Archive

Lean

Organisational Psychotherapy: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

In the realm of organisational development, there’s a growing recognition that effective and sustainable transformation requires more than just talk therapy. Whilst traditional approaches to organisational psychotherapy have often relied heavily on dialogue and discussion, a new paradigm is emerging—one that places action at the core of the therapeutic process. This post explores how taking concrete actions can dramatically accelerate the surfacing and examination of shared assumptions and beliefs within organisations.

The Limitations of Talk Therapy in Organisational Settings

The Comfort of the Couch

Superficial organisational psychotherapy often mirrors individual therapy—lots of talking, analysing, and theorising. Whilst these discussions can provide valuable insights, they can also create a false sense of progress. Organisations might feel they’re addressing issues when, in reality, they’re merely dicking about.

The Gap Between Theory and Practice

Just as a person in therapy might intellectually understand their issues without changing their behaviour, organisations can become adept at discussing their problems without acting to address them. This gap between understanding and action can lead to frustration and stagnation.

Action as a Catalyst for Organisational Insight

Embodied Learning

When organisations take action, they engage in a form of embodied learning. Rather than just thinking and talking about change, they experience it. This visceral experience can reveal assumptions and beliefs that might never surface in a meeting room or therapy session.

The Shock of the New

Action often creates situations that challenge the status quo. When Zappos implemented holacracy, a self-management system, it quickly revealed deeply held assumptions about hierarchy and decision-making that no amount of discussion had previously uncovered.

Going to the Gemba

There’s a host of material in the Lean literature about going to the Gemba – the place where work actually takes place – to learn what’s actually happening (rather than what managers think is happening).

Practical Approaches to Action-Oriented Organisational Psychotherapy

Experimental Culture

Foster an environment where small, controlled experiments are not just allowed but encouraged. When Spotify introduced its “squad” model, it did so incrementally, allowing the organisation to learn and adapt as hidden assumptions about teamwork and accountability came to light. See also: Toyota Kata – the Improvement Kata.

Real-World Simulations

Create scenarios that mimic real-world challenges. When IDEO wants to help a company innovate, they often use the “Deep Dive” technique—a compressed timeframe to solve a specific problem. This intense, action-oriented approach quickly surfaces team dynamics and hidden biases.

Reverse Engineering Success and Failure

Instead of just discussing past successes or failures, actively recreate the conditions that led to them. When Toyota practises its “Go and See” philosophy, managers physically go to the site of a problem, often revealing assumptions about processes that weren’t apparent from reports or discussions alone.

The Role of Reflection in Action-Based Organisational Therapy

Structured Debriefing

After each action or experiment, conduct thorough debriefings. The U.S. military’s “After Action Review” process is an much-studied model, focusing not just on what happened, but why it happened and what beliefs or assumptions influenced the outcomes.

Narrative Reconstruction

Encourage team members to construct narratives around their experiences. When Pixar reviews its film production process, team members share stories about their experiences, often revealing underlying assumptions about creativity and collaboration that wouldn’t emerge in a traditional review.

Overcoming Resistance to Action-Oriented Approaches

Fear of Failure

Many organisations resist action-oriented approaches due to a fear of failure. Leaders might choose instead to reframe failure as a valuable source of information.

The Illusion of Consensus

Talk-based approaches can sometimes create an illusion of consensus that action can quickly dispel.

The Therapist as Action Catalyst

In this new paradigm, the organisational therapist becomes less of a traditional counsellor and more of an action catalyst. They invite the design of experiments, the creation of scenarios, and facilitate reflection processes that turn everyday organisational activities into opportunities for deep insight and learning.

Conclusion: From Talking the Talk to Walking the Walk

Organisational psychotherapy that emphasises action over talk represents a powerful evolution in how we approach organisational change and development. By moving beyond the comfort of discussion and into the realm of concrete action, organisations can more quickly and effectively surface the hidden assumptions and shared beliefs that truly drive their behaviour.

This approach doesn’t negate the value of dialogue—rather, it provides a richer context for those conversations. When words are grounded in recent, relevant experiences, they carry more weight and lead to more meaningful change.

As organisations navigate increasingly complex and rapidly changing environments, the ability to quickly surface, examine, and evolve shared assumptions and beliefs becomes ever more valuable. Action-oriented organisational psychotherapy offers a path not just to talking about change, but to embodying it.

This approach aligns with the spirit of Kurt Lewin’s work on action research and organisational change. Lewin emphasised the importance of action in understanding and changing social systems. By embracing action as a core component of organisational psychotherapy, we open the door to deeper understanding and more profound transformation.

The Illusory Embrace of Lean Principles

Introduction: The Paradox of Lean Principles in Software Development

In the realm of software development, a profession supposedly grounded in logic, ingenuity, and attention to detail, a peculiar phenomenon has emerged: an enthusiastic, albeit superficial, adoption of Lean Product Development (LPD) principles. Yet, in the world of programming, logic often bows to corporate politics and bureaucracy, revealing the rather farcical application of Lean principles.

The Utopian Vision: The Seven Principles of Lean Product Development

A close examination of the principles that anchor LPD might suggest the perfect utopia of software development. Flow, Respect for People, Continuous Improvement, Building Quality In, Long-Term Thinking, Seeing the Whole, Visual Management, and Knowledge Transfer, all herald the dawn of a software paradise, where everything runs smoothly, people are respected, and growth is not just continuous but sustainable. However, even a cursory glance unveils a grand spectacle of lip-service, a thin veneer of fine words on the complex, and often messy, reality of software development .

The Mirage of Flow and Respect for People

Take the concept of ‘Flow’ – a vision of value gliding seamlessly from concept to market, buoyed by concepts like Just-In-Time delivery and Decentralized Decision-Making. Yet, in software development, flow is often obstructed by dependencies, delays, and what essentially constitutes red tape, disguised as mandatory protocols and ceremonies. The notion of ‘Just-In-Time’ is perhaps more accurately framed as ‘Just-in-Time…well, almost never.’

Respect for people, the idea that humans are the crown jewels of an organisation, is an exquisite principle, presented as an antidote to the dull, dehumanising industrial complexes of the past. Yet, software development organisations are haunted by the specters of burnout, unreasonable deadlines, and an entrenched culture of overwork. The narrative of respecting people often comes as an attractive facade, hiding the ugly reality beneath.

The Irony of Continuous Improvement

The LPD principle of ‘Continuous Improvement’ or Kaizen, promises a culture of experimentation, reflection, and learning. In practice, however, the pell-mell sprints toward deadlines and deliverables leaves no room for reflection or learning. This culture is often sacrificed at the altar of corporate impatience.

‘Building Quality In’ and ‘Long-Term Thinking’ are noble endeavors in theory but are frequently at odds with the prevailing pressures of the executive suite. Quality is often reactive, not preventative, with emphasis on inspection, and patching issues after release rather than investing in more fundamental preventative measures. And in a world mesmerised by quarterly reports, long-term thinking dissolves under the assault of short-term financial objectives.

The Hollow Echo

‘Seeing the Whole’—the ability to understand the entire system, seems almost laughable when buried under layers of bureaucracy and balkanised teams. The reality is organisations have only the faintest of ideas of the broad strokes and little to no comprehension of the intricate details that weave together to form the larger system.

The principles of ‘Visual Management’ and ‘Learning & Knowledge Transfer’ too, are frequently paid mere lip-service. Dashboards and Kanban boards abound, yet they often serve as ornamental pieces rather than functional tools to guide development. Similarly, the idea of knowledge transfer often succumbs to the siloed nature of many organisations, with the promise of shared learning fading into a distant dream. “Lessons learned”, anyone?

Conclusion: Authentic Implementation of Lean Principles?

In essence, while Lean Product Development principles provide a romanticised vision of what software development could be, the stark reality often sings a different tune. The gulf between the proclaimed adoption of these principles and the realities of their faux implementations serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges that continue to plague the realm of software development. The facade is, in reality, a mirage, conjured from the collective desire to believe in a more rational, more humane, and more effective way of creating software. It’s high time to lift the veil and confront the actual realities of the Lean as actually manifest in the software development world.

In case you missed it:

Why Milk is Thicker than Water

In a recent article, James P. Womack recounted the struggles that he experienced and admits that Lean has proven to be unacceptable to the leaders of large corporations (Womack, 2017):

With regards to denial, we need to acknowledge that our efforts to dramatically transform large, mature organizations haven’t worked and aren’t going to work, even when these organizations encounter crises. I spent several years recently with CEOs of large enterprises and got them to sanction model lines for value streams to demonstrate what was possible. The results were strikingly positive, but the organizational immune reaction was immediate and crushing. Little lasting was achieved and I’ve moved on. I no longer expect ‘another Toyota’ to emerge in every mature industry.” (Bold in original)

This recognition is not unique to Womack and Jones.

From: Emiliani, Bob. The Triumph of Classical Management Over Lean Management: How Tradition Prevails and What to Do About It (p. 23). Kindle Edition.

Note: Much the same applies to Agile.