Joy

What Would Software Development Look Like If We Started From Human Flourishing?

A positive vision for development organisations designed from first principles around attending to folks’ needs.

I’ve spent a lot of words on this blog describing what’s broken. The misaligned incentives, the learned helplessness, the quiet tragedy of talented people grinding through systems that treat them as fungible resources. If you’ve been reading along, you already know the critique.

Today I want to try something different.

I want to imagine — concretely, not abstractly — what a software development organisation would look like if we threw out every inherited assumption and started from a single foundational commitment: attend to folks’ needs.

Not as a slogan on a wall. Not as a line item in a manifesto. As the actual organising principle from which everything else follows.

The Starting Question Changes Everything

Most organisations begin with a question like: How do we deliver software efficiently? or How do we maximise output while controlling cost? These seem like reasonable questions. They’re not. They’re questions that have already smuggled in a set of assumptions about what matters, and those assumptions silently shape everything that follows — the structures, the roles, the metrics, the daily experience of every person involved.

What if we started instead with: What do the people involved in this work actually need — to thrive, to do meaningful work, to live well?

This isn’t soft. It’s radical. And the organisation it produces looks almost nothing like what we’re used to.

Whose Needs? Everyone’s.

The Antimatter Principle doesn’t play favourites. It asks us to attend to the needs of all the folks involved — not just customers, not just shareholders, not just developers, but every person whose life is touched by the work. That includes the person writing the code, the person waiting for the feature, the person answering the support call, the person who’ll maintain this system five years from now, and yes, the person funding the whole endeavour.

In practice, most organisations optimise for one constituency at the expense of others. They squeeze developers to delight customers. They squeeze customers to delight shareholders. They squeeze everyone to hit a date that somebody somewhere promised without consulting anyone who’d have to do the work.

An organisation founded on attending to folks’ needs refuses this zero-sum framing. Not because conflict disappears — it doesn’t — but because the conflicts are surfaced, named, and navigated honestly rather than buried under power dynamics and pretence.

What Changes in Practice

Let’s get concrete. Walk with me through what actually shifts.

How Work Enters the System

In most organisations, work arrives as a mandate. Someone with authority decides what gets built, packages it as a requirement or a ticket, and hands it to people whose job is to comply. The need behind the request — the real, human need — is often lost in translation, if it was ever articulated at all.

In our imagined organisation, work begins with needs. Someone has a need. Maybe it’s a customer who can’t accomplish something that matters to them. Maybe it’s a team member who sees a source of recurring pain. Maybe it’s a pattern emerging from support conversations. The need is expressed as a need, not as a premature solution. And the first act is not to estimate or prioritise but to understand — to ask, with genuine curiosity, what’s actually going on for the people involved.

This isn’t ‘requirements gathering’. Requirements gathering is an extraction process. This is something closer to dialogue — closer, in fact, to the spirit of Nonviolent Communication (Rosenberg, 2015), where the aim is to surface what’s really alive in people rather than to classify and judge. It changes the power dynamic entirely, because the people closest to the need are treated as the experts on that need — which, of course, they are.

How Teams Form and Organise

Most team structures are designed for managerial convenience — stable units that can be tracked, measured, and held accountable within a reporting hierarchy. People are assigned to teams. Teams are assigned to projects. The question of whether this arrangement serves anyone’s actual needs rarely comes up.

If we start from human flourishing, we notice that people have a need for autonomy, for mastery, for purpose, for belonging, for psychological safety. They have a need to work with people they trust on problems they find meaningful. They have a need to grow, and growth doesn’t happen on a schedule that aligns with annual review cycles.

So teams become more fluid. People gravitate towards work that connects to their sense of purpose and where their skills create the most value — for themselves and others. This isn’t chaos. It’s self-organisation around real need, and it requires more trust, more communication, and more maturity than a command-and-control structure. But it produces something a command-and-control structure never can: genuine engagement.

How Decisions Get Made

In a conventional organisation, decisions flow down. Strategy is set at the top, decomposed into plans, and cascaded as instructions. The people doing the work make the fewest decisions about the work. This arrangement persists not because it’s effective — it’s demonstrably not — but because it satisfies the needs of the people at the top for control and predictability. Their needs are attended to. Everyone else’s are not.

An organisation grounded in attending to folks’ needs distributes decision-making to where the relevant knowledge lives. Not because decentralisation is ideologically appealing, but because it attends to more people’s needs simultaneously. The developer who understands the technical trade-offs, the support person who hears the customer’s frustration daily, the designer who’s observed the user struggling — all of these people have knowledge that’s essential to a good decision. Excluding them isn’t just inefficient. It’s a failure to attend to their need to contribute meaningfully.

This doesn’t eliminate leadership. It redefines it. Leaders in this world are not decision-makers but need-discoverers — people whose primary skill is sensing what’s needed across the whole system and helping the right conversations happen.

How Quality Is Understood

In most organisations, quality is defined as conformance to specification, or as the absence of defects, or — in more sophisticated shops — as fitness for purpose. All of these framings treat quality as a property of the product.

If we start from human flourishing, quality becomes a property of the relationship between the product and the people it touches. Does this software help someone do something that matters to them? Does using it feel respectful of their time and intelligence? Does building it feel like craft rather than compliance? Does maintaining it feel manageable rather than dread-inducing?

Quality, understood this way, can’t be tested in at the end. It can’t be enforced by a separate QA department. It emerges from a development process in which the people doing the work are themselves flourishing — because people who are stressed, disengaged, and treated as interchangeable parts do not produce things that feel cared-for. They can’t. The care isn’t there to transmit.

How Success Is Measured

Here’s where it gets genuinely uncomfortable for most organisations, because the metrics we’re accustomed to — velocity, throughput, cycle time, story points, lines of code, uptime, revenue per employee — all measure the machine. They tell you how the system is performing as a production apparatus. They tell you nothing about whether anyone involved is flourishing.

An organisation built on attending to folks’ needs would ask different questions. Are the people doing this work learning and growing? Are customers’ lives meaningfully better? Are we building trust or eroding it? Are people choosing to stay because they want to, or staying because they’re afraid to leave? Is the work sustainable — not just this sprint, but this year, this decade?

Some of these things can be measured. Most of them can only be sensed — through honest conversation, through the quality of relationships, through the presence or absence of joy in the work. An organisation that can’t tolerate this ambiguity, that demands everything be reduced to a number on a dashboard, has already revealed which needs it’s prepared to ignore.

The Objection You’re Already Forming

‘This sounds lovely, but it wouldn’t survive contact with economic reality.’

I hear you. And I’d push back — gently — on two fronts.

First, attending to folks’ needs includes attending to the need for the organisation to be economically viable. No one’s needs are served by an organisation that goes bankrupt. Financial sustainability isn’t opposed to human flourishing; it’s a precondition for it. The question isn’t whether the organisation needs to generate revenue and manage costs. Of course it does. The question is whether financial performance is the purpose or a constraint — whether people exist to serve the numbers, or the numbers exist to serve the people.

Second, there’s mounting evidence — from the research on psychological safety (Edmondson, 2019), on intrinsic motivation (Pink, 2009), on the economics of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990/2008), on the cost of turnover and disengagement (DeMarco & Lister, 2013) — that organisations which attend to human needs outperform those that don’t. Not despite the attention to flourishing, but because of it. People who are well do good work. This shouldn’t be surprising, but apparently it is.

Why This Matters Now

We’re at an interesting inflection point. The tools available to software developers are more powerful than ever. AI is reshaping what’s possible. Remote work has rewritten the geography of collaboration. And yet — or perhaps because of all this — the human experience of building software remains, for many people, somewhere between unfulfilling and actively harmful.

The response from most of the industry is to double down on what’s familiar: more process, more measurement, more frameworks, more management, more control dressed up as empowerment. SAFe. OKRs. Spotify models without Spotify’s culture. The names change. The underlying collective assumptions and beliefs don’t.

What I’m describing here isn’t another framework. It’s a foundation. A single principle — attend to folks’ needs — from which appropriate practices, structures, and norms can emerge, shaped by the specific people in the specific context. It won’t look the same in every organisation, and that’s the point. It can’t be a framework because frameworks are, by definition, imposed from outside, and imposition is itself a failure to attend to needs.

An Invitation

If you’ve made it this far, you’re probably someone who’s felt the gap between how software development could feel and how it does feel. You may have had glimpses — a team that clicked, a project where the work felt alive, a moment when building something actually felt like building something.

Those glimpses aren’t anomalies. They’re signals. They’re what happens when, even accidentally, an environment arises that attends to the needs of the people within it.

The question I’d leave you with is this: What would it take to make that the rule rather than the exception? Not in theory. In your context, with your people, starting tomorrow.

I don’t pretend to have the full answer. But I’ve seen that it starts with asking a better question than ‘how do we deliver software efficiently?’ It starts with asking what people need — and then taking the answer seriously.

I’d love to hear what resonates — and what doesn’t. What needs of yours aren’t being attended to in your current organisation? What would change first if they were? The comments are open, and as always, I’m happy to let your questions shape where this conversation goes next.

What Is This Blog About? Making Work Joyful

May 22, 2025

Article, Community, Joy, Organisational Therapy, Quintessence

Leave a comment

What Is This Blog About? Making Work Joyful!

My thanks to all those readers who find things of value here. At its heart, this blog is about one essential question: How do we make our time at work more joyful?

Not just tolerable. Not just productive. Joyful.

Semper mirabilis — making life more wonderful. That’s the mission that drives everything I explore here, and work, being such a significant part of our lives, deserves that same wonderful transformation.

What You’ll Find Here

Each post I write approaches this central theme from a different direction. You might read about the team that discovered how vulnerability transformed their collaboration, or the office that revolutionised their dynamic with a simple change to how they run meetings. Sometimes I explore the science behind motivation, other times I share practical strategies you can implement tomorrow.

The angles are varied because joy at work is multifaceted. It emerges from meaningful relationships, engaging challenges, personal growth, recognition, autonomy, assumptions, beliefs, and a dozen other factors that interact in unique ways for each person and each organisation.

My Central Mission

Every post you’ll find here adds another angle to this theme. Whether I’m exploring the small rituals that transform a mundane Tuesday into something meaningful, examining how teams can create genuine connection, or diving into the psychology of flow states, it all comes back to the same core belief I hold: work doesn’t have to be something we endure.

Joy at work isn’t about ping pong tables or free snacks—though those don’t hurt. It’s about finding genuine satisfaction in what we do, creating environments where people can thrive, and discovering those moments when work feels less like work and more like purpose in action.

Richard Sheridan captured this beautifully in ‘Joy, Inc.’ when he wrote about building a company culture where joy isn’t just an occasional byproduct—it’s the deliberate, measurable objective. His work at Menlo Innovations proves that businesses can be both profitable and joyful, that these aren’t competing objectives but truly complementary ones.

Why Joy Matters

We spend roughly a third of our adult lives working. That’s too much time to spend feeling drained, disconnected, or simply counting down the hours until we can live our ‘real’ lives. Joy at work isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity for a life well-lived.

When work becomes joyful, everything shifts. Problems become puzzles to solve rather than burdens to bear. Colleagues become collaborators rather than competitors. Monday mornings transform from something to dread into something to anticipate.

An Ongoing Conversation

This isn’t about me preaching a single philosophy or selling a miracle cure. It’s about building a community of people who believe work can be better—and who are willing to experiment, share, and learn together.

Your insights matter here. The comment sections often become the most valuable part of each post I write, where readers share what’s working in their workplaces, what isn’t, and what they’re trying next.

So whether you’re looking to transform your company culture, trying to support your team better, or someone simply seeking more fulfilment in your daily work life, you’ll find something here. Each post I publish is another piece of the larger puzzle: how to make the place where we spend so much of our lives a source of joy rather than just a paycheck.

Because life’s too short for joyless work.

Spread the Joy

If you’ve found something valuable here, please don’t keep it to yourself. Share this blog with colleagues, friends, and anyone else who might benefit from a more joyful approach to work. Forward posts that resonate with you, discuss ideas from here in your team meetings, or simply mention what I’m writing about to someone who’s struggling to find meaning in their Monday mornings.

The more people we reach with these ideas, the more workplaces we transform. Joy at work spreads—and it starts with conversations like the ones I hope we’re having here. Help build a movement where joyful work becomes the norm, not the exception.

Meaning, Quality, and Joy: A Conversation

April 25, 2025

Article, Conversations, Joy, Marshall Model, Meaning, Purpose, Quality

Leave a comment

Meaning, Quality, and Joy: A Conversation

With Viktor Frankl and Ed Deming

An imagined conversation, moderated by Stephen Fry

Setting: A cozy London club room with leather armchairs, circa 1985. The rain patters softly against tall windows as three men share whisky and ideas.

Stephen Fry: settling into his chair with obvious delight Gentlemen, what an absolute privilege to host this little tête-à-tête. Dr. Deming, your work revolutionising management has traveled far beyond factory floors. And Dr. Frankl, your insights from the darkest human experiences have illuminated countless lives. I’m curious—have you noticed the fascinating parallels in your thinking?

Deming: adjusts glasses Call me Ed, please. And yes, I’ve read Man’s Search for Meaning twice. Remarkable book. Viktor’s experiences make my battles with corporate America seem rather trivial by comparison.

Frankl: with a gentle smile Nothing trivial about transforming how humans work together, Ed. And please, such formality isn’t necessary between us. I’ve followed your impact in Japan with great interest. Different arenas, but we’re both concerned with what makes humans thrive, no?

Stephen: leaning forward enthusiastically That’s precisely it! One of you worked with people making cars and calculators, the other with people piecing back together shattered lives. Yet you’ve both concluded that meaning is… well, rather bloody important!

Deming: chuckling Put that way, it does sound obvious. But good lord, you should see how many companies still don’t get it. They think workers are just pairs of hands. Pay them, push them, measure them to death—then wonder why quality suffers.

Frankl: nodding The same reductionism appears in psychology. Many theories treat humans as merely responding to stimuli or seeking pleasure. But in the camps—

He pauses, takes a sip of whisky

Even there, I saw that meaning was more fundamental than comfort or even survival. Those who had a ‘why’ to live could bear almost any ‘how.’

Stephen: softly Viktor, if I may ask… how did you maintain your own ‘why’ in such circumstances?

Frankl: thoughtfully I had my manuscript—my life’s work—confiscated upon arrival at Auschwitz. So I began reconstructing it mentally. I would give lectures in my mind, imagining I was teaching these ideas someday. This gave purpose to my suffering. And I thought of my wife, not knowing if she was alive…

Deming: visibly moved And this is what I try to explain to executives who think bonuses and threats are the only motivators! Humans need purpose. When a worker can’t take pride in craftsmanship because the system rushes them or provides poor materials—it’s a kind of existential insult.

Stephen: gesturing with his glass It seems you both challenge the mechanistic view of humans. Viktor through therapy, Ed through, well, what would you call your approach?

Deming: with characteristic directness Systems thinking. Most problems in organizations aren’t people problems—they’re system problems. When good people work in bad systems, the systems win every time. And most systems are perfectly designed to rob people of joy in their work.

Frankl: leaning forward That phrase—”joy in work”—it’s quite profound. In therapeutic terms, joy emerges naturally when activity connects to meaning. You can’t command joy any more than you can command love.

Stephen: mischievously Unlike me, who can command attention simply by dropping a well-placed literary reference! all laugh But seriously, both your approaches seem to push against the tide of treating humans as mere cogs or stimulus-response machines.

Deming: emphatically Exactly! My Point 12: “Remove barriers that rob people of pride in workmanship.” When someone truly cares about what they’re making—whether it’s a car door or a customer experience—they’ll solve problems you never even knew existed.

Frankl: In the camps, I observed this too, albeit in grimmer form. Even there, some prisoners would share their bread with others who were weaker. Such actions transcended mere survival instinct. They reflected choice—the final human freedom to choose one’s attitude even when everything else is taken away.

Stephen: thoughtfully You both speak of freedom within constraints. Viktor found freedom of attitude even in a concentration camp. Ed, you speak of freedom within systems—

Deming: interrupting with enthusiasm Yes! But I also insist we can redesign those systems! That’s where Viktor’s personal approach meets my structural one. We can choose to avoid having workers heroically overcome bad management to find meaning. We can choose to build systems that nurture rather than crush the human spirit.

Frankl: nodding vigorously Absolutely correct. My emphasis on individual attitude never meant accepting oppressive systems. Quite the opposite! Understanding human needs for meaning can inform how we design all institutions—workplaces, schools, governments.

Stephen: refilling glasses A toast, then! To redesigning our world around what actually makes us human.

They raise their glasses

Stephen: Ed, tell us—what first showed you that joy in work matters so much?

Deming: reminiscing As a young man, I worked summers on my grandfather’s farm in Wyoming. Hard work, mind you, but satisfying. You planted, you tended, you harvested—you saw the whole cycle and its purpose. Then I entered modern industry and saw how specialisation and management approaches had fractured that natural satisfaction.

Stephen: And then Japan happened! You practically became a national hero there.

Deming: modestly They were ready to listen. After the war, they needed to rebuild everything. No time for ego or tradition—just what works. They understood that quality isn’t inspected in; it’s designed in—including designing how people work together.

Stephen: turning And Viktor, before the unimaginable happened, you were already developing your ideas about meaning?

Frankl: nodding In my practice in Vienna, I noticed what I called “Sunday neurosis”—a kind of emptiness people felt when work stopped and they faced themselves. Even before the war, hunger for meaning was the underlying condition of many of my patients. The camps then became a terrible confirmation of my theory—when everything is stripped away, meaning remains our essential need.

Deming: thoughtfully Sunday neurosis… I’ve seen something similar in retirement. People who defined themselves by work suddenly feel useless. Organisations that push people to retire at 65, as if creativity has an expiration date!

Stephen: animatedly Both of you seem to challenge this artificial separation between work life and “real” life! As if we should expect misery at work but find meaning elsewhere.

Frankl: passionately Exactly! Life does not compartmentalize so neatly. The question of meaning pervades all domains of existence.

Deming: And quality too! laughs Though I suspect Viktor wouldn’t phrase it quite that way.

Frankl: smiling Perhaps not, but we’re talking about the same human reality. Quality of product, quality of experience, quality of life—these are not separate concerns.

Stephen: eyes twinkling I find it delicious that a statistician and a psychiatrist find such common ground. One of you counting defects per thousand, the other plumbing the depths of the human soul—yet arriving at such similar conclusions!

Deming: chuckling Numbers and systems exist to serve humans, not the other way around. When organisations ignore this, they create misery and mediocrity in equal measure.

Frankl: In the end, both our approaches recognise that meaning isn’t a luxury—it’s as essential as air. Whether in therapy or factories, human dignity must be honored.

Stephen: raising his glass again To human dignity then—in work, in suffering, and in joy. And to two remarkable men who’ve helped us understand it better.

The conversation continues into the night, ranging from statistical process control to existential philosophy, punctuated by Stephen’s witty asides and literary references, three brilliant minds finding unexpected harmony in their diverse experiences.

The Universal Discomfort of Receiving Help

April 2, 2025

Antimatter principle, Article, Attendants, Collaboration, Joy, Needs, Relationships, Teambuilding

Leave a comment

The Universal Discomfort of Receiving Help

The Inevitability of Needing Others

Everyone needs a little help sometimes. We can all find ourselves in moments where we simply cannot manage on our own. Whether it’s struggling with a heavy parcel, facing a complex work challenge, or navigating life’s inevitable emotional hurdles, there comes a time when even the most self-sufficient among us fells the need to reach out for assistance. This universal need for support is part of our shared human experience, transcending cultures and backgrounds.

Yet despite how common it is to need help, there exists an equally widespread discomfort when actually receiving it. That peculiar feeling of vulnerability when someone steps in to offer assistance is something most of us recognise all too well.

The Internal Struggle

When someone offers to help with a task with which we’re struggling, we often feel a curious mixture of relief and unease. “I could have managed,” we tell ourselves, even as we’re grateful for the intervention. We worry about being a burden. We fret about appearing incompetent. We mentally calculate how quickly we can repay the favour to restore some imagined balance.

This discomfort is compounded by powerful social pressures that permeate our interactions. Society repeatedly reinforces the message that neediness is somehow shameful—a character flaw rather than a normal human condition. From an early age, we’re taught to “stand on our own two feet” and that “independence is strength.” These messages create a pervasive anxiety around appearing as though we require support.

Social Pressures Against Appearing Needy

The social stigma attached to needing help manifests in countless subtle ways. We’ve all witnessed the sidelong glances when someone asks for assistance “too frequently.” We’ve heard the whispered comments about those who “can’t seem to manage on their own.” This collective judgement creates a powerful deterrent against reaching out, even when doing so would be entirely reasonable.

In workplace settings, this pressure becomes even more pronounced. Colleagues hesitate to ask questions for fear of appearing weak or incompetent. Employees work well beyond reasonable hours rather than admitting they’re overwhelmed. Managers plod on silently rather than seeking advice. The unspoken rule seems to be that success equals complete self-sufficiency—a standard that is both unrealistic and ultimately harmful.

Even in our personal relationships, the fear of being labelled “high-maintenance” or “needy” can prevent us from seeking necessary emotional support. We pretend to be coping splendidly when in fact we’re struggling, all to maintain an image of self-reliance that nobody truly achieves.

Collaborative Knowledge Work: The Paradox

Perhaps nowhere is this discomfort more counterproductive than in collaborative knowledge work (CKW). Modern innovation and problem-solving rely fundamentally on the sharing of expertise, yet our reluctance to seek help undermines this essential process.

In research institutions, tech companies, and creative industries, the most significant breakthroughs typically emerge not from solitary genius but from the pooling of diverse perspectives and skills. When researchers hesitate to consult colleagues on difficult problems, when developers avoid asking for inspections or reviews, or when writers refuse editorial feedback, the quality of output inevitably suffers.

The irony is striking: in fields where collaboration is explicitly valued, individuals still struggle with the perceived vulnerability of not knowing everything. We’ve created work environments that theoretically celebrate teamwork whilst implicitly rewarding those who appear least dependent on others’ input.

This paradox extends to our learning environments as well. Universities and professional development programmes emphasise collaboration and knowledge-sharing, yet students and participants often feel that asking questions reveals a lack of competence rather than a commitment to learning.

The Wisdom in Receiving Gracefully

Yet there’s profound wisdom in learning to receive assistance gracefully. When we accept help, we not only solve our immediate problem but also strengthen our social bonds. We create opportunities for connection. We allow others the satisfaction of being useful, of making a difference—a deeply fulfilling human experience.

The truth is that giving and receiving help creates a beautiful cycle of human interdependence. When we overcome our discomfort and accept assistance with grace, we challenge the harmful narrative that neediness is weakness. We contribute to a culture where seeking support isn’t seen as shameful but as wise.

Moving Forward Together

Learning to say “yes, thank you” instead of “no, I’m fine” might be one of the most important social skills we can develop. It acknowledges our shared humanity and creates space for authentic connection in a world that often feels isolating.

The next time someone offers you help—whether it’s carrying your shopping bags, proofreading an important document, or simply listening when you’re having a difficult day—consider accepting it with gratitude rather than reluctance. In doing so, you’re not just solving your immediate problem; you’re participating in the ancient and noble tradition of people helping people, and perhaps even challenging the unhelpful social norms that make asking for help so unnecessarily difficult.

After all, needing assistance isn’t a failure of self-reliance—it’s simply part of being human. And in acknowledging this truth, we open ourselves to richer connections, better outcomes, and a more authentic way of being in the world.

Replacing Executives With AI

November 11, 2024

AI, Alien tech, Article, Automation, Business, Culture change, Innovation, Joy, Leadership, Management, Marshall Model, NoLeadership, NoManagement, Progress, Quintessence, Reinvention, Rightshifting

Leave a comment

Replacing Executives With AI

The AI Executive Is Already Here

The algorithmic transformation of corporate leadership is already underway. BlackRock’s Aladdin platform helps financial institutions worldwide manage and analyze investment portfolios worth trillions of dollars. Major corporations increasingly rely on AI systems for strategic decision-making, from supply chain optimization to risk assessment. The future isn’t coming; it’s already arrived, albeit quietly and without a corner office.

AI is by now well known for its errors and hallucinations—its tendency to confidently assert falsehoods and make peculiar mistakes. So an ideal tool to replace the tools running our organisations today? At first glance, AI might seem a preposterous basis for replacing human leadership. Yet, when we consider the track record of human executives—the spectacular corporate failures, the misguided mergers, the missed technological revolutions, and the countless strategic blunders that have sunk formerly mighty organisations—perhaps AI’s occasional confabulations don’t seem so disqualifying after all. At least AI’s errors are predictable, measurable, and systematically improvable, unlike human hubris and groupthink.

The Case for Silicon Leadership

What AI Brings to the Boardroom

Data Processing at Scale: Modern AI systems can analyze vast datasets to identify patterns and trends beyond human capability
Consistent Decision-Making: AI systems apply the same criteria consistently across decisions
Real-time Adaptation: Ability to continuously update strategies based on incoming data
Audit Trails: Every decision can be traced back to its underlying data and logic
Systematic Learning: Capability to learn from outcomes across multiple scenarios

Real-World Applications and Limitations

In the financial sector, algorithmic trading systems now handle the majority of stock market transactions, demonstrating how AI can manage complex, real-time decisions. However, the 2010 Flash Crash showed the risks of automated systems operating without proper oversight, leading to new regulations for algorithmic trading.

Similar patterns emerge in other industries.

The Human Cost and Opportunity

Beyond the C-Suite

The integration of AI into corporate decision-making is already reshaping organisational structures. According to a 2023 McKinsey study, companies are increasingly automating routine management tasks while creating new roles focused on AI oversight and implementation.

Emerging Roles

The transformation is creating new positions that bridge the gap between traditional management and AI system, and providing candidate positions for AI tro ease into:

AI Risk Officers

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

Senior positions responsible for overseeing AI-related risks across the organisation. They evaluate potential failures, biases, and unintended consequences of AI systems. Specific duties include:

Developing AI risk frameworks
Monitoring AI system performance and safety
Coordinating responses to AI-related incidents
Ensuring AI systems operate within acceptable risk parameters
Liaising with regulatory bodies on AI compliance

Algorithmic Compliance Managers

Specialists who ensure AI systems meet regulatory requirements and internal governance standards. Their role encompasses:

Auditing AI decision-making processes
Documenting algorithm changes and updates
Ensuring transparency in automated decisions
Managing model validation procedures
Maintaining compliance with AI-specific regulations
Overseeing algorithmic impact assessments

AI-Human Interface Designers

Experts who design and optimise the interaction between human employees and AI systems. Their responsibilities include:

Creating intuitive interfaces for AI tools
Developing protocols for AI-human collaboration
Optimising workflow integration between AI and human teams
Training staff on effective AI collaboration
Gathering and implementing user feedback
Ensuring AI systems complement rather than frustrate human work

Digital Ethics Officers

Positions focused on the ethical implications of AI deployment in business operations. Their role involves:

Developing ethical frameworks for AI use
Ensuring AI decisions align with company values
Addressing bias and fairness in AI systems
Managing stakeholder concerns about AI deployment
Overseeing ethical impact assessments
Establishing guidelines for responsible AI use

These roles reflect a crucial shift in corporate structure where the focus isn’t on replacing human judgment but on creating frameworks for effective human-AI collaboration. Each position requires a unique blend of technical knowledge, business acumen, and understanding of human factors.

Implementation: Current State of Practice

Case Study: Supply Chain Management

Major retailers like Walmart and Amazon use AI systems for inventory management and demand forecasting. These systems have demonstrated success in:

Reducing stockouts
Optimizing delivery routes
Predicting seasonal demand
Managing supplier relationships

The Regulatory Landscape

Existing Frameworks

Current corporate governance frameworks are being tested by AI implementation:

The EU’s AI Act proposes specific requirements for high-risk AI systems in business (note: none of these requirements apply to high-risk human executives)
The SEC has guidelines for algorithmic trading systems
Financial regulators worldwide are developing AI governance frameworks

Key Regulatory Challenges

Establishing clear accountability for AI decisions (wouldn’t it be nice to have clear accountability for human decisions, too?)
Ensuring transparency in algorithmic decision-making (ditto for human decision-making)
Protecting against systemic risks (hah!)
Maintaining fair competition (double hah!)

Looking Ahead: The Inevitable AI Takeover

Let’s be brutally honest: human executives are running on borrowed time. While the current narrative favours a diplomatic “hybrid” approach, the trajectory is clear. AI will replace most human executives, and likely sooner than we care to admit.

Consider the fundamentals: AI systems don’t play office politics, don’t demand golden parachutes, don’t make decisions based on ego, and don’t suffer from the cognitive biases that plague human decision-making. They don’t take two-hour lunch breaks, form old boys’ networks, act like sexual predators, or make crucial decisions based on who they played golf with last weekend.

More importantly, AI systems are improving exponentially while human executive capability remains largely static. Our current crop of executives was trained for a world that no longer exists—one where quarterly planning cycles made sense and where gut feeling was a valid business tool. Today’s business environment demands an absence of human cognitive biases, and real-time adaptation to vast streams of data, something humans simply cannot do effectively.

The resistance to full AI leadership stems more from human psychology than business logic. We comfort ourselves with platitudes about human judgment and emotional intelligence, but the data increasingly shows that many supposed “human” leadership qualities can be effectively simulated or rendered unnecessary by well-designed systems. And that’s before we even start looking critically at the whole “leadership” landscape.

The “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—who guards the guards—question that has haunted human power structures for millennia becomes elegantly dissolvable with AI executives. Unlike their human counterparts, AI systems can be made truly transparent, their decision-making processes fully auditable, their biases measurable and correctable.

The organisations that will dominate the next decades won’t be those that find the perfect balance between human and machine leadership. They’ll be those that have the courage to fully embrace AI leadership, relegating humans to advisory and oversight roles rather than executive decision-making positions. The future of leadership isn’t a dance between silicon and carbon—it’s a changing of the guard.

For those executives reading this: your best career move might be positioning yourself as part of the transition team rather than resisting the inevitable. The writing isn’t just on the wall; it’s in the data, the algorithms, and the bottom line.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The transformation of corporate leadership through AI is not a simple replacement of humans with machines. Instead, it’s an evolution toward systems that leverage AI’s undoubted strengths. Success will come to organisations that can effectively exploit these elements while maintaining strong governance and risk management frameworks (also AI-enabled).

The key is not to ask whether AI will replace human executives, but how long will it take to happen? AI is the true “innovation” to which so many organisations have been, as yet, only paying lip service.

“Shoulding” is a Signal

October 22, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Culture change, Fellowship, Joy, Nonviolence, Nonviolent Communication

Leave a comment

“Shoulding” is a Signal

You’ve probably used it today already. Perhaps you thought, “I should get up earlier” or told someone “You should try this.” It seems helpful, well-intentioned, even caring. But this little word—”should”—carries a darker power that most of us never notice.

The Hidden Violence in “Should”

Every time we use “should,” we’re signaling our desire to control someone’s behaviour, to override someone else’s autonomy. It’s a linguistic sleight of hand where we replace what someone wants to do with what we want them to do. And we do this dozens of times each day, often without realising.

FOGS: The Emotional Weapons Behind “Should”

When we deploy a “should,” we’re not working alone. We’re backed by four powerful allies:

Fear: “You should be more careful” (Or what might happen?)
Obligation: “You should visit your grandmother” (Because you owe it to others)
Guilt: “You should have known better” (Feel bad about your choices)
Shame: “You should be more successful” (Because you’re not enough)

These four horsemen of manipulation—FOGS—turn a simple word into a tool of emotional coercion.

The British Art of “Should”

Here in Britain, we’ve elevated “should” to an art form. We don’t need to raise our voices or stamp our feet. A quietly murmured “One should queue properly” carries all the force of a royal decree, wrapped in the velvet glove of politeness. Whether spoken, or simply kept to ourselves.

Our close cousin “ought to” performs the same function, just wearing a slightly posher accent. “One ought to arrive on time” sounds genteel, but it’s still control masquerading as advice.

When We “Should” Upon Ourselves

Perhaps most insidiously, we turn this weapon inward. Every “I should exercise more” or “I should be more productive” is self-inflicted violence. We become our own prison wardens, using FOGS to keep ourselves in line with internalised expectations—often inherited from family, society, or culture.

Breaking Free: Beyond “Should”

Instead of “should,” you might like to try these:

“I choose to…” (embracing agency)
“I wonder if…” (inspiring curiosity)
“What if we…” (inviting collaboration)
“I prefer when…” (owning your preferences)

Notice how each alternative creates space for choice rather than constricting it.

The Revolution of “Could”

You might like to try replacing “should” with “could” and watching what happens. “You should exercise more” feels controlling. “You could exercise more” invites possibilities. One traps; the other liberates.

The Workplace: Where “Should” Runs Rampant

In our working lives, “should” becomes particularly toxic because of existing power imbalances. Let’s decode some common workplace “shoulds”:

The Management Layer

“You should stay late to finish this” really means:

I’m not managing resources effectively
I value output over your wellbeing
I’m unwilling to negotiate realistic deadlines

“Everyone should be more innovative” typically translates to:

I want better results without providing resources
I’m not creating a safe space for experimentation
I’m shifting blame for stagnation onto you

The Peer Pressure

“You should contribute to the office social fund” reveals:

We’re enforcing unofficial social taxes
We’re blurring professional and personal boundaries
We’re using FOGS to extract compliance

The Client Dance

“You should be able to do this cheaper” often means:

I don’t understand or respect your expertise
I’m unwilling to pay for quality
I’m using shame to negotiate prices down

Breaking the Workplace “Should” Cycle

Instead of accepting these “shoulds,” would you be willing to try:

For Managers:

“What resources would help you complete this?”
“Let’s discuss realistic timelines”
“How can we make this work for everyone?”

For Employees:

“I’m available until 17:30 today. What should we prioritise?”
“I can deliver X by Friday, or Y by Monday. Which would you prefer?”
“Here’s what I can accomplish within our current resources”

For Clients:

“Here’s what’s involved in delivering quality work”
“These are the options within your budget”
“Let’s align on expectations”

The Power of No

Remember: Every workplace “should” is signalling an attempt at control, and a negotiation disguised as a moral imperative. When you recognise this, you can:

Respond to the actual request rather than the emotional manipulation
Maintain boundaries without apology
Transform power plays into professional dialogues

Moving Forward

Next time you’re about to say “should,” pause. Ask yourself:

Am I trying to control?
Who am I trying to control?
Whose values am I enforcing?
What fears drive this “should”?
Could I express this as an invitation rather than a demand?

This isn’t just about language—it’s about freedom. Each time we catch ourselves before using “should,” we create space for authentic choices and genuine connection.

A World Without “Should”

Imagine relationships built on mutual respect rather than obligation. Workplaces driven by fellowship and intrinsic motivations, rather than by compliance. A self-image based on choice and nonviolence, rather than violence and shame.

This world begins with noticing. Notice when others “should” upon you. Notice when you “should” upon yourself or others. And in that noticing, find the freedom to choose differently.

I won’t tell you that you “should” change your language. That would rather defeat the point, wouldn’t it? Instead, I’ll leave you with this: you could choose different words. You could create different relationships. You could build a world with less control, and violence, and more joy and connection.

Mummery

June 29, 2024

Agile, Article, Business, Capability development, Culture change, Dialogue, Joy, Memeology, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence

Leave a comment

Mummery

In the realm of software development, we often witness a curious spectacle: the performance of rituals and practices that, whilst appearing productive on the surface, amount to little more than elaborate pantomime. This phenomenon, which we might dub ‘mummery’, has deep roots in the industry’s power structures and misaligned incentives. Let’s delve into the causes of this theatrical approach to software development, with a particular focus on the tension between management and the boots-on-the-ground developers and testers.

The Management Muppet Show

The Illusion of Control

At the heart of many mummery practices lies management’s desire for control and predictability in an inherently unpredictable field. This manifests in the imposition of rigid processes that often fail to account for the nuanced, creative nature of software development.

Case in Point: The Scrum Straitjacket

Many a developer has found themselves forced into the constraining embrace of Scrum, not because it’s the best fit for their project or team, but because it provides management with the comforting illusion of progress through burndown charts and velocity metrics. The result? Daily stand-ups that feel more like status reports to appease the powers that be, rather than collaborative problem-solving sessions.

The Metrics Mirage

In their quest for quantifiable progress, managers often grasp at metrics that are easy to measure but may not reflect genuine productivity or quality.

The Story Point Saga

Developers and testers frequently find themselves pressured to assign story points to tasks, engaging in estimation exercises that feel more like crystal ball gazing than scientific measurement. The root cause? A managerial need for ‘data’, even if that data is fundamentally flawed.

The Compliance Charade

Ticking Boxes, Missing the Point

Many mummery practices stem from a culture of compliance, where the appearance of following best practices trumps actual effectiveness.

The Code Review Ritual

While code reviews are invaluable when done properly, they can devolve into perfunctory checkbox exercises. Developers, under pressure to meet deadlines, may perform cursory reviews, leaving substantive issues unaddressed. The root cause? A management culture that values the appearance of quality processes over their substance.

The Agile Theatre

Agile methodologies, originally intended to empower developers, have in many organisations become a top-down mandate, stripped of their original flexibility and purpose.And owned by the management, not the workers (as was the original intent).

The Sprint Planning Pantomime

Developers and testers often find themselves participating in sprint planning sessions where the ‘plan’ has already been decided by management. The root cause? A fundamental misunderstanding of Agile principles, coupled with a reluctance to relinquish control.

The Innovation Illusion

Buzzword Bingo

In an industry that deludes itself that it’s being constantly innovative, there’s immense pressure to appear cutting-edge. This can lead to the adoption of trendy technologies or approaches without proper consideration of their actual value.

The Microservices Mania

Developers may find themselves forced to refactor perfectly functional monolithic applications into microservices architectures, not because it’s necessary, but because management has bought into the hype. The root cause? A fear of appearing outdated, combined with a misunderstanding of when and why to adopt new architectures.

Breaking Free from the Mummery

Fostering Authentic Dialogue

To combat mummery, organisations need to create safe spaces for honest communication between management and development teams. This involves:

1. Encouraging developers and testers to provide feedback on processes without fear of retribution.
2. Educating management on the realities of software development, including its inherent uncertainties.
3. Emphasizing outcomes over output, focusing on delivering value rather than adhering to rigid processes.

Embracing True Agility

Rather than imposing Agile practices from the top down, organisations should empower teams to adapt methodologies to their specific needs. This might mean:

1. Allowing teams to experiment with different approaches and learn from failures.
2. Focusing on the principles behind Agile rather than rigidly adhering to specific practices.
3. Recognising that different projects and teams may require different approaches.

Surfacing Shared Assumptions and Beliefs

One of the most insidious causes of mummery in software development is the presence of unexamined, often conflicting assumptions and beliefs about how work actually happens. To combat this, organisations might choose to actively surface and reflect upon – through e.g. dialogue – these underlying assumptions and beliefs:

Conduct Assumption Archaeology: Regularly hold sessions where team members, including management, developers, and testers, articulate their beliefs about how and why work gets done. This might reveal surprising differences in perspectives, such as:
- Management assuming that productivity is directly proportional to hours worked, while developers know that creative problem-solving often happens during downtime, and away from the desk.
- Testers believing that catching bugs is a sign of their effectiveness, while developers might see it as a failure of their process.
- The role of Quality and the purpose, practices of “QA”.
Create a Shared Mental Model: Once assumptions are surfaced, work together to create a shared understanding of the software development process and its place in the wider business. This might involve:
- Mapping out the actual flow of work, including informal processes and communication channels that may not be part of the official methodology.
- Identifying points of friction or misalignment between different roles’ perceptions of how work should proceed.
Challenge the “Should” Mentality: Encourage questioning of established practices by asking “Why do we do this?” rather than assuming “This is how it should be done.” This can help distinguish between purposeful processes and mere theatre.
Recognise the Complexity of Knowledge Work: Consider whether software development is not a linear, predictable process that many assume it is. Help all stakeholders to participate in this dialogue.
- Creative breakthroughs can’t be scheduled.
- The most valuable work often can’t be easily quantified or tracked.
- Learning and experimentation are essential parts of the process, not just “wasted” time.
Align Incentives with Reality: Once there’s a shared understanding of how work really happens, adjust incentives and metrics accordingly. This might mean:
- Valuing quality and customer satisfaction over lines of code or story points completed.
- Recognising and rewarding collaborative problem-solving rather than individual heroics.
Continuous Reflection: Implement regular retrospectives not just on the work itself, but on the team’s evolving understanding of how they work. And on the assumptions and beliefs shared across the organisation. This keeps the conversation about shared assumptions alive and prevents new forms of mummery from calcifying.

By actively working to surface and align assumptions about how work works, organisations can choose to create an environment where mummery becomes not just unnecessary, but glaringly obvious when it does occur. This shared understanding forms the foundation for genuine, effective practices that respect the realities of software development.

Conclusion: Dropping the Act

The prevalence of mummery in the software industry is a symptom of deeper issues: conventional management and its category errors about the nature of the work, misaligned incentives, a lack of trust between management and development teams, and a misunderstanding of the creative and unpredictable nature of software development.

By addressing these root causes, we can begin to shed the costumes and scripts that hinder genuine productivity and innovation. It’s way past time for both managers and developers to step out from behind the curtain, adopt relativey effective shared assumptions and beliefs, and engage in authentic, effective ways of working. Only then can we experience the joy of delivering true value, rather than merely acting out the role of productive software teams.

Scrum the Organisational Psychotherapy Way

June 5, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Culture change, Joy, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Paradigm shifts, Quintessence, Scrum, Software development

Leave a comment

Scrum the Organisational Psychotherapy Way

As the inventor of “European” Scrum (a.k.a. Jerid, now Javelin) way back in 1994, I feel qualified to comment on the shortcomings of this approach that has since taken the software world by storm.

The Trap of Collective Assumptions

What started as a novel approach to introduce more flexibility into software processes has now become riddled with collective and relatively ineffective assumptions. Scrum promises boosted productivity, better teamwork, and a steady flow of deliverables. However, this narrow focus on process optimisation often stems from collective assumptions that blind organisations and practitioners to the deeper, systemic issues underlying their challenges.

The Pitfalls of Local Optimisation

Scrum represents a classic case of local optimisation – a well-intentioned attempt to enhance efficiency within the specific domain of software development. Yet organisations are complex, living systems shaped by intricate webs of interdependencies, culture, and psychological factors. True transformation demands a holistic approach that questions the collective beliefs driving organisational behaviour.

Treating Symptoms, Not Causes

Implementing Scrum without addressing the root causes plaguing an organisation is akin to treating symptoms without ever identifying the underlying disease. It may provide palliative relief, but the fundamental issues – generally rooted in the organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs – remain unresolved, only to resurface later.

The Organisational Psychotherapy Lens

Systemic Perspective on Collective Mindsets

Organisational Psychotherapy offers a radically different vantage point. It recognises that organisational challenges often manifest from deeper, systemic issues requiring a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between individuals, teams, collective mindsets, and the broader organisational context.

Unearthing Root Causes in Collective Beliefs

Through careful exploration and dialogue, Organisational Psychotherapy aims to unearth the root causes – i.e. collective assumptions and beliefs – driving organisational dysfunction. It delves into webs of power dynamics, communication patterns, and cultural norms shaping collective behaviour, decision-making, and organisational outcomes.

Holistic Transformation of Collective Mindsets

Rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions, Organisational Psychotherapy provides bespoke interventions tailored to each organisation’s unique needs and collective mindsets. This holistic approach tackles issues at multiple levels, from individual and team psychologies to organisational structures, systems, and collective beliefs.

Embracing Complexity Over Quick Fixes

In a world craving quick fixes, Organisational Psychotherapy offers a more nuanced, challenging path. It invites the embracing of complexity, the confronting of uncomfortable collective truths, and the embarking on journeys of self-reflection to transform organisational and collective mindsets.

Long-Term Cultural Evolution

While arduous, the rewards are profound. Organisations undertaking this journey become stronger, more resilient, and better equipped to navigate ever-changing business landscapes. They come to embrace cultures of continuous learning, adaptation, and growth by evolving collective beliefs and mindsets – key to long-term success amid complexity.

Conclusion

True organisational transformation requires deeper understanding of systemic challenges often rooted in collective assumptions and beliefs. As the originator of “European” Scrum, I now see its local optimisation fails to address these root causes.

Organisational Psychotherapy provides a holistic, nuanced approach to unearth underlying collective mindsets, and craft customised interventions fostering sustainable cultural change. Embrace complexity, confront collective discomforts, and evolve organisational beliefs – the path is tough, but the rewards are enduring cultural resilience and the joys of success.

As for Scrum, don’t do it. It’s a blind alley. A cul-de-sac that you’ll only have to reverse out of eventually.

Embracing Irrelevance

April 9, 2024

Actionable Insights, Article, Celebration, Empathy, Experts, Fellowship, Joy

Leave a comment

Embracing Irrelevance

The Harsh Reality

There I was again, sitting in yet another meeting, trying to share perspectives honed over decades of leading software teams and driving development efforts. I knew the challenges they were facing, and had wrestled with similar issues countless times before. I metaphorically raised my hand and began outlining a potential path forward, drawing upon hard-won knowledge and experience.

But I could see the glazed looks from the fresh-faced engineers before me. The furtive glances at phones and laptops. I was bombarded by the deafening silence of irrelevance.

It’s a harsh reality that many experienced technology professionals eventually need to confront. The industry moves at a blistering pace, with new languages, frameworks, and methodologies materialising every few years. Management fads come and go in eerily predictable cycles. The young zealots who embrace each new trend inevitably become the cranky stick-in-the-muds insisting, “We’ve always done it this way, and it works just fine.”

A Joyful Choice

It can be incredibly disheartening to find your deep institutional knowledge rapidly becoming irrelevant, proverbially screaming wisdom into an unheeding void. You watch in dismay as the same mistakes you learned from get repeated over and over. You furiously take notes during meetings, composing verbose emails that seemingly disappear into purgatory.

At some point, you’re left with two choices – endlessly rage against the machine of disruption and alienate those around you, or embrace your newfound irrelevance. I’ve joyfully chosen the latter.

The Therapeutic Stance

Trying to force your experiences on those unwilling or unable to receive them is incredibly unfulfilling, not to mention pointless. It simply results in frustration for all involved. Instead, I’ve learned to share my perspectives selectively with those who actively seek my counsel. I’ve let go of the need to be heard. And it’s a major reason for my current “therapeutic” stance – eschewing advice in favour of empathetic listening, non-judgement, and facilitating others’ self-discovery.

A Tremendous Liberation

In many ways, it’s a tremendous and joyful liberation. Any pressure to have all the answers dissipates. You’re free to sit back, listen, and learn from those with fresh ideas and energy. You can empathise and support when asked without putting your entire self-worth on the line.

Most importantly, you gain the ability to focus on what truly matters – making life more wonderful rather than feeding your own ego. Finding relevance in being helpful to others, not in forcing them to accept your specific brand of help. Semper mirabilis!

Unshackling Yourself

So I embrace irrelevance. I recognise that skills atrophy over time. I accept that the march of technology will inevitably leave us behind in some areas.

Might I suggest using the precious time you have left to unshackle yourself from the burden of universal relevance. Pour your efforts into making an impact where you still can. You may find more fulfilment in your later years than you ever did being the irreplaceable expert.

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.

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?

A World Where the Greater Good Predominates Over Profits

March 16, 2024

Alien tech, Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Collaboration, Community, Compassion, Culture change, Dignity, Economics, Fellowship, History, Joy, Needs, Nonviolence, Organisational effectiveness, Quintessence, Rightshifting, Systems thinking, WhatIf

Leave a comment

A World Where the Greater Good Predominates Over Profits

The Visionary Notion

What if the primary driving force behind commercial and economic endeavors wasn’t the pursuit of profits, but rather benefiting society, the species, Gaia, and the planet? A visionary notion, to be sure, that seems to defy conventional capitalist wisdom. Nevertheless, if we allow our imaginations to roam freely and look back at periods in history where ethical business practices held sway, we can depict a world truly transformed by this paradigm shift.

Profit Motives vs. Ethics and Humanity

Throughout most of human history, the profit motive has reigned supreme in the business realm. However, there have been notable exceptions driven by religious teachings, philosophical movements, and social ideals that prioritised ethical conduct over mere grubby accumulation of more and more wealth. The Quakers, for instance, were renowned for their commitment to honest dealings and consideration of employee welfare, exemplified by the socially-conscious British chocolate makers like Cadbury. The 19th century cooperative movement aimed to create enterprises that equitably shared profits with worker-owners and the local community.

The Beauty of Ethical Business

Would we call businesses truly putting the greater good before profits “beautiful”? At first, such a description may seem like an odd coupling of aesthetics with commerce. But perhaps there is an inherent beauty to enterprises that create sustainable value for society while exhibiting ethical conduct.

Just as we find natural wonders, artistic works, or selfless acts emotionally moving due to their harmony with higher ideals of truth, goodness, and transcendence of ego, so could businesses centered on benefiting all stakeholders embody a different kind of beauty. One not necessarily based on physical appearance, but on being skillfully crafted exemplars of how our economic activities can align with ethical, aesthetic, environmental and humanitarian principles.

This beauty manifests through their products, services, and operations, harmonising with the world rather than undermining it through greed, despoilment, or exploitation. Beautiful businesses are sustainable and circular by design, creating goods to be celebrated and cherished rather than cynically designed for disposability.They invest in creating opportunity and dignity for workers and communities rather than grinding them underfoot for profit margins.

Where today’s shareholder-driven corporations often exemplify grotesque machineries of extraction, ethical enterprises putting people and planet over money could be sublime new exemplars of applied aesthetics – aspiring toward perfection not through profit metrics, but through positively impacting all they engage with. Their beauty would shine through in becoming tightly interwoven threads in an interdependent tapestry, creating joyful, resilient and regenerative systems that elevate our shared potential.

While the traditional business vernacular focuses on the uglyness of lucrative processes, revenue growth, and reputational brand value, a world where ethical enterprises reign would celebrate hallmarks of perfected form: generative models that produce societal good, environmental integrity, attending to folks’ needs, and uplifting the human spirit. Perhaps then, we could appreciate the highest “good companies” not just pragmatically, but aesthetically – as living artworks of conscious, ethical organisation.

A World Oriented Toward the Greater Good

In such a world oriented toward the greater good, companies measure success not just by financial returns, but by positive impacts. Ethical practices like those espoused by certain faith traditions and thinkers are the norm across these industries. Sustainability is prized over short-term gain, with environmental stewardship prioritised over resource exploitation. We’ve seen glimpses of this in recent decades through the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR), socially conscious investing, and the emergence of benefit corporations legally bound to creating public benefit, not just profits. But such examples have remained the exception rather than the rule in a profit-driven system.

The Global Ethos of the Greater Good

Imagine if this ethos becomes the core operating principle globally. Rather than lobbying for narrow interests, these businesses advocate for the common good. Tax avoidance schemes would be abandoned in a system where contributing one’s fair share is the ethical baseline. Worker rights and equity are vigorously protected, not eroded in pursuit of higher margins. On an individual level, cutthroat workplace could gives way to healthier cooperation, and integration with our personal and community values and family lives. Ethical conduct is rewarded over pure profit-generation at any cost. Kudos is not derived from endless growth metrics, but to positive impacts created for all the Folks That Matter™.

A Sustainable Economic Model

Of course, enterprises still need to generate income to remain viable and reinvest in their social missions. But growth is pursued by creating genuine value for society rather than extracting it. Sustainable, circular economic models replace those premised on endless consumption and planned obsolescence.

A Radical Yet Possible Vision

Such a world may seem naively idealistic to modern sensibilities, conditioned to accept profit as the prime directive. But is it any more far-fetched than an entrenched global system that relentlessly exploits people and finite resources in pursuit of perpetual economic expansion on a finite planet? By orienting business toward the greater good, as past ethical movements have done, we might create an economy that better serves humanity. This may read as a utopian ideal today, but it has been a reality at various points throughout our history. A world where businesses prioritise society over self-interest may not be inevitable, but it is possible if we dare to imagine and build it together.

Do you have even the briefest five minutes to contemplate how things might be different?

Corporates Suck: A Personal Take

October 12, 2023

Article, Business, Compassion, Culture change, Joy, Lamentation, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Psychology

Leave a comment

Corporates Suck: A Personal Take

What Happened to the Thrill?

When I first started working with computers, I revelled in the challenges and the opportunities for learning. The sense of accomplishment and the thrill of solving complex problems were genuinely exhilarating.

And to Employee Happiness?

However, my initial enthusiasm took a nosedive when I rubbed up against the corporate world. What caused this transformation? Many argue that the corporate environment has a knack for leaching joy, replacing it with turgid egocentric managers intent on feathering their own nests at everyone else’s expense.

What’s Wrong with Corporate Culture?

In corporates, the methods used to assess and drive performance often benefit these self-serving managers rather than the well-being of the workforce as a whole. Indeed, even the very pursuit of “performance” is a theatre of fiction.

Does Autonomy Matter?

The absence of autonomy in a hierarchical corporate structure further dampens the spirit. Employees lose the joy that comes from freedom and independent decision-making, turning work into a mere series of tasks.

Autonomy often serves as a cornerstone for employee happiness. The freedom to make decisions, solve problems and contribute ideas fosters a sense of ownership and, by extension, joy. But is autonomy a valued principle in the corporate world? Unfortunately, more often than not, the answer is no.

Corporate structures frequently operate within rigid hierarchies where decision-making power is concentrated at the top. Managers assign tasks and set directives, leaving little room for employees to exercise autonomy. This top-down approach not only diminishes individual contributions but also robs employees of the satisfaction derived from autonomous action.

Furthermore, when employees feel that their role is reduced to following orders, engagement plummets. The absence of autonomy turns day-to-day tasks into a checklist to be ticked off rather than a series of meaningful contributions. This lack of freedom directly contradicts the human desire for autonomy, leading to disengagement and, ultimately, a less joyful workplace.

So, does autonomy matter? Unquestionably. Granting employees a degree of autonomy can reignite the sputtering fires of joy and engagement, leading to a more productive and happier workforce. Corporates that recognise the value of autonomy take a significant step towards restoring the joy so often missing from the workplace.

Does Mastery Matter?

Mastery, or the drive to become proficient in a skill or field, can be a significant source of joy for many. But does it hold any water in the corporate setting? Unfortunately, the pursuit of mastery often takes a back seat in corporates, sidelined by short-term goals and immediate deliverables. The emphasis on quick wins and immediate results eclipses the long-term satisfaction that comes from mastering a skill or a domain.

Furthermore, the race for promotions and recognition can dilute the pure joy of mastery. Instead of gaining proficiency for the sheer pleasure of it, skills development turns into a competitive sprint, dictated by performance evaluations and peer comparisons.

So yes, mastery does matter, but it’s often undervalued or even ignored in the corporate world. Recognising the importance of mastery could be a step towards reintroducing joy into the workplace, benefiting not just the employees but also contributing to a more skilled and engaged workforce.

Does Shared Purpose Matter?

Shared purpose can be a potent catalyst for workplace joy. When employees feel they are part of something bigger than themselves, motivation and satisfaction often follow. But how well does this concept fare in the corporate landscape? Generally, not as well as it could or should.

In many corporates, the overarching goal is clear: increase shareholder value. While this aim is valid from a business perspective, it rarely stokes the fires of individual passion or a collective sense of purpose. Employees find themselves working to benefit a distant, often faceless, group of stakeholders rather than contributing to a cause that has personal or societal meaning.

Moreover, when managerial focus is primarily on self-advancement or departmental targets, the notion of a shared purpose becomes fractured. Employees start to feel disconnected from the mission of the organisation, contributing further to the drain of joy and satisfaction.

So, does shared purpose matter? Absolutely. A unified goal not only brings people together but also instills a sense of meaning in daily tasks. To reignite the lost joy, corporates should look beyond mere profits and metrics, weaving a tapestry of shared purpose that each employee can contribute to and feel proud of.

Is Work-Life Balance a Myth?

Promises of work-life balance often remain unfulfilled. With no clear boundaries, employees experience burnout, which contributes to a cycle of joylessness.

The term “work-life balance” is bandied about in corporate circles, regularly cited as a perk or aspiration within companies. But how often is this balance truly achieved? Regrettably, it’s way more espoused than actual in many corporate settings.

In the push for self-aggrandisement and personal wellbeing of executives and senior manager, work demands often spill over into personal time. Employees find themselves tethered to their jobs through smartphones and laptops, blurring the lines between work and life. The upshot is a skewed balance that leans heavily towards work, pushing personal time and activities to the fringes.

This lopsided equation isn’t just detrimental to personal lives; it also drains the joy out of work itself. When employees can’t switch off, the chance for relaxation and rejuvenation dwindles, leading to increased stress and burnout. The absence of real work-life balance adversely affects not just individual well-being but also overall job satisfaction.

So, is work-life balance a myth? In many corporates, unfortunately, yes. But it doesn’t have to be. Companies that genuinely commit to work-life balance as a tangible practice rather than a buzzword can contribute to a more joyful, engaged workforce. Maybe enlightened corporates might choose to stop paying lip service to work-life balance and start making it a lived reality for their employees.

What About Personal Growth?

Corporates typically offer limited scope for personal growth. Focused on role-specific skills, companies overlook the broader aspects of development, reducing the job to a set of mundane activities rather than a platform for holistic growth.

Personal growth is a factor that contributes to an individual’s overall sense of happiness and well-being. However, its role in the corporate setting is often underemphasised, overshadowed by the focus on immediate performance indicators.

Companies frequently provide training and development opportunities, but these are usually confined to vain attempts to moderate behaviours, or on improving skills that directly benefit the organisation. This approach tends to neglect broader aspects of an individual’s personal and professional development. The result is a narrowed scope for growth that pertains solely to the job at hand, leaving little room for the nourishment of other facets like emotional intelligence, leadership qualities, or even hobbies and interests that can enrich lives.

The absence of opportunities for holistic personal growth can lead to stagnation. Employees may find that their roles become monotonous and unfulfilling, devoid of the challenges and learning experiences that bring joy and meaning to work.

So, what about personal growth? It’s crucial but often overlooked in the corporate agenda. A shift towards including personal development as a core part of employee growth can make work more fulfilling and joyous. After all, an individual is more than the sum of their job-related skills, and recognising this can be a step towards creating a more joyful and engaged workforce.

A Pit of Despair

In my own experience, the joy I initially found in computer-related challenges has descended into a pit of despair when involved with corporates. What was once a playground of innovation and problem-solving has for many become a bland, monotonous treadmill of routine. The constant grind, coupled with the absence of creativity and personal growth, transforms work into something far less fulfilling than it could be.

This despair isn’t just a personal anecdote but a sentiment that resonates with many who find themselves caught in the corporate machinery. The mental toll this takes is widely underestimated. Over time, the absence of joy and fulfilment leads to a range of problems, from decreased productivity to more serious issues like burnout and serious mental health concerns.

The “pit of despair” isn’t merely a dramatic term; it’s a reality for many. When a workplace fails to nourish the human aspects that make life worthwhile, it risks creating an environment where despair thrives. Therefore, addressing the factors that contribute to this state is not just an individual necessity but also a corporate imperative.

Can Corporates Change?

It’s not all doom and gloom. With a shift in focus, companies can recalibrate their methods to foster a more human-centric approach, aiming for a win-win scenario where both profits and joy can coexist.

Final Thoughts

Corporates don’t have to be joy-draining monoliths. By reevaluating the way they operate, these institutions can not only better their performance but also enhance the lives of the people who make that performance possible.

I, Relate

September 3, 2023

Article, Capability development, Collaboration, Community, Culture change, Dialogue, Empathy, Joy, Organisational effectiveness, Organisational Therapy, Relationships

Leave a comment

I, Relate

The Unlikely Union: How the Relationship Counselling Ethos Boosts Software Development Productivity

Why Should Techies Care About Relationship Counselling?

At first glance, you might think that relationship counselling and software development occupy opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet, delve a little deeper and you’ll see that both fields share a core essence: human interaction. In a nutshell, successful software development relies on effective communication, collaboration, and conflict resolution, elements that relationship counselling has mastered. Let’s explore how relationship counselling ethos and techniques can turbocharge software development productivity.

The Fabric of Teamwork: Trust and Open Communication

Software development isn’t a one-man show. It involves designers, developers, testers, customers, and often, cross-functional teams from other departments. This melting pot can either cook up an extraordinary result or turn into a recipe for disaster. That’s where relationship counselling principles come into play. Trust-building exercises and open communication channels, often advocated by relationship counselling, can help team members understand and respect each other’s roles, fostering a more cohesive working environment.

Conflict Resolution: The Relationship Counselling Way

Conflicts are part and parcel of any collaboration, let alone software development with its tight deadlines and constant need for problem-solving. Relationship counselling is adept at resolving disputes and finding middle ground, skills that are just as useful in the tech world. Techniques such as active listening and ‘I’ statements can pave the way for constructive discussions, rather than finger-pointing or blame games. This encourages quicker resolution of issues, saving both time and sanity.

Emotional Intelligence: Not Just for Lovers

While emotional intelligence (EQ) might sound like the antithesis of the logic-driven tech sphere, it’s surprisingly crucial. High EQ can enhance problem-solving abilities and contribute to better collaboration. Relationship counselling’s focus on developing emotional intelligence can help team members become more aware of their own reactions and the feelings of others, thereby enhancing overall productivity.

Iterative Improvement: Learning from Relationships

Just like any relationship, software development benefits from periodic check-ins and adjustments. Relationship counselling’s method of iterative feedback and adjustment mirrors prevailing methods in software development. Regular retrospective meetings, a technique in line with relationship counselling’s ethos, allow for continual improvement and adjustment throughout the development life cycle.

The Ripple Effect

Adopting the relationship counselling ethos can have longer-term benefits. Enhanced communication skills, improved conflict resolution abilities, and a heightened emotional intelligence level are not development-specific. They’ll enrich the work environment, thereby leading to better collaborations in the future and stronger, more resilient, more joyful teams.

In Summary

Though it might seem unusual, the relationship counselling ethos offers tangible benefits for software development teams. From trust-building and conflict resolution to fostering emotional intelligence, these techniques can significantly impact productivity. So, the next time you’re stuck in a dev team stand-off or facing a seemingly insurmountable challenge, you might just find the solution in relationship counselling techniques.

What’s the Key to a More Wonderful Organisation?

August 15, 2023

Antimatter principle, Business, Culture change, Empathy, Fellowship, Joy, Wonder

Leave a comment

What’s the Key to a More Wonderful Organisation?

Presently, when people ask me what my job entails, I respond with:

“I’m all about making organisations more wonderful”.

By now, many of us are familiar with the manifold benefits of a more wonderful organisation. Environments where trust, joy, connection and personal growth don’t just exist but thrive. But arriving at that point seems to elude even the most dedicated of leaders. So, what’s the key to unlocking this potential? It’s simple, yet profound: The Antimatter Principle. Let’s dive deep into understanding and appreciating its transformative power.

What is the Antimatter Principle?

At its core, the Antimatter Principle is an invitation: to attend to folks’ needs. It sounds so simple, so rudimentary, that you might be tempted to dismiss it. But it’s the linchpin of any successful organisation striving for joy and productivity.

The Need for Needs

The world of business has long been enamoured with terms like ‘efficiency’, ‘productivity’, and ‘optimisation’. While these are not inherently undesirable, they often overshadow the essential human element that fuels any organisation. That human element is predicated on folks’ needs.

Every person within an organisation – from the mailroom to the boardroom – has needs. Customers, shareholders, regulators too have needs. It could be the need for respect, understanding, creativity, autonomy, or simply a listening ear. Attending to these needs isn’t just a tokenistic gesture of goodwill; it’s the fuel that drives joy, motivation, and, paradoxically, productivity.

How to Adopt the Antimatter Principle

1. Listening Empathically

Empathic listening doesn’t mean just nodding in agreement. It means being fully present, devoid of judgments, and truly absorbing what the other person is communicating. Only then can we hope to connect with , let alone meet, their needs.

2. Creating Safe Spaces

Employees must feel safe to express their needs without fear of retribution. An organisation that leverages the Antimatter Principle provides these safe havens where folks can be authentic and vulnerable.

3. Empowering Autonomy

Once you understand a person’s needs, trust them and support them in seeking solutions. This cultivates a sense of ownership and agency, driving innovation and feelings of joy and accomplishment.

4. Prioritising Well-being

Inviting folks to attend to each other’s and their own well-being means that the organisation acknowledges them as real people.Not just drones or cogs. Physical health, mental well-being, and social connections are all integral parts of this equation.

5. Review and Reflect

Invite regular check-ins to ensure that needs are being attended-to and that the organisation is continuously evolving in its application of the Antimatter Principle.

The Transformative Power of Attending to Needs

When needs are attended to, people flourish. A team member who feels valued as a person and heard is more likely to share innovative ideas. One who feels respected will take pride in their work, leading to quality outcomes. The ripple effect of addressing individual needs inevitably results in a collective upswing for the organisation. And people’s innate sense of fairness means the attention is reciprocated towards the organisation and its needs.

Summary

In conclusion, if we aim for a wonderful organisation, a place where joy isn’t just an abstract idea but a lived reality, the roadmap is clear. We must, resolutely and continuously, attend to folks’ needs. By embracing the Antimatter Principle, not only do we make our organisations more wonderful, but we also affirm our commitment to the very heart of what makes those organisations run: the people.

What Would Software Development Look Like If We Started From Human Flourishing?

The Starting Question Changes Everything

Whose Needs? Everyone’s.

What Changes in Practice

How Work Enters the System

How Teams Form and Organise

How Decisions Get Made

How Quality Is Understood

How Success Is Measured

The Objection You’re Already Forming

Why This Matters Now

An Invitation

Further Reading

Share the joy :)

What Is This Blog About? Making Work Joyful!

What You’ll Find Here

My Central Mission

Why Joy Matters

An Ongoing Conversation

Spread the Joy

Share the joy :)

Meaning, Quality, and Joy: A Conversation

Share the joy :)

The Universal Discomfort of Receiving Help

The Inevitability of Needing Others

The Internal Struggle

Social Pressures Against Appearing Needy

Collaborative Knowledge Work: The Paradox

The Wisdom in Receiving Gracefully

Moving Forward Together

Share the joy :)

Replacing Executives With AI

The AI Executive Is Already Here

The Case for Silicon Leadership

What AI Brings to the Boardroom

Real-World Applications and Limitations

The Human Cost and Opportunity

Beyond the C-Suite

Emerging Roles

AI Risk Officers

Algorithmic Compliance Managers

AI-Human Interface Designers

Digital Ethics Officers

Implementation: Current State of Practice

Case Study: Supply Chain Management

The Regulatory Landscape

Existing Frameworks

Key Regulatory Challenges

Looking Ahead: The Inevitable AI Takeover

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Share the joy :)

“Shoulding” is a Signal

The Hidden Violence in “Should”

FOGS: The Emotional Weapons Behind “Should”

The British Art of “Should”

When We “Should” Upon Ourselves

Breaking Free: Beyond “Should”

The Revolution of “Could”

The Workplace: Where “Should” Runs Rampant

The Management Layer

The Peer Pressure

The Client Dance

Breaking the Workplace “Should” Cycle

For Managers:

For Employees:

For Clients:

The Power of No

Moving Forward

A World Without “Should”

Share the joy :)

Mummery

The Management Muppet Show

The Illusion of Control

Case in Point: The Scrum Straitjacket

The Metrics Mirage

The Story Point Saga

The Compliance Charade

Ticking Boxes, Missing the Point

The Code Review Ritual

The Agile Theatre