The uncomfortable truth is that for many managers, these improvement crusades have merely increased their stress, eroded their autonomy, and undermined their professional standing. Rather than enabling organisations to genuinely work smarter, the improvement police have subjected managers to a demoralising regime of resource constraints, changing metrics, and suffocating controls.

Leading Players Forced to Perform

At the top, senior executives have been both star-crossed thespians and unwitting victims of the improvement theatre. On one hand, they are expected to deliver rousing soliloquies as inspirational champions of transformation, rationalising headcount reductions as “rightsizing” and selling disruption as “rejuvenation.” Yet at the same time, they face relentless pressure from analysts and investors to cut costs and boost short-term metrics like earnings per share.

Their status and influence within their organisations has increasingly hinged not on strategic vision or operational expertise, but on delivering an award-worthy performance complete with unsustainable year-over-year budget cuts and headcount reductions. Is it any wonder top leaders become burned out, jaded husks after just a few years treading the boards of the improvement theatre?

The Overloaded Managerial Understudy

Moving down the hierarchy, middle managers have been conscripted as overloaded understudies to the improvement theatre. Caught between lofty edicts and challenging targets from the leading players above, and implementation pressures from the ensemble below, this critical but underappreciated class has been tasked with doing more-and-more with less-and-less.

From lean six sigma programmes to ERP system rollouts, managers have been bombarded with new tools, KPIs and time-consuming compliance rituals—all while their discretionary budgets and spans of control wither. Their expertise and commitment are repeatedly second-guessed through recurring rounds of process “optimisation” between each act of the improvement theatre.

Is it any surprise that managers increasingly suffer burnout, demotivated by the cognitive dissonance of being improvement enforcers one day, only to find themselves targets of the latest performance drive the next? With each new production, their authority and influence diminish further as indispensable institutional knowledge is upstaged by the latest bestseller, ibusiness class n-flight magazine, consultant’s script or other fad.

The Final Performance

Enough is enough. The idea that organisations can infinitely cut, reduce and optimise their way to success through improvement theatre has been definitively debunked by decades of ineffective and morale-sapping performances. Rather than doubling down with yet another encore, we need to rediscover fundamentals that have been tragically ignored.

Perhaps it’s finally time to rehumanise the workplace by recognising the intrinsic motivation, expertise and institutional memories that managers bring to the table. By realigning the way the work works based on pragmatism and mutual respect rather than dogmatically pursuing an arbitrary definition of “better,” we can foster genuine and sustainable progress over the long run.

After all, if an “improvement” worsens the wellbeing and standing of those charged with implementing it, can it really be considered improvement at all? And are we fools to expect these turkeys to vote for their Christmas? Organisations might choose to pause, escape the pressures, recriminations, frustrations and despair, and simply strive to optimise for the needs of all the Folks That Matter™ – including the managers – before mindlessly leaping into the next faddish improvement drama.

The End of Improvement

March 17, 2024

Antimatter principle, Article, Improvement, Lamentation

1 Comment

The End of Improvement

The Ambitious Noughties

There was a time, not long ago, when the desire for improving our ways of working seemed insatiable in the software development field. Around the first decade of this new century, our industry seemed filled with ambitious visionaries – determined to overhaul outdated practices, streamline inefficient workflows, and move beyond cumbersome legacy ways of working.

New approaches were the hot topics on everyone’s minds, promising to free teams from the constraints of bloated, joy-sucking development. Concepts like daily standups, timeboxed cycles, kanbans, and retrospectives became standard practice, with teams attacking projects in short, focused bursts. Iterative processes with continuous feedback loops were all the rage. We took inspiration from the Giants such as:

Ackoff
Schein
Deming
Goldratt
Buckminster Fuller
Marshall Rosenberg
Stafford Beer (VSM, etc.)
Gregory Bateson
Margaret Mead
Taiichi Ohno
John Seddon
Don “The Don” Reinertsen

We dissected and studied the principles of:

Lean
Training Within Industry (TWI)
Socio-technical Systems
The Toyota Product Development System (TPDS)
Morning Star
WL Gore
Haier
Semco
Menlo Innovations

and a host of others.

The Rallying Cry

The goal? Cut bureaucracy, promote face-to-face communication, prioritise the delivery of high-quality “working software” and above all else bring more joy into the workplace. No more excessive documentation or tedious planning sessions. We’d fail fast, learn from customers, use the best knowledge available to Man, and constantly adapt our approach.

You could feel the palpable relief when developers traded in their cube farms for open office layouts intended to inspire collaboration. There was a grassroots momentum to work smarter.

The Gradual Demise

But somewhere along the line, that collective drive seemed to fizzle out into resigned acceptance. Was COVID a factor, I wonder. And the consequent remote working?

Today, walking through any tech workplace reveals teams in an unfortunate state of extremes. On one side, those many still operating using antiquated processes that should have been retired years ago. Rigid hierarchies. Stifling red tape. Mindless box-ticking rather than meaningful progress.

On the other, there were those who adopted “modern” ways of working…only to slowly backslide into new dysfunctional habits. Unmotivated workers mindlessly performing pro forma rituals, succumbing to collective apathy. The processes changed, but the hunger for actual improvement has left the building.

The Lost Ideals

What happened to that passion for customer-centric, iterative craftsmanship? Viewing colleagues as peers, not corporate zombies? Taking pride in elegant products, over simply checking boxes?

Perhaps the new approaches were flawed from the start. Or the ideals were too lofty for reality at scale. Most likely, disillusionment gradually set in as the same organisational failures persisted – miscommunication, mission creep, mounting technical debt, management metacluelessness, and of course, burnout.

The Harsh Reality

Regardless of the root causes, one truth is inescapable: That widespread eagerness to find smarter, more fulfilling ways of working has dwindled. Fatigued developers have retreated, finding comfort in self-protection rather than striving for better.

A Faint Flicker of Hope

We did rally together toward a vibrant vision of leaner workplace cultures. For a few bright years, we dared dream the next big breakthrough would be nurturing more joyful ways of working and relating.

That glimmer still flickers under the rubble of abandoned buzzwords and dismantled visions. But rekindling it invites rededication to a progress that few seem able to muster lately. Complacency has become the new normal. And the need for pride in work just an echo from history.

Semper Mirabilis.

The Continuous Improvement Delusion

Philip Crosby’s Case Against Kaizen Culture

Organisational Learned Helplessness Dressed Up as Diligence

The Economics of Actually Fixing Things

Zero Defects vs. The Improvement Treadmill

The Prevention vs. Detection Fallacy

The Management Commitment Problem

Why We Choose Comfortable Failure

The Modern Vindication

A Different Path Forward

The Uncomfortable Truth

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

Releasing the Pent-Up Potential of Your Organisation: Liberation Through the Five Patterns

The Foundation: Why Organisations Get Stuck

Understanding Organisational Psychotherapy

The Core Insight: Invisible Mental Traps and Pattern-Based Solutions

Why This Approach Differs So Much from Traditional Change Management

Pattern One: Transform Constraints Into Advantages

Pattern Two: Enable Systems-Level Perception

Pattern Three: Generate Unexpected Connections

Pattern Four: Develop Metacognitive Awareness

Pattern Five: Build Comprehensive Mental Models

The Revolutionary Power: Pattern Integration for Organisational Liberation

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

The Fatal Flaw of Piecemeal Culture Change: Why Your Transformation is Doomed to Fail

The Interconnected Nature of Organisational Culture

The Inevitable Outcomes of Siloed Cultural Change

1. Cultural Clash and Resistance

2. Change Regression

3. Talent Frustration and Exodus

4. Erosion of Credibility

A More Effective Approach: Systemic Cultural Transformation

How Organisational Psychotherapy Differs from Traditional Change Management

1. Unified Vision

2. Aligned Systems and Structures

3. Cross-Functional Integration

4. Incremental but Organisation-Wide Implementation

Conclusion

Share the joy :)

Why Change Management Fails

The Hidden Culprit Behind Failed Transformations

The Marshall Model: A Framework for Understanding Organisational Evolution

The Analytic Mindset Trap

Why the Analytic Mindset Fails Change Initiatives

1. It treats organisations as machines rather than living systems

2. It overvalues rigid adherence to rules

3. It fragments the organisation into disconnected parts

4. It remains unconsciously incompetent

Moving Toward More Effective Change: The Synergistic Mindset

Practical Implications for Change Management

Conclusion: Change Management Through a New Lens

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

The Great Pretence of Software Craftsmanship

The Theatre of Technical Excellence

A Cultural Phenomenon

The Rare Authentic

The Comfortable Reality

The Cost of Pretence

The Statistical Reality

Share the joy :)

Beyoncé Time

The Corporate World’s Most Delusional Management Theory

The Origin Story

The Corporate Hijacking

The False Equivalency

Why It’s Bonkers

The Management Delusion

The Reality Check

What Employees Actually Think About in Their Free Time

The Toxic Implementation

Breaking Free from Beyoncé Time

For Managers

For Employees

The Final Word

Share the joy :)

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

The Morning Meeting That Says It All