Stop Optimising. Start Fixing.

How continuous improvement is a chimera.

We’ve been sold a huge lie about continuous improvement. The business world is obsessed with methodologies, frameworks, and gradual optimisation cycles. Kaizen. Six Sigma. Agile retrospectives. All promising that slow, methodical tweaks will eventually solve our problems.

But what if the problem isn’t that we’re improving too slowly? What if the problem is that we’re not actually fixing anything at all?

The Continuous Improvement Trap

Continuous improvement sounds reasonable. It feels responsible. It makes us feel like we’re being thoughtful and strategic. We hold meetings about improvement opportunities. We create action items. We measure progress with metrics and charts.

Meanwhile, the thing that’s broken stays broken.

Think about your own workplace. How many ‘improvement initiatives’ are currently underway? How many problems have been identified, analysed, and placed into some formal improvement process? And how many of those problems could have been solved in the time it took to create the improvement plan?

The Power of Just Fixing It

There’s something liberating about abandoning the improvement theatre and just fixing problems when you see them. No process. No committee. No quarterly review cycle. Just:

‘This is broken. I’m going to fix it right now.’

This isn’t about being reckless or impulsive. It’s about recognising that many problems don’t need elaborate solutions—they need simple, direct action. The customer complaint process that takes three days when it could take three minutes. The reporting system that requires seventeen manual steps when five would do. The meeting that could be an email (yes, that one).

When Fix-It-Now Actually Works

The fix-it-now approach works best when:

The problem is clear and contained. If you can explain the problem in one sentence and the solution won’t create three new problems, just fix it.

The cost of the fix is lower than the cost of the process. If fixing the problem takes two hours but the ‘proper process’ takes two weeks of meetings, skip the meetings.

You have the authority and capability. Don’t break things you can’t fix or step on toes you can’t afford to step on. But within your sphere of influence, act decisively.

The downside is manageable. Some problems are worth fixing to requirements right now rather than over-engineering them six months from now. Don’t confuse quality (meeting requirements) with gold-plating (exceeding requirements unnecessarily).

The Resistance You’ll Face

People will tell you this approach is dangerous. That you need stakeholder buy-in. That you should follow the established process. That you need to consider all the implications.

Sometimes they’re right. But often, they’re just protecting a system that values process and busywork over results. They’d rather have a perfectly documented failure than an undocumented success.

Phil Crosby Had It Right All Along

Back in the 1980s, quality guru Phil Crosby made a radical statement:

‘Quality is free.’

Not because it doesn’t cost anything to achieve, but because the cost of poor quality—the rework, the waste, the customer defections—always exceeds the cost of doing it right the first time.

Crosby’s insight cuts straight through our modern improvement theatre. He wasn’t interested in elegant frameworks or sophisticated metrics. His message was brutally simple: identify what’s wrong, fix it completely (to meet requirements), and do it right from that point forward. Zero defects! Not ‘acceptable quality levels’ or ‘continuous reduction in defect rates’—zero.

This wasn’t about perfectionism. It was about recognising that most quality problems aren’t complex engineering challenges requiring months of analysis. They’re obvious failures that everyone knows about but nobody fixes because we’re too busy optimising our optimisation processes.

The Cost of Broken Things

Crosby understood something that our continuous improvement culture has forgotten: every day you don’t fix a known problem, that problem costs you money. Real money. Calculable money.

Think about the broken approval process in your organisation. The one that takes two weeks when it only need take two hours. Every time someone waits for that approval, you’re paying for their idle time. Every delayed project compounds the cost. Every frustrated customer represents lost revenue.

Now think about how much you’ve spent analysing that process. The consultant fees. The workshop hours. The project management overhead. The steering committee meetings.

Crosby would have asked a simple question:

‘How much would it cost to just fix the damn thing?’

The Four Absolutes vs. Endless Improvement

Crosby’s quality framework consisted of his famous ‘Four Absolutes’:

  • quality is conformance to requirements
  • the system is prevention (not appraisal)
  • the performance standard is zero defects
  • The measurement of quality is the price of nonconformance (PONC), NOT indices

NB. See also: Quickie: Phil Crosby’s Four Absolutes of Quality

Notice what’s missing? Continuous improvement committees. Process optimisation cycles. Stakeholder alignment sessions.

His insight was that most organisations spend their energy on detection—measuring problems, tracking problems, reporting on problems. Some spend money on correction—fixing problems after they’ve caused damage. Almost none focus on prevention—building systems that don’t create problems in the first place.

But here’s where Crosby’s thinking was revolutionary: he realised that the fastest way to prevent future problems is to fix current problems completely and immediately. Not partially. Not ‘phase one of a three-phase improvement initiative.’ Completely. (And as much as current knowledge allows.)

The Fifth Absolute: Purpose Over Process

Years after Crosby’s original work, his associates recognised something crucial was missing. You could follow all four absolutes religiously and still fail. Why? Because you might be doing quality work without a clear purpose.

The Fifth Absolute addresses this gap:

‘The purpose of quality is customer success, not customer satisfaction.’

But let’s be honest about who we’re really talking about when we say ‘customers.’ We’re talking about the Folks That Matter™—the people whose success directly impacts whether your organisation thrives or dies. Sometimes that’s paying customers. Sometimes it’s your team members trying to get work done. Sometimes it’s the regulatory body that can shut you down. Sometimes it’s the board that controls your budget.

The Folks That Matter™ aren’t just anyone who uses your output. They’re the people whose success or failure has real consequences for your organisation. And here’s the crucial insight: when the Folks That Matter™ are struggling because something’s broken, every day you spend in improvement committees instead of fixing it is a day you’re actively damaging the relationships that keep your organisation alive.

This distinction is vital for the fix-it-now philosophy. Customer satisfaction is often temporary—a polite response to adequate service. Success for the Folks That Matter™ means your work actually helps them achieve their goals in ways that matter. It’s the difference between a customer saying ‘thanks’ and them saying ‘this changed everything for us.’

When you’re deciding whether to fix something immediately or put it through an improvement process, ask yourself: will this fix contribute to genuine success for the Folks That Matter™, or are we just trying to avoid complaints? If it’s the former, fix it now. Don’t let process bureaucracy delay real value creation for the people whose success determines yours.

The ‘Do It Right the First Time’ Philosophy

‘Do it right the first time’ sounds like perfectionism, but it’s actually the opposite. It’s pragmatism. It’s recognition that the cost of fixing something properly right now is almost always less than the cost of living with it broken plus eventually fixing it later plus dealing with all the problems the broken thing created in the meantime.

This applies beyond manufacturing. That clunky onboarding process that confuses new hires? Fix it now, completely, once. That reporting system that everyone complains about? Don’t incrementally improve it over eighteen months—replace it with something that actually works.

The Vaccination Approach to Problems

Crosby thought about quality problems like a doctor thinks about disease. You don’t manage disease with continuous small interventions. You prevent it with vaccination, and when it occurs, you treat it aggressively until it’s gone.

Most organisations treat problems like chronic conditions to be managed rather than acute conditions to be cured. They create dashboards to track the problem. They assign someone to ‘own’ the problem. They schedule quarterly reviews of the problem’s status.

Meanwhile, the problem keeps causing damage.

Every. Single. Day.

Implementation Without Ceremony

Crosby believed in measurement, but not measurement for its own sake. His famous ‘cost of quality’ calculations weren’t about creating pretty charts—they were about making the business case for immediate action.

When you can show that a broken process costs £50,000 per month and fixing it costs £10,000 once, the conversation changes. No more debates about resource allocation or competing priorities. No more requests for additional analysis. Just: ‘Fix it now, because we’re literally burning money every day we don’t.’

The Real Quality Movement

The tragedy of the quality movement is that it got co-opted by people who love process more than results. Crosby’s simple, direct approach—identify the problem, calculate the cost, fix it completely—got buried under layers of methodology and certification programmes.

But the core insight remains: quality isn’t about continuous improvement. It’s about fixing what’s broken and then not breaking it again. It’s about prevention, not optimisation. It’s about doing things right the first time instead of doing them wrong continuously but with slightly better metrics each quarter.

Building the Fix-It Imperative

Organisations that embrace the Crosby approach don’t just solve problems faster—they attract people who like solving problems. They create cultures where seeing a problem and not fixing it feels uncomfortable. Where the default response to ‘this is broken’ is ‘let’s fix it now’ rather than ‘let’s form a working group.’

Building a Fix-It Culture

This means hiring people who see problems as puzzles to solve, not reports to file. It means creating environments where people who fix things without permission are celebrated rather than disciplined. It means celebrating the person who eliminated a stupid process as much as the person who optimised a complex one.

The Real Continuous Improvement

Here’s the paradox: when you fix problems immediately, you actually improve continuously. Each quick fix teaches you something about your systems. Each direct action builds your capability to handle bigger problems. Each bypassed bureaucratic process shows you which processes actually add value.

Real continuous improvement isn’t about following a methodology. It’s about building an organisation full of people who see a problem and think, ‘I can fix this right now.’

Phil Crosby knew that quality is free, but only if you’re willing to pay the upfront cost of doing things right. Everything else is just expensive theatre.

So the next time you spot something that’s obviously broken, ask yourself: Does this need a process, or does it just need to be fixed?

Then fix it.

Your future self—and everyone who won’t have to deal with that broken thing anymore—will thank you.

Further Reading

Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. McGraw-Hill.

Crosby, P. B. (1984). Quality without tears: The art of hassle-free management. McGraw-Hill.

Crosby, P. B. (1995). Quality is still free: Making quality certain in uncertain times. McGraw-Hill.

Evans, J. R., & Lindsay, W. M. (2017). Managing for quality and performance excellence (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

For readers interested in exploring quality management beyond Crosby’s work:

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. MIT Press.

Juran, J. M., & Godfrey, A. B. (Eds.). (1999). Juran’s quality handbook (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

The Great Executive Deflection: Agile, Digital Transformation, and the Avoidance of Real Change

In boardrooms across Britain and beyond, executives nod sagely as they approve yet another transformation initiative. Agile methodologies, digital transformation programmes, cloud migrations—these become the new corporate gospel, promising to revolutionise everything from productivity to customer experience. Yet beneath this veneer of progressive management lies a more uncomfortable truth: these initiatives have become the ultimate deflection tactics, sophisticated smokescreens that allow leadership to avoid the genuinely challenging work of cultural transformation.

The Comfortable Chaos of Transformation Theatre

These transformation initiatives offer executives something irresistible—the appearance of decisive action without the messy and discomforting reality of fundamental change. It’s far easier to mandate cloud migrations than to examine why employees feel disconnected from their work. Implementing new digital platforms requires less courage than confronting the toxic assumptions that permeate organisational hierarchies. Agile ceremonies and digital dashboards can fill calendars and screens whilst deeper questions about purpose, values, and genuine collaboration remain carefully undiscussable.

The beauty of these initiatives, from an executive perspective, is their inherent busyness. Teams are constantly migrating, optimising, iterating—creating a perpetual whirlwind of activity that can be mistaken for progress. Metrics abound: velocity charts, digital adoption rates, cloud cost savings, automation percentages. These quantifiable outputs provide the perfect distraction from the qualitative questions that truly matter. Are people engaged with their work? Do they trust their colleagues? Does the organisation’s culture reflect its stated values?

Digital transformation programmes are particularly seductive because they promise measurable outcomes through technological solutions. New CRM systems will improve customer relationships, AI will enhance decision-making, cloud infrastructure will increase agility. Yet these technological interventions consistently fail to address the human and cultural factors that determine whether any transformation will succeed or fail.

The Harder Truth About Cultural Change

Real cultural transformation demands something most executives find deeply uncomfortable: genuine vulnerability and sustained commitment to change that may not yield immediate, measurable results. It requires leaders to examine their own shared assumptions, acknowledge past failures, and commit to behaviours that initially feel alien or inefficient.

Cultural change means having difficult conversations about power, privilege, and the often unspoken hierarchies that determine how decisions are actually made. It involves questioning fundamental beliefs about competition, collaboration, and what constitutes valuable work. This type of transformation cannot be project-managed into existence.

Consider the difference in effort required. Implementing Agile ceremonies might take months and can be tracked with clear milestones. Shifting an organisation from a culture of blame to one of joy could take years and requires leaders to model vulnerability consistently, even when—especially when—things go wrong. The former can be delegated to consultants and Agile coaches; the latter demands daily, personal commitment from everyone in the organisation.

The Transformation Industrial Complex

The rise of transformation initiatives has created entire industries of consultants, coaches, and technology vendors that promise to deliver change through process optimisation and digital solutions. These well-meaning professionals often become accomplices in the deflection game, focusing on the technical implementation of new systems and methodologies whilst the deeper cultural issues remain blissfully untouched.

Executives can point to their investment in Agile coaching, their adoption of cutting-edge digital platforms, their attendance at transformation conferences, and their cloud migration roadmaps as evidence of their commitment to change. Yet these same leaders continue to make unilateral decisions, reward individual performance over team success, and maintain the very command-and-control structures that their transformation initiatives were ostensibly designed to challenge.

Beyond the Theatre

True organisational transformation requires executives to move beyond the theatrical aspects of change initiatives towards the much more challenging work of surfacing and reflecting upon the collective assumptions that guide their organisation’s behaviour. This means asking uncomfortable questions: Why do we really make decisions? What do we actually reward? How do our actions align with our stated values?

It means creating space for genuine experimentation, including the kind that might challenge existing power structures or question long-held beliefs about efficiency and control. It requires leaders to model the behaviours they wish to see, even when—especially when—those behaviours feel risky or uncomfortable.

Most importantly, it demands a shift from viewing transformation as something that can be implemented to recognising it as an ongoing process of collective learning and adaptation. This perspective requires patience, humility, and a willingness to measure progress in terms of trust, engagement, and genuine collaboration rather than simply velocity and throughput.

The Path Forward

The uncomfortable truth is that these transformation initiatives—whether Agile, digital, or any other variety—are fundamentally irrelevant to genuine organisational change. Whether teams hold stand-ups or skip them, whether they use cloud platforms or legacy systems, whether they follow Scrum or adopt the latest digital tools—none of this matters if the underlying culture remains unchanged. These initiatives are simply rearranging deck chairs whilst the deeper issues of trust, purpose, and genuine collaboration remain undiscussable.

What matters is not the methodology or technology but the willingness of leadership to confront the collective assumptions and beliefs that actually drive organisational behaviour. The real work begins not with implementing new processes or systems, but with the courage to examine whether the organisation’s culture truly supports its aspirations—and then doing the hard, unglamorous work of changing it.

The choice, ultimately, is between comfortable deflection and uncomfortable growth. Between the reassuring theatre of process optimisation and the challenging work of genuine transformation. Between managing the appearance of change and actually leading it.

Putting Folks’ Needs First – Skip the User Stories vs Use Cases Debate

The software industry spends an enormous amount of energy debating practices—user stories versus use cases, agile versus waterfall, documentation versus conversation. Meanwhile, the people who actually matter—the ones who will use, buy, build, maintain, and profit from our software—are often afterthoughts in these discussions.

It’s time to flip the script. Instead of starting with methodology and hoping it serves people’s needs, let’s start with the Folks That Matter™ and choose our approaches accordingly. This is what the Antimatter principle calls “attending to folks’ needs”—recognising that the value of any practice lies entirely in how well it serves real folks’ actual needs. Let’s can the endless debating by attending to folks’ needs.

Who Are Your Folks That Matter™?

Before you write your first user story or draft your first use case, pause and identify who actually needs to understand and act on your work. These aren’t abstract roles—they’re real people with specific needs, constraints, and ways of thinking.

Sarah, the product manager, thinks in user journeys and business outcomes. She needs to understand how features connect to customer value, competition, and revenue impact. Dense technical specifications make her eyes glaze over, but she can instantly spot when a user story misses a crucial business rule.

Marcus, the lead developer, needs enough detail to identify technical risks and understand how new features interact with existing systems. He’s been burnt by vague requirements that seemed clear in meetings but fell apart during implementation. Interestingly, Marcus has embraced the #NoEstimates movement—he’s found that detailed story point estimation often becomes an end in itself, consuming time that could better be spent actually building software. He prefers breaking work into small, similar-sized pieces that flow predictably.

Katarzyna, the compliance officer, must ensure the product meets regulatory requirements. She needs traceable documentation that auditors can review. Conversational approaches that leave decisions undocumented create legal risks she can’t accept.

Jennifer, the customer success manager, deals with confused users when needs miss real-world scenarios. She has to understand not just what the software should do, but what users might expect it to do based on their mental models.

Each of these people has legitimate needs. The question isn’t which methodology is ‘right’—it’s how to serve all the Folks That Matter™ effectively. As the Antimatter principle reminds us, any practice that doesn’t attend to folks’ needs is waste, regardless of how theoretically sound it might seem.

When teams, and indeed organisations, focus on attending to folks’ needs rather than defending methodological positions, the endless debates about user stories versus use cases simply evaporate. The answer becomes obvious: use whatever works for the specific people and their specific needs, in your specific context.

Matching Methods to People’s Needs

When your Folks That Matter™ need exploration and alignment, user stories excel. The product manager who’s still figuring out what customers really want benefits from the conversation-starting nature of story cards. The development team discovering technical constraints needs the flexibility to evolve requirements as they learn.

Sarah’s team was building a new invoicing feature. They started with a simple story: ‘As a small business owner, I want to send professional invoices so that I get paid faster.’ This sparked conversations about payment terms, tax calculations, and branding options that no one had considered upfront. The story evolved through dialogue, and the final feature was far richer than anything they could have specified initially.

Marcus particularly appreciated this approach because it aligned with his #NoEstimates philosophy. Rather than spending hours estimating a vague story, the team broke it into small, discoverable pieces that they could complete in a day or two. The predictable flow of small stories gave Sarah the planning visibility she needed without the overhead of detailed estimation ceremonies.

When your Folks That Matter™ need precision and accountability, use cases provide the structure they require. The compliance officer who must demonstrate regulatory adherence needs documented workflows with clear preconditions and outcomes. The offshore development team working across time zones needs detailed scenarios they can implement without constant clarification calls.

Katarzyna’s team was building patient data access controls. A user story like ‘As a doctor, I want to access patient records so that I can provide care’ was legally meaningless. They needed use cases that specified exactly which roles could access what data under which circumstances, with full audit trails. The systematic format of use cases made regulatory review straightforward.

When your Folks That Matter™ have different thinking styles, provide multiple views of the same requirements. Don’t force the visual thinker to work with text-heavy use cases or make the detail-oriented analyst guess at implementation specifics from high-level stories.

Marcus and Sarah worked together by starting with story mapping to visualise the user journey, then drilling down into detailed use cases for complex workflows. Sarah could see the big picture and business logic, whilst Marcus got the implementation details he needed. Same requirements, different representations.

Notice how none of these decisions required theological arguments about methodology. Each choice served specific people’s specific needs. Attending to folks’ needs cuts through the debate noise.

The #NoEstimates Reality Check

The #NoEstimates movement highlights a crucial insight: detailed requirements often become proxies for prediction rather than tools for understanding. Teams can spend enormous effort estimating user stories with story points, planning poker, and velocity calculations, but these estimates rarely improve delivery predictability and often distract from actually building software.

Marcus’s team discovered that when they focused on making stories consistently small rather than accurately estimated, their delivery became more predictable. Instead of debating whether a feature was 5 or 8 story points, they asked whether it could be broken into e.g. artefacts that could each be completed in a day or two. This shift changed how they captured folks’ needs —less focus on comprehensive upfront specification, more focus on just-enough detail to start work confidently. See also: the Needsscape.

This doesn’t mean abandoning planning entirely. Sarah still needed roadmap commitments and budget forecasts. But the team found they could provide better predictions by counting delivered stories over time rather than summing estimated story points. Their artefacts became lighter and more focused on enabling flow rather than feeding estimation ceremonies.

The endless debates about estimation versus #NoEstimates dissolve when you ask: what do our Folks That Matter™ actually need for planning and coordination? Often, it’s predictable delivery more than precise estimates.

The Misuse Case Reality Check

Here’s where focusing on Folks That Matter™ becomes crucial: the people who deal with software problems aren’t usually the ones writing requirements. Jennifer in customer success fields calls when users accidentally delete important data. The security team deals with the aftermath when features are misused maliciously.

These voices often aren’t heard during needs capture and evolution, but they represent critical Folks That Matter™. Building ‘misuse cases’ into your process—whether you’re using stories or formal use cases—ensures you’re serving the people who have to deal with problems, not just the ones who use features successfully.

Jennifer pushed her team to consider stories like ‘As a malicious user, I want to exploit the file upload feature so that I can access other users’ data’ and ‘As a confused user, I want to understand why my action failed so that I can correct my mistake.’ These weren’t happy path features, but they prevented real problems for real people.

The Antimatter principle particularly applies here: security reviews and error handling often feel like bureaucratic overhead, but they directly serve the needs of people who deal with the consequences of product failures.

Documentation vs Conversation: Serving Different Needs

The agile manifesto’s preference for ‘individuals and interactions over processes and tools’ doesn’t mean documentation is evil—it means putting people first. Sometimes the Folks That Matter™ need rich conversation to discover what they really need. Sometimes they need comprehensive documentation to do their jobs effectively.

Conversation serves discovery. When your product manager is exploring new market opportunities or your development team is prototyping technical approaches, dialogue-heavy user stories facilitate learning and adaptation.

Documentation serves execution and accountability. When your distributed team needs to implement complex business rules or your compliance officer needs to demonstrate regulatory adherence, written specifications provide the clarity and traceability required.

The most effective teams recognise that these aren’t competing approaches—they’re different tools for serving different people at different times. The Antimatter principle’s “attend to folks’ needs” helps teams avoid dogmatic adherence to either extreme.

The endless documentation versus conversation debates end when you focus on what your specific people need to do their jobs effectively.

Timing That Actually Works for People

The ‘up front versus evolutionary’ debate often ignores the reality of how different Folks That Matter™ actually work. Product managers need enough certainty to make roadmap commitments. Developers need enough detail to minimise rework. Operations teams need enough notice to prepare infrastructure.

Instead of choosing between comprehensive upfront planning and just-in-time discovery, map your requirements approach to the actual decision-making needs of your stakeholders.

Identify architectural decisions early because they affect everyone downstream. The integration approach that seems like an implementation detail to the product manager might require months of infrastructure work from the operations team.

Keep UI and workflow details evolutionary because these benefit from user feedback and technical learning. The exact button placement that seems critical upfront often changes once users actually interact with early versions.

Document agreements when they affect multiple teams because people need to coordinate their work. The API contract between frontend and backend teams needs to be explicit, even if the user story that drives it remains flexible.

This timing approach aligns well with #NoEstimates thinking: instead of trying to estimate everything upfront, identify what decisions must be made early and defer the rest until you have better information.

When you attend to folks’ needs, the timing becomes obvious. No more theoretical arguments about waterfall versus agile—just practical decisions about when different people need different information.

Making It Work: Practical Steps

Start with your Folks That Matter™ inventory. List the real people who need to understand, implement, test, support, and approve your software. Understand their constraints, preferences, and success criteria.

Match your methods to their needs. Use stories when stakeholders need to explore and align. Use cases when they need to implement and verify. Use both when you have both types of needs.

Question estimation ceremonies. Ask whether detailed story point estimation actually serves your Folks That Matter™ or just creates busy work. Consider focusing on consistent story size rather than accurate estimation.

Create feedback loops with the people who live with the consequences. Regular check-ins with customer support, security teams, and operations prevent requirements that look good on paper but fail in practice.

Evolve your approach as your team learns. The startup exploring product-market fit needs different requirements approaches than the enterprise team maintaining critical systems. Let your methods serve your current reality, not your methodology preferences.

Stop the methodological debates. When teams start arguing about the “right” way to write requirements, refocus on the Folks That Matter™. Ask: “Who needs this information, and how do they prefer to receive it?”

The Real Test

The ultimate test of your approach isn’t methodological purity—it’s whether the Folks That Matter™ can successfully do their jobs. Can the product manager make informed decisions? Can the developer implement features correctly? Can the support team help confused users? Can the compliance officer satisfy auditors?

The Antimatter principle provides a simple filter: does this practice attend to folks’ needs? If your user stories help stakeholders align and discover needs, they’re valuable. If they become exercises in elaborate estimation that don’t improve delivery, they’re waste. If your use cases provide necessary precision for implementation and compliance, they’re essential. If they become bureaucratic documentation that nobody reads, they’re overhead.

When you put people first, the user stories versus use cases debate becomes much simpler. You use whatever approaches help your specific stakeholders succeed in their specific contexts. Sometimes that’s collaborative story discovery. Sometimes it’s systematic use case documentation. Most often, it’s a thoughtful combination that serves different people’s different needs.

The approach matters far less than the people. Make sure your approach serves the Folks That Matter™, and the rest will follow. Can the endless debating by attending to folks’ needs—because when you focus on serving real people’s real needs, the “right” answer becomes obvious for your context.

Based on my verification, I found several issues with the citations I originally provided. Let me create a corrected Further Reading section with properly verified citations:

Further Reading

User Stories and Agile Requirements

Cao, L., & Ramesh, B. (2008). Agile requirements engineering practices: An empirical study. IEEE Software, 25(1), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2008.9

Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Addison-Wesley Professional.

Lucassen, G., Dalpiaz, F., van der Werf, J. M. E. M., & Brinkkemper, S. (2015). Forging high-quality user stories: Towards a discipline for agile requirements. In 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) (pp. 126-135). IEEE.

Use Cases and Requirements Engineering

Cockburn, A. (2001). Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley Professional.

Jacobson, I. (1992). Object-oriented software engineering: A use case driven approach. Addison-Wesley Professional.

Pohl, K. (2010). Requirements engineering: Fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Springer.

#NoEstimates Movement

Duarte, V. (2015). NoEstimates: How to measure project progress without estimating. Oikosofy.

Killick, N., Duarte, V., & Zuill, W. (2015). No estimates – How to deliver software without guesswork. Leanpub.

The Antimatter Principle

Marshall, B. (2014, May 22). Q&A with Bob Marshall about the Antimatter Principle. InfoQ. https://www.infoq.com/news/2014/05/antimatter-principle/

Empirical Studies and Academic Research

Inayat, I., Salim, S. S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., & Shamshirband, S. (2015). A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 915-929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.046

Surfacing the Invisible: How Constellations Therapy Reveals Hidden Collective Beliefs

In every organisation, team, and family system, there exists an invisible web of shared assumptions and beliefs that shape behaviour, decision-making, and outcomes. These collective mental models operate beneath the surface of conscious awareness, yet they wield enormous influence over how systems function. Constellations therapy offers a way to make these hidden dynamics visible and workable.

The Power of Shared Assumptions

Consider the technology startup where everyone believes “working weekends shows commitment” though it’s never been explicitly stated. Or the established firm where the unspoken rule is “don’t bring problems to leadership without solutions” has created a culture where real issues remain hidden. These collective assumptions aren’t evil or intentional—they emerge naturally as groups develop shared ways of making sense of their world.

The challenge is that when these beliefs remain unspoken, unexamined, and below the level of consciousness, they can trap people in patterns that fail to serve them. Examples:

  • The marketing team that unconsciously believes “sales doesn’t understand our work” will find ways to maintain that separation, even when collaboration is desperately needed.
  • The leadership group that shares an unexamined assumption that “change threatens stability” will unconsciously resist innovations that could transform their business.

Why Collective Beliefs Are So Hard to Shift

Traditional approaches to organisational change often focus on processes, structures, and individual behaviours. Yet these interventions frequently fail because they don’t address the deeper collective beliefs that sustain the status quo. You can redesign workflows and send teams to communication training, but if the underlying shared assumption is “we can’t trust each other with difficult conversations,” the new approaches won’t take hold.

Collective beliefs are particularly stubborn because they’re:

Invisible: They operate below conscious awareness, making them difficult to identify and discuss.

Reinforced by evidence: The beliefs shape behaviour, which creates evidence that confirms the beliefs, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

Emotionally protected: Surfacing and reflecting on shared assumptions can feel threatening to group identity and belonging. Even more so when those assumptions are being challenged.

Systemically maintained: Multiple people unconsciously collude to maintain familiar patterns, even when those patterns are causing problems.

How Constellations Make Beliefs Visible

Constellations therapy works by creating a three-dimensional map of the system in physical space. Representatives—whether people or objects—are positioned to represent different elements: team members, departments, values, challenges, or abstract concepts like trust, innovation, resistance, or the very notion of collective assumptions and beliefs.

What makes this approach particularly powerful for exploring collective beliefs is that the shared assumptions often show up not as specific “representatives”, but as invisible forces that influence how all the representatives position themselves and relate to each other.

Representing the Unspoken

In a constellation, collective assumptions and beliefs might appear as:

A representative for a specific shared belief: Someone might embody “our shared belief that clients are demanding” or “the assumption that profit and purpose are incompatible.” Often, these representatives report feeling heavy, overlooked, or exerting influence from unexpected positions.

Patterns in positioning: The collective assumption reveals itself through how other representatives unconsciously arrange themselves. Perhaps everyone unconsciously turns away from the “innovation” representative because of an unspoken belief that “new ideas disrupt harmony.”

Invisible barriers: Representatives might feel unable to move toward certain positions due to unseen obstacles created by limiting beliefs. The HR representative feels blocked from approaching the leadership team because of a shared assumption that “people issues aren’t strategic.”

Missing elements: Sometimes the assumption is revealed by what’s absent. The team constellation feels incomplete until someone represents “the belief that asking for help shows weakness”—suddenly everyone understands why collaboration has been so difficult.

The Wisdom of the Body

What makes “constellations” particularly effective is that they bypass the rational mind and access systemic intelligence through the body. Representatives often sense emotions, tensions, or impulses that seem to belong to what they’re representing, even without knowing details about the actual situation.

This somatic knowing can reveal beliefs that the group has never articulated but deeply holds. The person representing “company culture” might suddenly feel exhausted and overwhelmed, revealing the shared assumption that “we must say yes to everything to succeed.” This felt sense often carries more truth than intellectual analysis alone.

Organisational Psychotherapy and the Collective Psyche

When we apply constellations therapy to organisations, we’re essentially engaging in a form of organisational psychotherapy—working with the unconscious dynamics and collective psyche of the group. Just as individual therapy helps people understand and transform limiting patterns, organisational constellations therapy helps systems recognise and shift the collective beliefs that constrain their potential.

The Organisational Unconscious

Organisations, like individuals, develop an unconscious—a repository of unprocessed experiences, inherited patterns, and collective defences. These might include:

Founding traumas: The near-bankruptcy that created a collective belief that “growth is dangerous,” or the hostile takeover that left a legacy of “we can’t trust outsiders.”

Intergenerational patterns: Beliefs passed down from previous leadership or organisational eras that no longer serve but continue to influence decision-making unconsciously.

Collective defences: Shared strategies for avoiding pain or uncertainty that have become rigid and counterproductive, such as the collective belief that “if we don’t acknowledge problems, they’ll go away.”

Shadow projections: Aspects of the organisation that the group finds unacceptable, such as competitiveness or vulnerability, which get projected onto other departments or external entities.

Working with Collective Complexes

In constellations therapy, we often encounter what might be called “collective complexes”—autonomous patterns of belief and behaviour that grip the organisation. These complexes have their own intelligence and agenda, operating somewhat independently of conscious intention.

For instance, a company might be in the grip of a “scarcity complex” where every decision is filtered through fear of not having enough resources, even when the organisation is financially healthy. This complex might show up in the constellation as a representative who pulls all other elements toward protection and hoarding, making expansion or innovation feel impossible.

The therapeutic work involves recognising these complexes, understanding their origins and purpose, and finding ways to relate to them that honour their protective function whilst freeing the system to respond more flexibly to current reality.

Collective Transference and Countertransference

Just as individual therapy works with transference—the projection of past relationships onto present ones—organisational constellations therapy reveals collective transference patterns. The executive team might unconsciously relate to the board as critical parents, or the organisation might transfer its relationship with a former difficult client onto all new client relationships.

The facilitator must also be aware of countertransference—how the collective psyche of the organisation affects them. They might find themselves feeling unusually anxious, confused, or resistant during certain sessions, which often provides valuable information about the system’s unconscious dynamics.

Archetypal Patterns in Organisations

Constellations therapy often reveals archetypal patterns operating within organisations—universal themes that transcend the specific content of the business. These might include:

The Hero’s Journey: An organisation stuck in perpetual crisis mode because it only knows how to mobilise energy through emergency.

The Wise Parent and the Rebellious Child: A dynamic where innovation (child) and experience (parent) are locked in conflict rather than collaboration.

The Wounded Healer: An organisation whose mission emerged from a collective wound but which now needs to integrate its healing to serve others effectively.

Working with these archetypal patterns allows for transformation at a deeper level than addressing surface symptoms.

Constellations Therapy and Clean Language

The integration of Clean Language principles with constellations therapy creates a particularly powerful approach to exploring collective beliefs and assumptions. Clean Language, developed by David Grove, offers a way of questioning that minimises the facilitator’s influence on the client’s meaning-making process, allowing the system’s own wisdom to emerge more clearly.

Maintaining Clean Facilitation

In constellations therapy, Clean Language principles help facilitators avoid imposing their own interpretations or assumptions onto the constellation. Rather than asking leading questions like “Do you think this represents resistance to change?”, a clean approach might ask “And what kind of [element] is that [element]?” or “And is there anything else about that [dynamic]?”

This clean questioning allows representatives to describe their experience in their own words, accessing the system’s inherent knowledge rather than the facilitator’s theories about what should be happening.

Developing the System’s Metaphor

Clean Language recognises that each system has its own unique metaphorical landscape—its particular way of organising and making sense of experience. In constellations work, this might emerge as spatial metaphors (“There’s a wall between us”), embodied metaphors (“I feel like I’m carrying a heavy burden”), or relational metaphors (“It’s like we’re circling around something we can’t name”).

By using the system’s own metaphoric language, facilitators can help develop and explore these naturally occurring images without contaminating them with external frameworks. Questions like “And when [that metaphor], what happens next?” or “And where is [that metaphor] located?” help the system elaborate its own understanding.

Clean Space and Constellations

The Clean Language approach to space—known as Clean Space—aligns naturally with constellation work. Both recognise that physical positioning and spatial relationships carry meaning and information. In Clean Space work, clients are invited to find positions in the room that represent different aspects of their situation, very similar to setting up a constellation.

The integration of these approaches might involve:

  • Asking representatives to find their “right place” in the space without directing them to specific positions
  • Exploring the spatial relationships that emerge using clean questions: “And from there, what do you notice?”
  • Allowing the constellation to develop organically through the system’s own spatial intelligence

Honouring the System’s Pace

Clean Language emphasises following the client’s natural pace and direction rather than pushing toward predetermined outcomes. In constellations therapy, this translates to allowing the constellation to unfold at its own speed, trusting that the system knows what it needs to explore and when.

This might mean sitting with apparent stuckness rather than immediately trying to fix it, or allowing representatives to remain in difficult positions until the constellation is ready for movement. The clean approach trusts that even apparent resistance or confusion contains valuable information about the system’s current state.

Clean Questions in Constellation Work

Specific clean questions that work particularly well in constellations include:

  • “And what’s it like being [in that position/role]?”
  • “And when you’re [experiencing that], what happens to [other element]?”
  • “And is there anything else about [that feeling/dynamic]?”
  • “And what needs to happen for [desired outcome]?”
  • “And when [change occurs], what difference does that make?”

These questions help representatives and clients explore their experience without the facilitator inadvertently steering toward particular interpretations or solutions.

From Awareness to Transformation

Once collective beliefs become visible via the constellation, they can be worked with directly. The facilitator might explore questions like:

  • What does this belief need, to feel heard and honoured?
  • Where did this assumption originate, and what purpose did it serve?
  • What would happen if this belief could soften or evolve?
  • What new belief wants to emerge to support the system’s growth?

The transformation happens not through argument or persuasion, but through finding new arrangements where all elements—including the collective beliefs—can find a place that serves the whole system.

A Practical Guide to Facilitating Constellations

Preparation Phase

Start with a clear contract. Explain that this is an experiential process that works with intuition and body awareness, not just rational thinking. Set expectations that insights may emerge in unexpected ways. Ensure the client understands they’ll be working with representatives and spatial arrangements.

Create a safe, spacious environment. You need enough room for people to move around comfortably. Remove distractions and establish confidentiality agreements if working with a group.

Opening the Session

Begin by having the client describe their situation without going into extensive analysis. Listen for the key elements—who’s involved, what roles exist, what dynamics they’re sensing. Ask questions like “What feels stuck?” or “What would you like to understand better?”

Help the client identify the essential elements to represent. This might include people (team members, family members), roles (leadership, innovation), values, or abstract concepts (trust, fear, change). Keep it simple initially—you can always add elements later.

Setting Up the Constellation

Ask the client to choose representatives for each element. If working with a group, they select people. If working one-on-one, use objects, cushions, or markers. The key is that each representative stands for something specific.

Have the client place the representatives in the space based on their intuitive sense of the relationships. Emphasise feeling rather than thinking—”Where does it feel right to place the CEO in relation to the team?”

Once positioned, step back and observe the initial constellation with the client.

Working with the Information

Ask representatives how they feel in their positions. Common questions include:

  • “How do you feel standing here?”
  • “What do you notice about the other representatives?”
  • “Do you feel drawn towards or away from anyone?”
  • “What do you need right now?”

Listen for patterns. Representatives often report feelings that seem to belong to what they’re representing—the person representing “innovation” might feel ignored or pushed to the side.

Making Adjustments

Based on what emerges, begin making small movements. This might involve:

  • Moving representatives closer or further apart
  • Changing the direction they’re facing
  • Adding missing elements that become apparent
  • Removing elements that don’t belong

Work slowly and check in frequently. Ask “How does this feel now?” after each change.

Finding Resolution

Continue adjusting until you reach a configuration where representatives report feeling more comfortable, balanced, or “right.” This doesn’t mean perfect—it means workable and honouring of all elements.

Look for signs of resolution: representatives feeling more relaxed, able to see each other clearly, having what they need, or feeling properly positioned in relation to others.

Integration

Once you’ve found a good position, have someone step into the constellation themselves, taking the place of their own representative if there is one. Let them experience the new arrangement from the inside.

Discuss what they’ve learned and how this might translate into real-world actions. What would need to shift in the actual system to create more of what they experienced in the resolved constellation?

Key Facilitation Principles

Trust the process: Constellations work through emergence rather than planning. Stay curious about what wants to be revealed rather than pushing towards predetermined outcomes.

Work with what arises: If a representative suddenly feels angry or sad, that’s information about the system. Follow these emergent feelings rather than trying to control them.

Move slowly: Small adjustments often create big shifts. Resist the urge to make dramatic changes quickly.

Stay neutral: Your job is to facilitate awareness, not to fix or interpret. Let the client draw their own conclusions about what the constellation reveals.

Common Challenges

If representatives seem stuck or nothing is emerging, try adding a missing element—often there’s someone or something not yet represented that needs to be included.

If the energy feels heavy or stuck, look for excluded elements or check if something is in the wrong position relative to hierarchy or timing.

Remember that sometimes the insight is simply seeing the current reality clearly, not necessarily finding an immediate solution.

Closing

End by thanking all representatives and having them step out of their roles. Allow time for decompression and questions.

The goal isn’t to solve everything in one session, but to provide new perspectives and possibilities for the client to work with going forward.

The Ripple Effect of Transformed Beliefs

When collective assumptions shift, the effects ripple throughout the entire system. The team that recognises their shared belief that “vulnerability is weakness” can begin to model more authentic communication. The department that sees how their assumption that “other departments don’t understand our challenges” has created isolation can start building bridges.

These shifts don’t happen through force or mandate, but through the natural intelligence of systems that are no longer trapped by limiting beliefs. When teams can see and work with their collective assumptions, they become capable of conscious evolution rather than unconscious repetition.

Beyond Problem-Solving: Healing the Collective Psyche

Perhaps the greatest gift of constellations therapy is that it moves beyond problem-solving to what we might call “field-shifting” or collective healing. Rather than trying to fix what’s wrong, constellations help systems discover new possibilities that emerge when all elements—including limiting beliefs and wounded aspects—are seen, honoured, and given a proper place in service of the whole.

This therapeutic approach recognises that organisations, like individuals, can carry unintegrated experiences that create symptoms. The department that can’t collaborate might be expressing an organisational split between competition and cooperation. The team that struggles with succession might be working through the organisation’s relationship with mortality and continuity.

Integration and Collective Individuation

In individual psychology, individuation refers to the process of integrating various aspects of the psyche to become a more whole and authentic person. Organisations undergo a similar process of collective individuation—learning to integrate their various parts, shadows, and potentials into a more coherent and purposeful whole.

Constellations therapy supports this process by helping organisations:

  • Recognise and reclaim projected aspects
  • Integrate split-off parts of their identity
  • Develop a more conscious relationship with their purpose and values
  • Heal collective traumas that constrain their evolution
  • Develop capacity for holding complexity and paradox
  • Become more aware of the existence and influence of collective assumptions and beliefs

In a world where organisations face unprecedented complexity and change, the ability to sense and shift collective assumptions—and to work therapeutically with the collective psyche—may be one of the most important capacities we can develop. Constellations therapy offers a novel path to this deeper transformation, one that acknowledges both the wisdom and the woundedness inherent in our shared ways of being together.

Further Reading

Foundational Texts on Constellations Work:

Hellinger, B., Weber, G., & Beaumont, H. (1998). Love’s hidden symmetry: What makes love work in relationships. Zeig, Tucker & Co.

Manne, J. (2009). Family constellations: A practical guide to uncovering the origins of family conflict. North Atlantic Books.

Preiss, I. T. (2012). Family constellations revealed: Hellinger’s family and other constellations revealed (The systemic view). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Ulsamer, B. (2003). The art and practice of family constellations: Leading family constellations as developed by Bert Hellinger. Carl-Auer International.

Clean Language:

Grove, D., & Panzer, B. (1989). Resolving traumatic memories: Metaphors and symbols in psychotherapy. Irvington Publishers.

Sullivan, W., & Rees, J. (2008). Clean language: Revealing metaphors and opening minds. Crown House Publishing.

Tompkins, P., & Lawley, J. (2000). Metaphors in mind: Transformation through symbolic modelling. The Developing Company Press.

Collective Psychology and Organisational Dynamics:

Jung, C. G. (1968). The archetypes and the collective unconscious (R.F.C. Hull, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Routledge. (Original work published 1959)

Roberts, R., & Moore, J. (2007). Counselling and psychotherapy in organisational settings (Counselling and Psychotherapy Practice Series). Sage Publications.

Systems Theory and Group Dynamics:

Gould, L. J. (2006). The systems psychodynamics of organizations: Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems perspectives. Routledge.

Hinshelwood, R. D., Hoggett, P., Lousada, J., & Robinson, S. (2013). Thinking space: Promoting thinking about race, culture and diversity in psychotherapy and beyond. Karnac Books.

Academic and Research Articles:

Donnan, C. (2006). “Family constellations”: An innovative systemic phenomenological group process from Germany. The Family Journal, 14(3), 226-233.

Various authors. (2013). The social unconscious in persons, groups and societies (Volumes 1-3). Karnac Books.


Plese do get in touch if you feel that your organisation could benefit from one or more constellations therapy sessions.

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.

COPE Framework: Comprehensive Organisational Psychotherapy Evaluation

Purpose

This integrated assessment framework is designed for folks who need to understand the mental health status of their organisation. It evaluates an organisation’s collective psychological wellbeing, functioning, and areas for development. It measures the collective assumptions and beliefs (memes) that shape an organisation’s effectiveness. Note: The structure of this questionnaire is based closely on the structure found in my OP books Quintessence and Memeology.

Version

For reference and to aid evolution, this post defines COPE version 1.0a.

Assessment Questionnaire

Instructions: This assessment evaluates the collective mental health of your organisation. Please rate your agreement with each statement using the scale: 0 = Strongly Disagree | 1 = Disagree | 2 = Neutral | 3 = Agree | 4 = Strongly Agree

SECTION 1: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY & PURPOSE
Organisational Purpose Clarity
  1. The organisation has a clearly articulated purpose beyond profit
  2. Members across all levels can articulate why the organisation exists
  3. The organisation’s purpose inspires meaningful contribution
  4. Decision-making processes reflect the organisation’s core purpose
  5. The organisation regularly revisits and reaffirms its purpose
  6. Daily operations clearly connect to the organisation’s purpose
  7. External communications authentically reflect organisational purpose
  8. The organisation measures success by metrics aligned with its purpose
Organisational Values Integration
  1. Organisational values are clearly defined and widely understood
  2. Values are consistently demonstrated in organisational decisions
  3. Leaders model the organisation’s espoused values in their behaviour
  4. Reward systems recognise and reinforce organisational values
  5. Hiring and promotion decisions reflect organisational values
  6. Resources are allocated according to proclaimed priorities
  7. The organisation addresses gaps between stated and enacted values
  8. Policies and procedures align with and support organisational values
  9. Performance evaluations include assessment of values alignment
  10. The organisation’s values are regularly discussed and reaffirmed
Organisational Identity Cohesion
  1. Members across all levels identify strongly with the organisation
  2. There is a distinctive and coherent organisational identity
  3. The organisation’s identity remains stable through changes
  4. Members feel personally connected to the organisational identity
  5. External stakeholders recognise the organisation’s distinctive identity
  6. The organisation’s identity is authentic rather than aspirational
  7. Stories and symbols reinforce organisational identity effectively
  8. The organisational identity provides meaning during challenges
SECTION 2: ORGANISATIONAL COGNITION
Organisational Learning Capacity
  1. The organisation systematically captures lessons from experience
  2. Knowledge is effectively shared across organisational boundaries
  3. Failure is treated as an opportunity for organisational learning
  4. The organisation regularly challenges its assumptions
  5. Learning is translated into changes in policies and practices
  6. The organisation systematically tests new approaches
  7. Members are encouraged to question established ways of working
  8. The organisation integrates diverse perspectives into decision-making
  9. The organisation has effective mechanisms for organisational memory
  10. There is regular reflection on organisational processes and outcomes
Organisational Decision-Making Patterns
  1. Decision-making processes are clearly defined and understood
  2. Decisions are made at appropriate levels of the organisation
  3. Decision-making incorporates relevant stakeholder perspectives
  4. Information flows effectively to decision-makers
  5. Decision-making processes are appropriately transparent
  6. The organisation balances decisive action with thoughtful consideration
  7. Decision-making processes adapt to the nature of the issue
  8. The organisation learns from the outcomes of decisions
  9. Decision-making incorporates both analytical and intuitive elements
  10. The organisation revisits and adjusts ineffective decisions
  11. Decision-making processes recognise complexity and avoid oversimplification
  12. The organisation effectively prioritises decisions based on strategic importance
Organisational Sense-Making Capability
  1. The organisation effectively interprets changes in its environment
  2. Multiple interpretations of events are considered before conclusions are drawn
  3. The organisation creates shared understanding of complex situations
  4. Diverse perspectives are integrated in understanding challenges
  5. The organisation can detect weak signals of important changes
  6. Organisational narratives help create meaning from ambiguous situations
  7. The organisation avoids simplistic explanations for complex events
  8. Conflicts in interpretation are productively explored rather than suppressed
  9. The organisation can reframe its understanding when circumstances change
  10. Sense-making processes engage appropriate stakeholders
SECTION 3: ORGANISATIONAL EMOTION & CLIMATE
Emotional Climate Assessment
  1. The prevailing emotional tone of the organisation is positive
  2. There is appropriate emotional expression within the organisation
  3. People feel emotionally safe within the organisational environment
  4. The organisation acknowledges emotional aspects of organisational life
  5. Leadership effectively manages the emotional climate
  6. Difficult emotions are acknowledged rather than suppressed
  7. The organisation demonstrates appropriate empathy toward members
  8. Emotional intelligence is valued and developed
  9. The emotional impact of changes is considered and addressed
  10. There is emotional resilience within the organisational culture
Psychological Safety Evaluation
  1. Members feel safe to express divergent viewpoints
  2. Risk-taking is encouraged without fear of punishment for failure
  3. Mistakes are openly discussed to promote learning
  4. Difficult issues are raised and addressed constructively
  5. Members can show vulnerability without negative consequences
  6. There is tolerance for well-intentioned errors
  7. The organisation avoids blame-oriented responses to problems
  8. Power differences do not prevent open communication
  9. Members trust that others have positive intentions
  10. Ideas are evaluated on merit rather than source
  11. Feedback flows freely up and down the organisational hierarchy
  12. The organisation demonstrates curiosity rather than judgement
Organisational Trust Measure
  1. There is a high level of trust between leadership and members
  2. The organisation fulfils its commitments consistently
  3. Communication from leadership is honest and transparent
  4. Members trust that decisions are made with appropriate consideration
  5. There is trust between different functions or departments
  6. The organisation demonstrates trustworthiness to external stakeholders
  7. Trust is systematically built rather than assumed
  8. When trust is broken, there are effective repair mechanisms
  9. Policies demonstrate trust in members’ intentions and capabilities
  10. Information is shared openly rather than closely guarded
SECTION 4: ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES
Structural Health Assessment
  1. Organisational structures effectively support its purpose
  2. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined
  3. Authority is appropriately distributed throughout the organisation
  4. Organisational boundaries effectively manage complexity
  5. Structures adapt appropriately to changing circumstances
  6. There is effective coordination between organisational units
  7. Reporting relationships support effective functioning
  8. The organisation has appropriate integration mechanisms
  9. Structures balance stability with flexibility
  10. Organisational hierarchy serves function rather than status
Resource Allocation Patterns
  1. Resources are distributed according to strategic priorities
  2. Resource allocation processes are transparent and understood
  3. The organisation effectively balances short and long-term investments
  4. Resources are sufficient to accomplish expected outcomes
  5. The organisation invests in maintaining and developing capabilities
  6. Resource constraints are acknowledged and addressed realistically
  7. Resources are reallocated when strategic priorities change
  8. Resource allocation reflects organisational values
  9. The organisation avoids resource hoarding within units
  10. There are effective processes for resolving resource conflicts
Organisational Justice Evaluation
  1. Rewards are distributed fairly within the organisation
  2. Organisational policies are applied consistently
  3. Procedures for making important decisions are fair
  4. People are treated with dignity and respect regardless of position
  5. Information is shared appropriately with those affected by decisions
  6. The organisation provides explanations for significant decisions
  7. There are effective mechanisms for addressing perceived inequities
  8. Promotions and advancement reflect merit rather than politics
  9. Accountability is consistent across organisational levels
  10. Discipline and correction are applied fairly and proportionately
  11. Performance evaluation processes are perceived as fair
  12. Benefits and burdens are distributed equitably
SECTION 5: ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE
Change Capacity Assessment
  1. The organisation effectively anticipates emerging changes
  2. Change initiatives are implemented skilfully
  3. The organisation maintains core functionality during transitions
  4. Changes are thoughtfully designed to address root causes
  5. The organisation communicates effectively about changes
  6. Change processes engage appropriate stakeholders
  7. The organisation builds commitment rather than merely compliance
  8. The human impacts of change are considered and addressed
  9. The organisation learns from its change experiences
  10. Change capacity is systematically developed
Innovation Climate Evaluation
  1. The organisation systematically encourages innovative thinking
  2. There are effective processes for developing new ideas
  3. The organisation allocates resources to innovation
  4. Promising ideas can navigate organisational boundaries
  5. The organisation effectively balances exploration and exploitation
  6. Innovation efforts address meaningful organisational challenges
  7. The organisation learns from unsuccessful innovation attempts
  8. Innovation processes engage diverse perspectives
  9. The organisation effectively implements promising innovations
  10. Innovation is recognised and celebrated
Organisational Resilience Index
  1. The organisation maintains functioning during disruptions
  2. There are effective crisis response mechanisms
  3. The organisation demonstrates learning after disruptions
  4. There is appropriate redundancy in critical systems
  5. The organisation can rapidly reconfigure resources when needed
  6. There is awareness of potential vulnerabilities
  7. The organisation demonstrates optimism in facing challenges
  8. Leadership provides stability during turbulent periods
  9. The organisation maintains strategic focus despite disruptions
  10. There is capacity to absorb stress without breakdown
  11. The organisation effectively balances continuity and transformation
  12. Recovery processes are well-developed and effective
SECTION 6: ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder Relations Assessment
  1. The organisation maintains constructive relationships with key stakeholders
  2. There is effective dialogue with diverse stakeholders
  3. The organisation demonstrates understanding of stakeholder concerns
  4. Stakeholder perspectives influence organisational decisions
  5. The organisation manages competing stakeholder interests effectively
  6. There are mechanisms for addressing stakeholder conflicts
  7. The organisation maintains integrity in stakeholder relations
  8. Stakeholder relationships are systematically developed
  9. The organisation responds effectively to stakeholder feedback
  10. There is appropriate transparency with stakeholders
Collective Engagement Measure
  1. Members demonstrate energy and enthusiasm about the organisation
  2. There is discretionary effort beyond minimal requirements
  3. Members speak positively about the organisation to others
  4. Retention of valued members is high
  5. Members demonstrate commitment to organisational success
  6. There is pride in organisational membership
  7. Members find meaning in their organisational participation
  8. Engagement is consistent across organisational units
  9. The organisation systematically addresses engagement barriers
  10. Engagement remains resilient during challenging periods
Power Dynamics Evaluation
  1. Power is used constructively rather than coercively
  2. Decision-making authority is appropriately distributed
  3. Influence is based on expertise rather than position alone
  4. The organisation addresses power imbalances that hinder effectiveness
  5. Hidden power structures align with formal authority systems
  6. Minority perspectives can influence organisational direction
  7. The organisation effectively manages political behaviour
  8. Power differences do not prevent necessary communication
  9. Leadership empowers rather than controls
  10. There are effective checks on power concentration

COPE SCORING SHEET

SECTION 1: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY & PURPOSE

Organisational Purpose Clarity Items 1-8: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 8 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severe purpose deficit; organisation lacks meaningful direction
  • 1.1-2.0: Moderate purpose deficit; purpose is unclear or uninspiring
  • 2.1-3.0: Adequate purpose clarity with some areas for strengthening
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong purpose clarity and integration

Organisational Values Integration Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severe values-action gap; espoused values not reflected in practice
  • 1.1-2.0: Significant values inconsistency; limited alignment between stated and enacted values
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate values integration; some alignment with opportunities for improvement
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong values integration throughout organisational systems

Organisational Identity Cohesion Items 1-8: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 8 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Fractured organisational identity; lack of coherent self-concept
  • 1.1-2.0: Weak identity cohesion; identity is unclear or contested
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate identity cohesion; recognisable identity with some inconsistencies
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong identity cohesion providing stability and meaning

SECTION 2: ORGANISATIONAL COGNITION

Organisational Learning Capacity Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely limited learning capacity; organisation repeats errors
  • 1.1-2.0: Deficient learning processes; occasional learning without systematic approach
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate learning capacity; some effective systems with gaps
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong learning orientation integrated throughout organisation

Organisational Decision-Making Patterns Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional decision processes; decisions arbitrary or opaque
  • 1.1-2.0: Problematic decision-making; significant inefficiencies or biases
  • 2.1-3.0: Adequate decision processes with specific improvement opportunities
  • 3.1-4.0: Highly effective decision-making processes

Organisational Sense-Making Capability Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____ Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely limited sense-making; organisation regularly misinterprets situations
  • 1.1-2.0: Deficient sense-making processes; narrow or distorted interpretations
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate sense-making capability; generally accurate with blind spots
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong sense-making supporting insightful interpretation of complex situations

SECTION 3: ORGANISATIONAL EMOTION & CLIMATE

Emotional Climate Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Toxic emotional climate; pervasive negative emotions
  • 1.1-2.0: Problematic emotional climate; significant negative emotional tone
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate emotional health with specific areas of concern
  • 3.1-4.0: Healthy emotional climate supporting organisational vitality

Psychological Safety Evaluation Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely unsafe psychological environment; fear-based culture
  • 1.1-2.0: Limited psychological safety with significant barriers to openness
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate psychological safety with specific improvement areas
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong psychological safety supporting candour and learning

Organisational Trust Measure Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Pervasive distrust throughout organisation
  • 1.1-2.0: Significant trust deficits in key relationships
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate trust levels with specific areas of concern
  • 3.1-4.0: High trust environment supporting collaboration and efficiency

SECTION 4: ORGANISATIONAL SYSTEMS & STRUCTURES

Structural Health Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional organisational structures; significant barriers to effectiveness
  • 1.1-2.0: Problematic structures with substantial inefficiencies
  • 2.1-3.0: Adequate structures with specific improvement opportunities
  • 3.1-4.0: Well-designed structures effectively supporting organisational purpose

Resource Allocation Patterns Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely problematic resource allocation; significant misalignment with priorities
  • 1.1-2.0: Inefficient resource allocation with substantial waste or gaps
  • 2.1-3.0: Adequate resource management with specific improvement areas
  • 3.1-4.0: Strategic resource allocation effectively supporting priorities

Organisational Justice Evaluation Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severe justice deficits; widespread perceptions of unfairness
  • 1.1-2.0: Significant justice concerns undermining organisational trust
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate justice with specific improvement opportunities
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong justice climate supporting organisational commitment

SECTION 5: ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE

Change Capacity Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely limited change capacity; organisation resistant or chaotic
  • 1.1-2.0: Deficient change management with significant implementation failures
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate change capacity with specific improvement opportunities
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong change capacity supporting effective adaptation

Innovation Climate Evaluation Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely limited innovation climate; organisation static or rigid
  • 1.1-2.0: Weak innovation capability with barriers to new ideas
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate innovation climate with specific improvement areas
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong innovation capability supporting organisational renewal

Organisational Resilience Index Items 1-12: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 12 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Highly vulnerable organisation; limited capacity to withstand challenges
  • 1.1-2.0: Fragile organisational systems with significant vulnerability
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate resilience with specific areas for strengthening
  • 3.1-4.0: Highly resilient organisation capable of thriving amid disruption

SECTION 6: ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

Stakeholder Relations Assessment Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely problematic stakeholder relations; significant conflicts
  • 1.1-2.0: Strained stakeholder relationships undermining effectiveness
  • 2.1-3.0: Adequate stakeholder relations with specific improvement areas
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong stakeholder relationships supporting organisational success

Collective Engagement Measure Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severe engagement deficit; widespread disaffection
  • 1.1-2.0: Significant engagement problems with limited commitment
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate engagement with uneven distribution
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong engagement supporting organisational vitality

Power Dynamics Evaluation Items 1-10: _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ + _____ = _____ ÷ 10 = _____

Interpretation:

  • 0-1.0: Severely dysfunctional power dynamics; power used coercively
  • 1.1-2.0: Problematic power distribution hampering effectiveness
  • 2.1-3.0: Adequate power dynamics with specific improvement areas
  • 3.1-4.0: Healthy power dynamics supporting organisational effectiveness

COPE ORGANISATIONAL HEALTH PROFILE

Composite Scores

Organisational Identity & Purpose Composite (Purpose Clarity + Values Integration + Identity Cohesion) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Cognition Composite (Learning Capacity + Decision-Making Patterns + Sense-Making Capability) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Emotion & Climate Composite (Emotional Climate + Psychological Safety + Trust) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Systems & Structures Composite (Structural Health + Resource Allocation + Organisational Justice) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Adaptability & Resilience Composite (Change Capacity + Innovation Climate + Resilience) ÷ 3 = _____

Organisational Relationships & Engagement Composite (Stakeholder Relations + Collective Engagement + Power Dynamics) ÷ 3 = _____

Overall COPE Index Sum of all 6 Composite Scores ÷ 6 = _____

Interpretation Guidelines

Overall COPE Index:

  • 0-1.0: Critical organisational dysfunction requiring fundamental intervention
  • 1.1-2.0: Significant organisational health concerns requiring substantial intervention
  • 2.1-3.0: Moderate organisational health with specific areas requiring attention
  • 3.1-4.0: Strong organisational health supporting sustainable performance

COPE Profile Analysis

You might choose to plot each composite score on a radar chart to visualise the organisation’s psychological health profile:

  1. Organisational Identity & Purpose Composite: _____
  2. Organisational Cognition Composite: _____
  3. Organisational Emotion & Climate Composite: _____
  4. Organisational Systems & Structures Composite: _____
  5. Organisational Adaptability & Resilience Composite: _____
  6. Organisational Relationships & Engagement Composite: _____

COPE Intervention Planning

  1. Identify the lowest two composite scores as primary intervention areas
  2. Within those composites, identify specific scales with lowest scores
  3. Consider interventions targeting specific dimensions requiring improvement
  4. Create an intervention sequence addressing foundational issues first
  5. Establish monitoring mechanisms to track intervention effectiveness
  6. Schedule reassessment at appropriate intervals (typically 6-12 months)
  7. Consider the self-intervention support available in Memeology.

COPE ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES

  1. Participant Selection: Include diverse organisational members representing different levels, functions, and perspectives
  2. Timing Considerations: Administer during relatively stable periods to establish baseline; avoid periods of acute crisis
  3. Response Aggregation: Calculate mean scores across respondents for each item and scale
  4. Variance Analysis: Examine patterns of agreement/disagreement across respondent groups
  5. Qualitative Data: Supplement quantitative scores with structured interviews or focus groups
  6. Contextual Interpretation: Consider results in light of organisational history, industry context, and strategic priorities
  7. Longitudinal Tracking: Establish regular assessment cycles to monitor changes over time
  8. Confidentiality: Ensure anonymous participation to encourage candid responses

APPENDIX: RELATION TO EXISTING ASSESSMENTS

The COPE Framework shares characteristics with several existing organisational assessment tools but is distinctive in its focus on organisational psychotherapy and collective memeplexes. Here’s how it relates to established frameworks:

  1. Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) – Like COPE, the Denison model assesses organisational effectiveness across multiple dimensions including mission, adaptability, involvement, and consistency. While both use quantifiable metrics, COPE extends beyond culture to examine underlying psychological mechanisms.
  2. Organizational Health Index (OHI) by McKinsey – The OHI measures organisational health across nine dimensions with 37 management practices. COPE shares the OHI’s view that organisational health predicts performance, but adds deeper psychological dimensions and a therapeutic orientation.
  3. Barrett Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) – This assessment examines alignment between current and desired values in organisations. COPE builds on this by not only identifying values misalignment but also examining the psychological roots of such gaps.
  4. Competing Values Framework (CVF) by Cameron and Quinn – This framework uses a quadrant model to classify organisational cultures (clan, adhocracy, market, hierarchy). While COPE similarly assesses cultural dimensions, it uses a different theoretical model based on organisational psychotherapy rather than competing values.

The COPE Framework is distinctive in its:

  • Grounding in organisational psychotherapy principles
  • Explicit focus on the collective psyche and memeplexes that shape organisational behaviour
  • Attention to how assumptions and beliefs manifest as patterns of behaviour and degrees of functioning
  • Assessment of psychological health across six interconnected dimensions
  • Integration of both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives
  • Consideration of organisational cognitive dissonance and its impacts
  • Examination of power dynamics from a psychological rather than purely structural perspective

COPE’s approach bridges the gap between traditional organisational assessments and therapeutic interventions, making it particularly suitable for organisations seeking transformative change through addressing their collective psychological patterns.

Why We Learn Only Through Normative Experiences

“Is there anyone so wise as to learn by the experience of others?”

~ Voltaire

How would you answer Voltaire’s question? Have you found any ways to learn effectively from others’ experiences?

What Are Normative Experiences?

Normative experiences are those personally significant encounters and events that shape our understanding through direct participation rather than passive consumption. These experiences:

  • Involve active engagement with real-world situations
  • Challenge existing beliefs and assumptions
  • Create emotional and intellectual connections that cement learning
  • Provide contextual knowledge that cannot be transmitted through text alone
  • Establish personal standards and values through lived practice

Unlike theoretical (book) knowledge, normative experiences can forge neural pathways through the combination of action, consequence, and reflection—a process our brains have evolved to value over millennia.

The Delusion of Vicarious Learning

We consume countless books, articles, podcasts, and videos, deluding ourselves into believing we’re absorbing wisdom. Yet this information often remains theoretical, failing to transform into practical knowledge. Why?

Information without application lacks the essential qualities that make learning stick. While we might intellectually grasp concepts from others’ experiences, true learning requires putting this knowledge into practice within our own unique contexts.

“Until behaviour changes, learning has not happened.”

~ FlowChainSensei

Consider the difference between reading a book about boxing versus actually stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson. What might the latter experience teach you that words on a page cannot?

Creating Your Own Normative Experiences

What might work for you when seeking to cultivate genuine learning? How about:

  1. Prioritise experiential learning over passive consumption
  2. Seek opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge in practical settings
  3. Reflect deliberately on personal experiences to extract meaningful lessons
  4. Recognise that failure within normative experiences often teaches more than success You might consider these approaches:
  5. Stop reading books and blogs. Go experience reality.

The Complementary Role of Others’ Wisdom

This isn’t to say books and others’ experiences hold no value. You might find they serve as maps—potentially useful guides that help navigate your own normative experiences. They can prepare you, provide frameworks for understanding, and suggest paths forward, even though they cannot substitute for the journey itself.

Conclusion

In our information-saturated age, we might choose to remember that reading about boxing against Mike Tyson and actually stepping into the ring with him are fundamentally different experiences. The former may provide technical knowledge, but only the latter teaches the body how to move, the mind how to strategise under pressure, and the spirit how to face genuine fear.

What experiences have taught you the most in your life? Were they from books? Or from direct engagement with the world?

Sechs häufig gestellte Fragen

Fragen, die mir häufig über Software- und Produktentwicklungsorganisationen gestellt werden.

F1: Wie können wir unsere Mitarbeiter motivieren?

A1: Das können wir nicht. Wir können uns Anreizsysteme, Bonuspakete und so weiter ausdenken, aber es gibt viele Forschungen – und Erfahrungen – die zeigen, dass solche Versuche der extrinsischen Motivation von Wissensarbeitern die Leistung am Arbeitsplatz nur verschlechtern. Andererseits ist intrinsische Motivation sehr mächtig – aber die kommt von den Mitarbeitern selbst. Das Einzige, was wir tun können, ist an der Schaffung einer Umgebung zu arbeiten, in der sich vielleicht, nur vielleicht, einige Personen etwas besser über sich selbst, ihre Kollegen und den gemeinsamen Zweck fühlen. Und zu hoffen – ja, zu hoffen – dass hier und da etwas intrinsische Motivation entsteht. Wir können die intrinsische Motivation eines anderen nicht ändern – nur sie selbst können das tun.

F2: Wie können wir die Kultur der Organisation ändern?

A2: Das können wir nicht. Kultur ist schreibgeschützt. Eine Manifestation und eine Reflexion der zugrunde liegenden, kollektiven Annahmen und Überzeugungen aller Personen, die in der Organisation arbeiten. Um kulturelle Veränderungen zu sehen, müssen wir an – womit ich meine, auf einen vollständigen Ersatz hinarbeiten – diesem zugrunde liegenden kollektiven Memeplex arbeiten. Und das beinhaltet die Arbeit mit den Köpfen der Menschen und insbesondere mit kollektiven Denkräumen. Wir können die Annahmen und Überzeugungen anderer Menschen nicht ändern – nur sie selbst können das tun.

F3: Wie können wir die Denkweise der Manager ändern?

A3: Das können wir nicht. Manager – eigentlich jeder – werden ihre Denkweise nur ändern, wenn sie sehen, wie ihre gegenwärtige Denkweise ineffektiv ist, um ihre Bedürfnisse – und die Bedürfnisse anderer – zu erfüllen. Veränderung (der Denkweise) ist ein normativer Prozess – sie entsteht aus direkten persönlichen Erfahrungen, z.B. wie die Arbeit jetzt funktioniert – und den damit verbundenen Problemen. Wir können die Denkweise eines anderen nicht ändern – nur sie selbst können das tun.

F4: Wie können wir Teams dazu bringen, Verantwortung zu übernehmen?

A4: Das können wir nicht. Wir können drohen, schmeicheln, bitten, bestechen, an die bessere Natur der Menschen appellieren usw. Aber auch hier zeigen Forschung und Erfahrung, dass diese nur dazu dienen, den guten Willen und das Engagement der Menschen zu untergraben. Wenn wir brauchen, dass Menschen mehr Verantwortung übernehmen, ist vielleicht der beste Weg, einfach ehrlich darüber zu sein, unser Bedürfnis zu erklären und eine ablehnbare Bitte zu stellen? Was hätten wir gerne als Grund dafür, dass sie unserer Bitte nachkommen? Wir können die Bereitschaft eines anderen, Verantwortung zu übernehmen, nicht ändern – nur sie selbst können das tun.

F5: Wie können wir Manager dazu bringen, ihren Teams zu vertrauen?

A5: Das können wir nicht. Manager werden sich nur dafür entscheiden, ihren Teams – oder jemand anderem – zu vertrauen, wenn sie feststellen, dass sie ein Bedürfnis danach haben. Und dieses Bedürfnis wird nur dann offensichtlich genug, um zum Handeln anzuregen, wenn Manager verstehen, wie Vertrauen ihnen hilft, einige ihrer anderen Bedürfnisse besser zu erfüllen. Wir können die Bereitschaft eines anderen, anderen zu vertrauen, nicht ändern – nur sie selbst können das tun.

F6: Wie können wir die Kompetenzen der Menschen entwickeln?

A6: Das können wir nicht. Wir können jedoch Bedingungen schaffen, unter denen diejenigen, die ihre eigenen Kompetenzen entwickeln wollen, dies leichter tun können. Die Frage wird dann: Wie können wir Menschen dazu bringen, ihre eigenen Kompetenzen entwickeln zu wollen? Was F1 ist (siehe oben). Wir können die Lernbereitschaft eines anderen nicht ändern – nur sie selbst können das tun.

Kurz gesagt, die direkte Antwort auf all die obigen Fragen lautet: Das können wir nicht. Aber wir können eine Sache tun, um bei all diesen Fragen Fortschritte zu machen: das Antimaterie-Prinzip in Betracht ziehen.

Sind Sie bereit, so radikal zu sein? Denn darauf läuft es hinaus.

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” ~ Albert Einstein

– Bob

Weiterführende Literatur

The Art And Science of Changing People Who Don’t Want to Change ~ Reut Schwartz-Hebron

From Dawn Till Dusk

Reflections on a 50+ Year Career in Software

The Dawn: Programming as Pioneering (1970s)

When I first touched a computer in the early 1970s, programming wasn’t just a job—it was exploration of uncharted territory. We worked with punch cards and paper tape, carefully checking our code before submitting it for processing. A single run might take hours or even overnight, and a misplaced character meant starting over. Storage was 5MByte disk packs, magnetic tapes, more punch cards, and VRC (visible record cards with magnetic stripes on the reverse).

The machines were massive, expensive, and rare. Those of us who could communicate with these behemoths were viewed almost as wizards, speaking arcane languages like FORTRAN, COBOL, Assembler, and early versions of BASIC. Computing time was precious, and we spent more time planning our code on paper than actually typing it.

The tools were primitive by today’s standards, but there was something magical about being among the first generation to speak directly to machines. We were creating something entirely new—teaching inanimate objects to think, in a way. Every problem solved felt like a genuine discovery, every program a small miracle.

The Dusk: The AI Inflection Point (2020s)

In recent years, I’ve witnessed a most profound shift. Machine learning and AI tools have begun to automate aspects of programming we once thought required human creativity and problem-solving. Large language models can generate functional code from natural language descriptions, debug existing code, and explain complex systems.

The pace of change has been breathtaking. Just five years ago, we laughed at the limitations of code-generation tools. Remember Ambase? Or The Last One? Today, junior programmers routinely complete in minutes what would have taken days of specialised knowledge previously.

As I look forward, I can’t help but wonder if we’re witnessing the twilight of programming as we’ve known it. The abstraction level continues to rise—from machine code to assembly to high-level languages to frameworks to AI assistants to …? Each step removed programmers further from the machine while making software creation more accessible.

The traditional career path seems to be narrowing. Entry-level programming tasks are increasingly automated, while senior roles require deeper system design and architectural thinking. And, God forbid, people skills. The middle is being hollowed out.

Yet I remain optimistic. Throughout my career, development has constantly reinvented itself. What we call “programming” today bears little resemblance to what I did in the 1970s. The fundamental skill—translating human needs into machine instructions—remains valuable, even as the mechanisms evolve.

If I could share advice with those entering the field today: focus on attending to folks’ needs, not on coding, analysis, design; seek out change rather than just coping passively with it; understand systems holistically; develop deep people knowledge; and remember that technology serves humans, not the other way around.

Whatever comes next, I’m grateful to have witnessed this extraordinary journey—from room-sized computers with kilobytes of memory to AI systems that can code alongside us and for us. It’s been a wild ride participating in one of humanity’s most transformative revolutions.

Why You Reject the Best Cognitive Tools and Strategies

The Promise and Paradox of Better Thinking

In today’s complex world, effective cognitive tools and strategies offer extraordinary potential benefits. Structured decision-making frameworks can help us avoid costly errors. Mental models can illuminate connections we’d otherwise miss. Debiasing techniques can protect us from systematic reasoning flaws. Forecasting methodologies can improve our ability to navigate uncertainty. Organisational psychotherapy approaches can dramatically improve social dynamics. The evidence is clear: organisations and individuals who consistently employ superior thinking tools outperform those who rely solely on intuition and habit.

And yet, despite compelling evidence of their value, the most powerful cognitive tools are rarely implemented. This implementation gap presents one of the most significant yet under-addressed challenges in both personal development and organisational improvement. Of course, evidence rarely sways anyone to action. And addressing these challenges requires exactly the kind of thinking that blocks adoption of effective cognitive tools and strategies.

Consider these telling patterns:

  • Companies invest millions in decision frameworks that gather dust within months
  • Professionals attend workshops on cognitive biases, only to continue commiting the very same errors the following week
  • Teams develop robust strategic thinking processes they promptly abandon when faced with their first crisis
  • Individuals buy books on mental models they understand intellectually but never actually apply

This pattern—knowing better but doing the same—crosses domains, cultures, and contexts. Research suggests that fewer than 20% of people who learn valuable cognitive strategies continue using them after just four weeks. For organisations, the figures are even more stark, with some studies indicating implementation rates below 12% for externally introduced thinking frameworks.

What makes this paradox particularly notable is that these tools aren’t being rejected due to ineffectiveness. Indeed, when consistently applied, better thinking tools demonstrably improve outcomes. Yet something in our individual and collective psyches actively resists their implementation, even when we intellectually recognise their value.

The costs of this resistance are substantial but often invisible—the better decisions not made, the systematic errors not avoided, the superior strategies not developed. Understanding why we reject our best cognitive tools isn’t merely an academic exercise; it’s an essential step toward actually capturing their promised benefits.

Part 1: Individual Cognitive Resistance

Have you ever learnt about a life-changing productivity technique, only to abandon it a week later? Or discovered a powerful mental framework that you immediately agreed with—but never actually implemented? You’re not alone. Despite our best intentions, humans have a peculiar tendency to reject the very cognitive tools and strategies that could benefit us most.

The Knowing-Doing Gap

One of the greatest paradoxes of human behaviour is the gap between knowing and doing. We consume self-help books, attend workshops, and save articles about evidence-based cognitive strategies—yet implementation often remains elusive. This disconnect isn’t due to laziness or lack of motivation, but rather to deeper psychological mechanisms.

Why We Resist What Would Help Us

1. Kahneman’s System 1 vs. System 2 Thinking

Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s work on dual-process theory provides a powerful framework for understanding our cognitive resistance. In his landmark book ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’, Kahneman describes two modes of thinking:

  • System 1: Fast, automatic, intuitive, and emotional
  • System 2: Slow, deliberate, analytical, and rational

Most cognitive tools and strategies require engaging System 2, which demands effort and concentration. However, our brains default to the energy-efficient System 1, which operates on autopilot through shortcuts and heuristics. When presented with beneficial cognitive tools, System 1 often rejects them as too effortful, while System 2—which would recognise their value—isn’t automatically engaged.

The irony is that many cognitive tools aim to improve our System 2 thinking, but we need System 2 thinking to adopt them in the first place. This creates a bootstrapping problem where the solution requires the very capability we’re trying to enhance.

2. The Marshmallow Effect: Instant vs. Delayed Gratification

The famous ‘marshmallow experiments’ conducted by Walter Mischel at Stanford University revealed our struggle with delayed gratification. Children who could resist eating one marshmallow to receive two later showed better outcomes in life across multiple measures. This same mechanism affects our adoption of cognitive tools—we opt for the immediate relief of familiar thinking patterns over the delayed rewards of better strategies.

Research has consistently shown that our brains are biased towards immediate rewards even when rationally understanding the greater value of delayed benefits. Neuroimaging studies reveal that different brain regions activate when processing immediate versus delayed rewards, with the emotional, impulsive system often overriding the logical, patient one.

3. Cognitive Dissonance

When new strategies challenge our existing beliefs or self-image, we experience discomfort. Rather than integrate these beneficial tools, we often reject them to preserve our internal consistency. For instance, embracing a structured decision-making framework might force us to acknowledge past poor choices, which can be threatening to our identity as rational beings.

4. The Allure of Complexity

We often reject simple, proven strategies in favour of complex ones. There’s something deeply unsatisfying about straightforward solutions to difficult problems. We assume that effective strategies must be sophisticated or involve special insight, leading us to overlook basic approaches that actually work.

Breaking the Cycle

How can we overcome these barriers and actually use the cognitive tools we know would help us?

Create System 2 Triggers

Design specific prompts that activate your System 2 thinking before making important decisions. This might be as simple as a checklist or a designated ‘thinking time’ for consequential choices.

Automate System 2 Processes

Turn deliberate cognitive strategies into habits through consistent practice. What begins as a System 2 process can eventually become more automatic, requiring less conscious effort to implement.

Start Impossibly Small

Rather than attempting to overhaul your entire thinking process, integrate tiny elements of beneficial strategies into your existing routines. This minimises resistance and creates momentum.

Create Reward Bridges: The Missing Link

The concept of reward bridges deserves special attention as it directly addresses the critical gap between knowing and doing. A reward bridge is a deliberately designed system of immediate, tangible reinforcements that sustain motivation until the delayed benefits of a cognitive tool become apparent.

The psychology behind reward bridges is grounded in both behavioural economics and neuroscience. Our dopamine system, which drives motivation and learning, responds more strongly to immediate rewards than to delayed ones—even when the delayed rewards are objectively more valuable. By creating immediate and meaningful rewards that arrive immediately after using beneficial cognitive tools, we can ‘trick’ our motivation system into supporting behaviours that would otherwise be abandoned.

Effective personal reward bridges might include:

  • Micro-celebrations: Creating a brief but genuine moment of acknowledgment after using a decision-making framework
  • Visible progress tracking: Using physical or digital systems that provide immediate visual feedback when you employ a cognitive strategy. See also: the Needsscape
  • Artificial constraints: Setting up systems where you must use the cognitive tool to ‘unlock’ a small pleasure you’ve reserved (a special coffee, a short walk, etc.)
  • Social commitments: Arranging for immediate social recognition when you employ better thinking strategies

Research in habit formation shows that these bridging rewards need not be large—consistency matters more than magnitude. Over time, as the intrinsic benefits of better thinking tools begin to manifest, the artificial rewards can be gradually reduced without losing momentum.

Make Implementation the Measure

Shift your focus from collecting knowledge to tracking implementation. The value of cognitive tools lies not in understanding them, but in using them consistently. Better yet, track outcomes i.e. folks’ needs met and attended-to.

Part 2: Organisational Resistance to Better Thinking

The same psychological barriers that prevent individuals from adopting better cognitive tools operate at an organisational level—but with additional complexities. Organisations often invest heavily in frameworks, methodologies, and decision-making tools that subsequently go unused or are implemented half-heartedly. Understanding this resistance is crucial for any leader hoping to improve collective thinking.

The Organisational Knowing-Doing Gap

Organisations suffer from an even more pronounced knowing-doing gap than individuals. While a single person might struggle to implement a beneficial habit, organisations must coordinate dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people to change established collective assumptions and beliefs. This magnifies the existing psychological barriers and introduces new systemic ones.

Why Organisations Reject Better Thinking Tools

1. Collective System 1 Dominance

Organisations develop their own version of System 1 thinking—processes that have become so ingrained they’re essentially automatic. These include unwritten rules, cultural norms, and legacy procedures that persist despite evidence against their effectiveness. When leadership introduces new cognitive frameworks that require System 2 engagement across the organisation, the collective inertia of established System 1 processes often overwhelms these efforts.

2. Incentive Misalignment

Many organisations reward immediate results over sound long-term thinking. This creates a structural bias against cognitive tools that might slow immediate decision-making while improving long-term outcomes. When employees must choose between using a better decision-making framework that takes time or delivering quick results that earn recognition, the latter usually wins—an organisational manifestation of the marshmallow effect.

3. Organisational Cognitive Dissonance

When new assumptions and beliefs challenge an organisation’s existing memeplex or self-image, the organisation experiences collective discomfort. Rather than integrate these beneficial assumptions and beliefs, it often rejects them to preserve its internal consistency.

4. The Consultation Paradox

Organisations frequently bring in external consultants who introduce evidence-based frameworks, only to have these approaches shelved shortly after implementation begins. This pattern persists because the act of consulting itself satisfies the organisational desire to appear forward-thinking, while the actual implementation would require uncomfortable changes to established hierarchies and processes.

5. Cultural Immune Systems

Edgar Schein’s work on organisational culture suggests that organisations develop ‘immune systems’ that reject ideas threatening core cultural assumptions. Better cognitive tools often implicitly challenge how decisions have been made historically, triggering this immune response. The organisation may nominally adopt the new approach while subconsciously undermining its implementation.

6. Distributed Accountability

When implementation fails at an individual level, the responsibility is clear. In organisations, responsibility for implementing new thinking tools is distributed, creating diffusion of responsibility where everyone assumes someone else will drive the change. The result is collective inaction despite general agreement about the tool’s value.

Breaking Organisational Cognitive Stagnation

How can organisations overcome these substantial barriers to implementing better thinking tools?

Create Organisational System 2 Spaces

Designate specific contexts where deliberative, System 2 thinking is explicitly required and protected from the usual pressures of immediate action. Examples include quarterly strategy reviews or ‘pre-mortem’ sessions where teams must engage with structured thinking protocols before launching initiatives.

Align Incentives with Better Thinking

Reward not just outcomes but the quality of the thinking process. This might include evaluating decisions based on how well they applied designated frameworks, regardless of immediate results, which are often influenced by factors beyond the decision-maker’s control.

Implement Cultural Onboarding to New Tools

Recognise that cognitive tools aren’t just technical implementations but cultural artefacts. Create rituals, language, and symbols around new thinking approaches to help them become part of the organisational identity rather than foreign impositions.

Build Organisational Reward Bridges: Spanning the Collective Gap

The concept of reward bridges takes on additional dimensions when applied to organisations. Where individuals need to bridge the gap between immediate effort and delayed personal benefit, organisations must span the chasm between collective implementation costs and future organisational gains.

Organisational reward bridges are structured systems that provide immediate, positive feedback to teams and individuals who implement better cognitive tools, sustaining motivation until the longer-term organisational benefits emerge. These bridges are critical because organisational benefits often materialise at time scales beyond individual incentive horizons—quarterly bonuses or annual reviews might come and go before the true value of improved decision-making becomes evident.

Effective organisational reward bridges might include:

  • Recognition rituals: Establishing formal moments of acknowledgment when teams demonstrate the use of designated thinking tools, separate from outcome-based recognition
  • Process privileges: Granting teams that consistently employ better cognitive frameworks certain organisational privileges, such as increased autonomy or priority access to resources
  • Cognitive champions: Creating visible roles for individuals who exemplify the use of better thinking tools, with clear status benefits attached
  • Narrative reinforcement: Regularly sharing stories throughout the organisation that highlight instances where better thinking tools were used, regardless of whether outcomes are yet known
  • Implementation metrics: Developing and prominently displaying metrics around the adoption of cognitive tools themselves, not just their outcomes
  • Learning budgets: Allocating resources specifically for teams to experiment with and refine their use of cognitive tools, creating an immediate benefit for adoption

Research on organisational change shows that the most effective reward bridges connect to existing value systems within the organisation rather than attempting to impose entirely new values. For example, if an organisation already values innovation, reward bridges should emphasise how cognitive tools enhance innovative capacity, even before concrete innovation outcomes can be measured.

Critical to organisational reward bridges is their collective nature—they should reinforce group identity and shared progress rather than merely incentivising individual behaviour. When teams experience collective recognition for adopting better thinking approaches, social reinforcement multiplies the effectiveness of the reward bridge.

Start with Microhabits

Rather than organisation-wide rollouts, begin with teams adopting small, consistent applications of better thinking tools in visible ways. When senior folks authentically employs these approaches, it signals their value more effectively than any training programme.

Make Thinking Processes Explicit

Organisations often treat decision-making as an invisible process. By making thinking explicit—documenting assumptions, alternatives considered, and decision criteria—teams create artefacts that can be examined, improved, and learnt from collectively.

Final Thoughts

Organisations, like individuals, must recognise that the most valuable cognitive tools aren’t necessarily the most sophisticated, but the ones actually used consistently. The challenge for leaders isn’t just selecting the right thinking frameworks but creating environments where better thinking can overcome the powerful psychological and cultural forces arrayed against it.

By understanding both the individual and organisational barriers to implementing better cognitive strategies, leaders can design approaches that acknowledge these realities rather than fighting against them. The most successful organisations don’t just know better ways to think—they create systems that make better thinking the path of least resistance.

The concept of reward bridges offers a particularly promising approach for both individuals and organisations struggling with the knowing-doing gap. By deliberately engineering immediate positive feedback for using better cognitive tools, we can harness our inherent psychological biases to serve rather than hinder our long-term interests. The bridge metaphor is apt—these structures don’t eliminate the gap between current effort and future benefit, but they allow us to traverse it without falling into the chasm of abandonment and reversion to habitual thinking.

Further Reading

For readers interested in exploring these concepts in greater depth, the following resources provide valuable insights into the psychology of cognitive tool adoption and implementation:

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. Random House.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Harvard Business School Press.

Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. Random House.

Immelman, R. (2007). Great boss, dead boss: How to extract the very best performance from your company and not get crucified in the process. Paarl Print.

Clear, J. (2018). Atomic habits: An easy & proven way to build good habits & break bad ones. Avery.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Fogg, B. J. (2019). Tiny habits: The small changes that change everything. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Sei domande frequenti

Domande che mi vengono poste frequentemente sulle organizzazioni di sviluppo software e prodotti.

D1: Come possiamo motivare i nostri lavoratori?

R1: Non possiamo. Possiamo ideare schemi di incentivi, pacchetti bonus e così via, ma ci sono molte ricerche – ed esperienze – che dimostrano che tali tentativi di motivazione estrinseca dei lavoratori della conoscenza rendono solo peggiore la performance sul lavoro. D’altra parte, la motivazione intrinseca è molto potente – ma quella viene dai lavoratori stessi. L’unica cosa che possiamo fare è lavorare per creare un ambiente dove forse, solo forse, alcune persone si sentano un po’ meglio riguardo a se stesse, i loro colleghi e lo scopo comune. E sperare – sì sperare – che emerga qualche motivazione intrinseca, qua e là. Noi non possiamo cambiare la motivazione intrinseca di qualcun altro – solo loro possono farlo.

D2: Come possiamo cambiare la cultura dell’organizzazione?

R2: Non possiamo. La cultura è in sola lettura. Una manifestazione e un riflesso delle ipotesi e convinzioni collettive sottostanti di tutte le persone che lavorano nell’organizzazione. Per vedere qualsiasi cambiamento culturale, dobbiamo lavorare su – intendo lavorare verso una sostituzione totale di – questo memeplex collettivo sottostante. E questo implica lavorare con le teste delle persone, e in particolare, con gli spazi mentali collettivi. Noi non possiamo cambiare le ipotesi e le convinzioni di altre persone – solo loro possono farlo.

D3: Come possiamo cambiare la mentalità dei manager?

R3: Non possiamo. I manager – chiunque, in realtà – cambieranno la loro mentalità solo quando vedranno come la loro mentalità attuale è inefficace nel soddisfare i loro bisogni – e i bisogni degli altri. Il cambiamento (di mentalità) è un processo normativo – emerge da esperienze personali dirette, ad esempio il modo in cui il lavoro funziona ora – e i problemi inerenti ad esso. Noi non possiamo cambiare la mentalità di qualcun altro – solo loro possono farlo.

D4: Come possiamo far assumere responsabilità ai team?

R4: Non possiamo. Possiamo minacciare, blandire, implorare, corrompere, appellarci alla natura migliore delle persone, ecc. Ma di nuovo, ricerche ed esperienze dimostrano che queste strategie servono solo a minare la buona volontà e l’impegno delle persone. Se abbiamo bisogno che le persone si assumano più responsabilità, forse il modo migliore è essere onesti al riguardo, spiegare il nostro bisogno e fare una richiesta che possa essere rifiutata? Quale vorremmo che fosse il motivo per cui fanno ciò che chiediamo? Noi non possiamo cambiare la disponibilità di qualcun altro ad assumersi responsabilità – solo loro possono farlo.

D5: Come possiamo far sì che i manager si fidino dei loro team?

R5: Non possiamo. I manager sceglieranno di fidarsi dei loro team – o di chiunque altro – solo se scopriranno di averne bisogno. E questo bisogno diventa abbastanza ovvio da spronare all’azione solo quando i manager arrivano a capire quanto la fiducia li aiuti a soddisfare meglio alcuni dei loro altri bisogni. Noi non possiamo cambiare la disponibilità di qualcun altro a fidarsi degli altri – solo loro possono farlo.

D6: Come possiamo sviluppare le competenze delle persone?

R6: Non possiamo. Possiamo, tuttavia, creare condizioni in cui quelle persone che vogliono sviluppare le proprie competenze possano farlo più facilmente. Quindi la domanda diventa: come possiamo far sì che le persone vogliano sviluppare le proprie competenze? Che è la D1 (vedi sopra). Noi non possiamo cambiare la volontà di qualcun altro di imparare – solo loro possono farlo.

In sintesi, la risposta diretta a tutte le domande di cui sopra è: non possiamo. Ma possiamo fare una cosa per progredire su tutte queste questioni: considerare il Principio Antimateria.

Siete disposti ad essere così radicali? Perché è a questo che si riduce.

“Non possiamo risolvere i problemi con lo stesso tipo di pensiero che abbiamo usato quando li abbiamo creati.” ~ Albert Einstein

– Bob

Ulteriori letture

The Art And Science of Changing People Who Don’t Want to Change ~ Reut Schwartz-Hebron

What Makes a Great User Story?

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

Core Components

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

The Living Nature of Stories

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

Essential Qualities

Great Folks That Matter™ stories share several important characteristics:

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

Focus on Needs

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

Clear Acceptance Criteria

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

Summary

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

The Art of Being Methodical

The Missing Link in Modern Work

In a world that often celebrates spontaneity and quick thinking, there’s a profound power in being methodical. This isn’t about rigid methodologies or specific techniques—it’s about embracing a perspective that values deliberate, systematic approaches to life’s challenges and opportunities.

What Does It Mean to Be Methodical?

Being methodical means approaching tasks with a prepared idea of how to proceed from start to finish, with consistency, and with attention to detail. It’s the difference between rushing through an endeavour and thoughtfully executing each step with intention. A methodical person doesn’t just know what to do—they understand why they’re doing it and how each action connects to their larger goals.

The Curious Absence of Methodical Approaches

In collaborative knowledge work, there’s a peculiar paradox: whilst we constantly seek ways to improve our productivity and effectiveness, almost no one has established a concrete routine to achieve these goals. Over decades of professional experience, it’s been remarkably uncommon for me to encounter individuals or teams who have developed, evolved, and maintained a disciplined, methodical approach to their work.

This absence leads to a persistent frustration in collaborative environments: watching colleagues overlook the power of—and need for—methodicality. Teams typically waste inordinate time and effort inventing ways to align their purpose, repeatedly struggling with challenges that a well-established routine could readily address.

Overcoming the “Boring” Perception

Let’s address the elephant in the room: to many in the tech world, the mere mention of routine elicits stifled yawns or outright resistance. There’s a prevailing notion that methodical approaches stifle creativity and innovation—that they’re the antithesis of the dynamic, fast-paced nature of technology work.

This perception, whilst understandable, misses the deeper value of structured approaches. Being methodical isn’t about rigidity—it’s about creating thoughtful frameworks that guide actions whilst remaining adaptable to new information and changing circumstances.

Learning from Existing Frameworks

Several established frameworks have emerged to bring structure to collaborative work. One such approach is Javelin, a deliberate method we developed during my time at Familiar for approaching collaborative endeavours with intention.

At its core, the Javelin approach involves:

  • Choosing a name for easy reference to “this thing which we have come together to create/build/grow”
  • Discussing various perspectives regarding common purpose, leading to a Statement of Purpose
  • Listing key stakeholders and their respective needs (what they say they need, not what we’d like them to need)
  • Creating shared understanding about how ambiguities will be resolved during development

The approach aims to address inherent risks in collaborative endeavours, including the the enormous and oh-so-common risk of spending precious time and effort building the wrong things. It seeks to establish the minimum amount of structure needed to serve a joint endeavour effectively.

Along with other systems like Scrum and Kanban that have gained prominence in software development, these frameworks share underlying principles of routine, structure, and disciplined approach that can be valuable across all domains. Personal Kanban, for instance, demonstrates how methodical approaches can be adapted for individual use, proving that structured routines aren’t just for large-scale operations.

Note: For those interested in exploring Javelin in greater depth, full details can be found in Appendix A of my book “Quintessence“.

The Core Elements of Methodical Thinking

At its heart, methodical thinking encompasses several key principles:

  1. Intentionality – Making conscious choices rather than acting on impulse
  2. Systematic approach – Breaking complex messes into manageable artefacts
  3. Consistency – Applying the same level of care to each component
  4. Reflection a.k.a. retrospection – Regularly evaluating progress and adjusting as needed

The True Purpose: Enhanced Alignment

What frameworks like Javelin fundamentally offer isn’t a set of repeatable practices—it’s a pathway to deeper group alignment. The primary value of being methodical lies in its ability to get teams genuinely aligned on what they’re trying to achieve together. When a group follows a shared methodical approach, they’re not just going through motions; they’re participating in a common language and framework for understanding their collective purpose.

The Benefits of Embracing Methodical Approaches

1. Cognitive Offloading

When we establish methodical routines, we free our minds from the burden of constant decision-making about the way the work might work. This mental energy can then be redirected towards solving actual problems rather than figuring out how to approach them. a.k.a. “constantly reinventing the wheel”.

2. Consistent Quality

A well-defined methodical approach creates a baseline for quality. When we know exactly how we’re going to tackle each type of task, we’re less likely to miss crucial steps or take shortcuts under pressure.

3. Improved Learning

Methodical approaches provide a framework for continuous learning. When we follow a consistent approach, it becomes easier to identify what works and what doesn’t, allowing for meaningful iterations and refinements.

4. Enhanced Group Understanding

Perhaps most crucially, methodical routines create a shared context within which teams can better understand their collective aims. This alignment leads to more effective collaboration and fewer misunderstandings about goals and priorities.

Implementing Methodical Approaches: A Practical Path

The key to successfully becoming more methodical lies in starting small. Rather than attempting to overhaul entire working practices overnight, begin with a single, well-defined artefact. This might be as simple as establishing a daily list of priorities for joint review, or a structured artefact for product kickoffs.

The Role of Flexibility

Understand that being methodical doesn’t mean rigidity. Effective methodical approaches are living frameworks that evolve based on experience and changing circumstances. The goal is to create a foundation that supports rather than constrains our work.

Moving Forward

The challenge for modern workers and teams is to recognise the value of methodical thinking without falling into the trap of bureaucracy. This requires a delicate balance between structure and flexibility, between established practices and innovation.

As we move forward in an increasingly complex work environment, perhaps it’s time to reconsider our relationship with being methodical. Rather than viewing it as a constraint, might we come to see it as a tool for liberation—freeing our minds to focus on the truly challenging aspects of our work whilst ensuring consistency and quality in our daily tasks? More importantly, it’s a powerful mechanism for achieving what every successful team needs—a clear, shared understanding of what they’re trying to accomplish together.

The next time you face a challenge, consider embracing the methodical path. You might find that taking the time and effort to consider method actually helps you move forward more effectively in the long run.

Why Genuine Listening Drains Your Brain

Genuinely listening—processing, understanding, and engaging with another’s words—requires significant mental resources. This cognitive investment is what I call the ‘cognitive load of listening well’.

The Science Behind Active Listening

Active listening involves multiple brain regions working simultaneously. Research shows that when we truly listen, our brain activates areas responsible for language processing, memory, emotional recognition, and empathy. This isn’t passive reception—it’s an intensely active mental process.

When we listen deeply, we’re not just hearing words; we’re:

  • Processing linguistic information
  • Reading non-verbal cues
  • Managing our own thoughts and reactions
  • Connecting new information to existing knowledge
  • Empathising with the speaker’s emotional state
  • Mirroring compassion

Each of these processes demands cognitive resources, creating a substantial mental workload.

The Fatigue Factor: Why We Talk More When We’re Tired

Have you noticed that when you’re exhausted, you tend to talk more and listen less? This common phenomenon has neurological roots. When fatigue sets in, the prefrontal cortex—responsible for executive functions like attention control and impulse regulation—becomes less efficient. The cognitive resources needed for deep listening become depleted.

In this tired state, several things happen:

  1. Our brain seeks the path of least resistance, and speaking (especially about ourselves) activates reward centres that require less effortful processing
  2. Our capacity for filtering thoughts decreases, leading to more verbose and sometimes less organised speech
  3. The energy-intensive task of maintaining focus on another person’s words becomes increasingly difficult
  4. Our working memory capacity diminishes, making it harder to hold and process what others are saying

The result is a shift towards more talking and less listening—precisely when meaningful connection might benefit us most.

The Three Levels of Listening Effort

We can think about listening as occurring on three cognitive levels:

Level 1: Surface Listening

Here, we catch the basic content but miss nuance. Our mind might wander to our own thoughts, our response, or external distractions. This requires minimal cognitive effort but yields minimal understanding and connection. When tired, we often default to this level.

Level 2: Content Listening

At this level, we focus on understanding the factual information being conveyed. We track the logical flow of ideas and retain key points. This demands moderate cognitive resources and results in informational comprehension.

Level 3: Deep Listening

This is where true connection happens. We engage not just with words but with the emotions, intentions, and unspoken meanings behind them. Also, implications, insights and consequences of the whole content. We temporarily set aside our own perspective to fully inhabit another’s. This requires substantial cognitive bandwidth but creates genuine understanding. Fatigue makes this level particularly challenging to maintain.

Why Deep Listening Is Cognitively Demanding

Several factors contribute to the mental effort of true listening:

Attention Management

Our brains are prediction machines, constantly jumping ahead to what might come next. Staying present with a speaker means repeatedly pulling our attention back from these distractions—a process that becomes exponentially harder when tired.

Emotional Regulation

When topics become charged or trigger our own emotions, we must regulate our reactions whilst still processing information—essentially running two cognitive processes simultaneously.

Perspective Shifting

Understanding someone else’s viewpoint often requires temporarily setting aside our own mental models and assumptions—a form of cognitive flexibility that demands energy and diminishes with fatigue.

Working Memory Limitations

As we listen, we must hold information in working memory whilst simultaneously processing new input. This creates a bottleneck that requires strategic mental resource allocation. Sleep deprivation directly impacts this capacity.

Strategies for Managing Listening’s Cognitive Load

Like any demanding cognitive task, we can develop practices to make deep listening more sustainable, even when tired:

Recognise your energy levels

Learn to identify when fatigue is affecting your listening ability, and either request a conversation postponement or explicitly manage expectations.

Prepare your mental space

Before important conversations, clear your mind of distractions and set an intention to be present.

Practice metacognitive awareness

Notice when your mind wanders and gently bring it back without self-judgement. When tired, this will happen more frequently.

Take listening breaks

During longer conversations, periodically summarise to consolidate understanding and give your mind some time to process.

Prioritise sleep and rest

Rather than pushing through important conversations when exhausted, recognise that quality listening may require the foundation of proper rest.

Conclusion

In a world that increasingly values output and expression, the quiet power of receptive listening invites greater recognition. The cognitive load of listening well is substantial, but so are its rewards. By understanding the mental demands of deep listening and developing practices to manage them—including recognising how fatigue shifts our communication balance towards talking rather than listening—we can become more effective listeners even when our energy reserves are low.

The next time you find yourself talking excessively and less focussed on others’ words, consider it might be your brain’s signal that you need rest. Sometimes the most supportive thing you can do is recognise when you lack the cognitive resources for deep listening and schedule important conversations for when you’re better equipped to fully engage.

Toxic Relationships with Ideas: When Our Thoughts Hold Us Hostage

What Makes a Relationship Toxic?

A toxic relationship is characterised by patterns that damage our wellbeing rather than enhance it. In human relationships, we recognise toxicity through control, manipulation, constant criticism, gaslighting, and emotional drain. The relationship ultimately diminishes rather than enriches us, creating patterns of distress that can be difficult to escape.

But what happens when this same dynamic exists between us and our ideas?

Beyond People: Our Relationship with Ideas

Relationships aren’t limited to connections between humans. We form profound relationships with concepts, beliefs, assumptions and ideas that shape our identity and worldview. These idea-relationships can be nurturing and growth-oriented—or surprisingly toxic.

Just as we can become entangled with harmful people, we can become trapped in destructive relationships with certain thoughts and beliefs. These relationships can manifest at both individual and collective levels.

The Relationship, Not the Idea Itself

Central to this post is that it’s rarely the idea itself that is inherently toxic—rather, it’s our relationship with it. Even powerful, controversial, or challenging ideas can be held in healthy ways. Conversely, seemingly benign ideas can become destructive when our relationship with them turns unhealthy.

For example, the idea that “exercise is beneficial” is generally constructive. However, when someone develops a rigid, all-consuming relationship with this concept—where any deviation from a strict exercise regimen triggers intense self-criticism—the relationship has become toxic. The problem isn’t the core idea but how we relate to it: with flexibility or rigidity, as a guide or as a tyrant.

What transforms a relationship with an idea from healthy to toxic is typically how we hold it: Do we maintain critical distance? Can we consider evidence that challenges it? Is our identity separate from the idea? Does it enhance or constrict our engagement with the world?

Signs of a Toxic Relationship with Ideas

For Individuals

When your relationship with an idea becomes toxic, you might notice:

  • The idea demands absolute loyalty, rejecting any challenges or modifications
  • You experience anxiety when the idea is questioned by others
  • The idea isolates you from people with different perspectives
  • You find yourself distorting evidence to maintain the idea
  • The idea prevents personal growth rather than facilitating it

Consider the perfectionist who clings to impossible standards. The relationship with this idea—”I must be flawless”—causes constant suffering, yet the person defends and protects it vigilantly.

For Organisations and Collective Psyches

Organisations and broader societies can develop toxic relationships with ideas too:

  • The idea becomes untouchable, beyond critique or revision
  • Resources are disproportionately allocated to defending the idea
  • The organisation or society rejects members who question the central idea
  • Decision-making becomes distorted to preserve the idea at all costs
  • Innovation stagnates as new perspectives are filtered through the dominant idea

Many once-innovative companies have collapsed after becoming trapped in toxic relationships with outdated business philosophies. The organisation’s identity becomes so intertwined with certain ideas that challenging them feels like an existential threat.

Why We Cling to Toxic Ideas

We form attachments to toxic ideas for various reasons:

  • The idea provides a sense of certainty in an uncertain world
  • It simplifies complexity into manageable narratives
  • It connects us to certain social groups or identities
  • It offers the comfort of “knowing” rather than the discomfort of questioning
  • The belief that changing one’s mind is reprehensible or disloyal is itself a toxic idea that traps us

This last point creates a particularly vicious cycle. When we’ve internalised the notion that changing our mind signals weakness, inconsistency, or failure, we become locked in defensive patterns that preserve harmful ideas. Our intellectual flexibility atrophies as we build ever more elaborate defences around ideas that may be damaging us.

These attachments can make breaking up with toxic ideas as painful as ending human relationships.

The Power of Epistemic Humility

At the heart of healthier relationships with ideas lies the concept of epistemic humility—the intellectual virtue of recognising the limitations of our knowledge. Epistemic humility acknowledges that what we know is always incomplete, potentially flawed, and subject to revision.

Unlike intellectual arrogance (where we overestimate our understanding) or complete relativism (where all ideas are treated as equally valid), epistemic humility represents a balanced approach that values knowledge while remaining aware of its boundaries.

A person or organisation practising epistemic humility might say, “Based on our current understanding, this approach seems best, but we recognise we could be mistaken and welcome perspectives that might improve our thinking.” This stance fundamentally changes our relationship with ideas from possession to stewardship.

The absence of epistemic humility often marks toxic relationships with ideas. When we believe our understanding is complete and beyond revision, we’ve created the perfect conditions for a toxic attachment to form.

Breaking Free: Building Healthier Relationships with Ideas

Developing healthier relationships with ideas requires:

  1. Creating distance between your identity and your ideas
  2. Practising cognitive flexibility—holding ideas lightly enough to revise them
  3. Cultivating relationships with people who think differently
  4. Regularly examining whether your ideas serve your growth or restrict it
  5. Appreciating that good ideas evolve rather than remain static

The healthiest thinkers and organisations don’t fall in love with their ideas—they fall in love with the process of refining and/or replacing them.

Argyris on Defensive Reasoning

Harvard professor Chris Argyris addressed this challenge in his seminal 1991 Harvard Business Review article “Teaching Smart People How to Learn.” Argyris observed that highly educated professionals often struggle the most with learning from failure and changing their minds. Despite their intelligence—or perhaps because of it—they develop what he called “defensive reasoning” patterns.

Argyris found that when their deeply-held ideas are challenged, these professionals often respond with defensiveness rather than curiosity. They become trapped in what he termed “single-loop learning” (addressing immediate problems) while avoiding “double-loop learning” (questioning underlying assumptions and beliefs).

This work highlights a paradox: those who have built successful careers on their intellectual capabilities often have the most toxic relationships with their ideas. Their very success reinforces attachment to existing mental models and creates what Argyris called a “doom loop”—the better they are at defending their ideas, the worse they become at learning.

Argyris’s research offers a powerful lens for understanding how intellectually capable individuals and organisations can develop toxic relationships with ideas precisely because of their skill at defending those ideas from challenge or revision.

Collective Healing

At a societal level, healing toxic relationships with ideas requires:

  • Creating spaces for dialogue without identity-threatening criticism
  • Developing shared values around epistemic humility
  • Building structures that encourage and reward idea evolution rather than idea protection
  • Recognising when cultural narratives have become harmful rather than helpful

When communities embrace epistemic humility collectively, they create environments where ideas can be discussed, challenged, and refined without triggering defensive reactions. This shift transforms potentially toxic idea relationships into partnerships that drive growth and innovation.

Conclusion

Our relationships with ideas shape our individual lives and collective futures as profoundly as our relationships with people. By recognising when these relationships become toxic, we can begin the challenging and—in the Zen sense—enlightening process of transformation.

The most liberating thought might be that we are not our ideas. We are the thinkers who can choose which ideas deserve our continued relationship and which need to be let go so that new, more life-giving thoughts can emerge.

By cultivating epistemic humility—both individually and collectively—we create the conditions for healthier relationships with the ideas that shape our world.

When Big Ideas Meet Real Change: Weinberg’s 10% Rule vs Kuhn’s Paradigm Shifts

A practical guide for those who keep banging their heads against organisational walls

It’s a tale as old as business itself. Someone has a brilliant idea that could transform everything, only to watch it crash and burn upon contact with reality. Why do revolutionary concepts so often get relegated to the “nice idea, but…” dustbin?

The answer lies in the fascinating tension between two influential thinkers: Gerald Weinberg and Thomas Kuhn. Understanding their perspectives might just save your next big initiative from an untimely death.

The 10% Solution: Weinberg’s Wisdom

Management consultant Gerald Weinberg offered this deceptively simple advice:

Never promise more than a 10% improvement with any change initiative.

Why such modest ambitions? Because Weinberg understood that organisations are psychological ecosystems, not rational structures. Promise a 50% improvement and you’ll trigger what amounts to an organisational immune response—resistance, scepticism, fear, and ultimately, rejection.

A 10% change feels kinda manageable. It doesn’t threaten anyone’s competence. It sounds credible. Most importantly, it sidesteps the body’s natural defences against foreign invaders—in this case, your revolutionary idea.

The Revolution Will Not Be Implemented: Kuhn’s Paradigm Shifts

Meanwhile, philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn described how progress actually happens. Rather than steady, incremental improvements, he observed that knowledge tends to evolve through periods of “normal science” punctuated by revolutionary “paradigm shifts” when existing frameworks collapse under the weight of accumulated anomalies.

In other words, sometimes 10% won’t cut it. Sometimes you need wholesale transformation.

The Management Conundrum

Herein lies our problem. Your organisation might genuinely need a Kuhnian paradigm shift—a fundamental rethinking of how business is done. But attempt to implement it as such, and Weinberg’s psychological barriers will almost certainly ensure its failure.

So what’s a forward-thinking fellow to do?

The Practical Synthesis: Revolutionary Ideas, Evolutionary Implementation

The solution isn’t choosing between Weinberg and Kuhn—it’s understanding that they’re addressing different aspects of change:

  1. Frame the vision boldly, implement it modestly. Your North Star might be revolutionary, but your first steps should be manageable. Break your paradigm shift into a series of 10% improvements.
  2. Build credibility through small wins. Each successful 10% improvement builds trust for the next one. After delivering several incremental changes, you’ll find more receptiveness to bigger steps.
  3. Understand that resistance isn’t about your idea’s merit. It’s about human psychology. Even the most brilliant concept will fail if it triggers too much organisational anxiety.
  4. Use crisis as opportunity. Kuhn noted that paradigm shifts often happen when existing models face crisis. When systems are already breaking, resistance to bigger changes naturally diminishes.
  5. Focus on needs, not strategies. People resist new answers but readily acknowledge existing problems. Start by building consensus around the needs before proposing your revolutionary solution strategy.

The Compound Effect

Remember that several 10% improvements compound. Three successive 10% improvements yield a 33% gain, not 30%. Five such improvements yield a 61% improvement. Given enough iterations, even modest steps can lead to revolutionary outcomes.

Gilb’s Mountain Goat: The Art of Scaling Heights

Tom Gilb, a pioneer in software engineering and systems thinking, offers us another powerful metaphor that complements both Weinberg and Kuhn: the Mountain Goat Principle.

Gilb observed that mountain goats don’t bound up impossible cliffs in dramatic leaps. Instead, they make their way up seemingly impassable terrain through a series of small, carefully tested steps—each one secure before the next is attempted.

Applied to organisational change, the Mountain Goat Principle suggests:

  • Test each “foothold” before fully committing weight to it
  • Deliver measurable value at each step, however small
  • Be willing to backtrack quickly when a path proves unstable
  • Use feedback from each step to determine the next one
  • Focus on the destination (the mountain top), but be flexible about the path

What’s particularly brilliant about Gilb’s approach is how it combines ambitious vision with pragmatic execution. Mountain goats reach dizzying heights that other animals cannot—not despite their cautious, incremental approach, but because of it.

When implementing your next transformative idea, picture yourself not as a revolutionary storming the barricades, but as a sure-footed mountain goat, methodically conquering terrain that others find impassable.

How Organisational Psychotherapy Supports Incremental Implementation

An emerging approach that aligns beautifully with this synthesis is organisational psychotherapy. Just as individual therapy helps people work through resistance to personal change, organisational psychotherapy addresses the collective psychological barriers that block institutional progress.

Organisational psychotherapists understand that companies, like people, develop defence mechanisms, trauma responses, and cognitive biases. They help organisations:

  • Identify unconscious resistance to change before it derails initiatives
  • Create social dynamics that makes improvements feel less threatening
  • Process organisational “grief” over letting go of familiar assumptions, beliefs and practices
  • Develop healthier responses to uncertainty and ambiguity
  • Build collective resilience that makes each subsequent change easier

By addressing the emotional undercurrents of change, organisational psychotherapy creates fertile ground for Weinberg’s incremental approach to take root. It acknowledges that even the most rational-seeming organisations are fundamentally human systems, governed much more by feeling than by logic.

When your revolutionary idea faces resistance, the problem isn’t usually the idea itself—it’s the unaddressed psychological context into which you’re introducing it.

The Bottom Line

The next time you have a truly revolutionary idea, resist the urge to present it as such. Instead, ask yourself:

“What’s the first 10% slice of this vision that I can successfully implement?”

You might discover that the path to paradigm shifts is paved with many small steps—each one building the credibility and safety needed for the next. Sometimes, to change everything, you must begin by changing just a little.

And isn’t that a paradigm shift in itself?

This post was inspired by Weinberg’s “The Secrets of Consulting” and Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”—both essential reading for anyone trying to make meaningful change in complex organisations.

From Operational Value Streams to Prod•gnosis

Connecting Allen Ward and Bob Marshall’s Product Development Philosophies

A thoughtful exploration of two complementary approaches to transforming product development

Introduction

In the world of product development theory, two complementary approaches stand out for their innovative thinking about how organisations might tackle the creation of new products: Dr Allen Ward’s approach, born of many years researching the Toyota approach, and my own approach, which I’ve named Prod•gnosis

While Dr. Ward’s work on operational value streams emerged from his extensive study of Toyota’s product development system, Prod•gnosis builds upon and extends his ideas into a comprehensive framework focused on organisational transformation for better product development, reduced costs, and more appealing products.

This post explores the connections between these two approaches and how, together, they offer a powerful lens for fundamentally rethinking product development.

The Foundation: Allen Ward’s Operational Value Streams

Allen Ward’s core insight, which has become a cornerstone of lean product development e.g. TPDS, is elegantly simple yet profound:

“The aim of development is, in fact, the creation of profitable operational value streams.”

An operational value stream (OVS) represents the set of steps that deliver a product or service directly to the customer (and others). This includes activities like manufacturing a product, fulfilling an order, providing a loan, or delivering a professional service.

Ward’s work, drawing from his decade of direct research at Toyota, showed that effective product development isn’t just about designing isolated products. Rather, it’s about designing the entire system through which those products will be manufactured, shipped, sold, and serviced. This holistic approach explains much of Toyota’s success in bringing new products to market quickly and profitably.

Ward emphasised that creating profitable operational value streams requires:

  1. A “whole product” approach that involves every area of the business
  2. Knowledge creation as the central activity of product development
  3. The use of tools like trade-off curves for decision-making and teaching
  4. Systematic waste elimination throughout the development process

Prod•gnosis: Building on Ward’s Foundation

I’m delighted to acknowledge my intellectual debt to Dr. Ward. In my writings on Prod•gnosis, I directly reference Dr. Ward’s influence, adopting his view of “business as a collection of operational value streams.”

I define Prod•gnosis (a portmanteau of “Product”, and “Gnosis” meaning knowledge) as a specific approach to product development that places the creation of operational value streams at its centre. However, Prod•gnosis extends Dr. Ward’s thinking in several notable ways:

The Product Development Value Stream (PDVS)

Prod•gnosis introduces the concept of a dedicated “Product Development Value Stream” (PDVS) as a distinct organisational capability responsible for creating and instantiating operational value streams. I previously wrote:

“I suggest the most effective place for software development is in the ‘Product Development Value Stream’ (PDVS for short) – that part of the organisation which is responsible for creating each and every operational value stream.”

This represents a significant organisational shift from traditional department-based structures.

Challenging IT’s Role in Product Development

Prod•gnosis particularly questions the conventional role of IT departments in product development. Prod•gnosis argues that software development does not belong in IT departments but instead is much more effective when situated within the Product Development Value Stream:

“If we accept that the IT department is poorly suited to play the central role in a Prod•gnosis-oriented organisation, and that it is ill-suited to house or oversee software development (for a number of reasons), then where should software development ‘sit’ in an organisation?”

The answer is clear: within the PDVS, where it can directly contribute to creating operational value streams.

Incremental Implementation

Prod•gnosis proposes a “Lean Startup-like approach” to implementing operational value streams:

“I’m thinking more in terms of a Lean Startup-like approach – instantiating version 0.1 of the operational value stream as early as possible, conducting experiments with its operation in delivering an MVP (even before making its 1.0 product line available to buying customers), and through e.g. kaizen by either the product development or – the few, early – operational value stream folks (or both in collaboration), incrementally modifying, augmenting and elaborating it until the point of the 1.0 launch, and beyond.”

This represents a pragmatic approach to putting Dr. Ward’s principles into practice.

Key Points of Alignment

Despite their different emphases, Ward and Prod•gnosis’ approaches share significant philosophical alignment:

1. Value Stream-Centric View

Both view business fundamentally as a series of operational value streams, with product development focused on creating and improving these streams rather than just designing isolated products.

2. Whole Product Approach

Both emphasise the importance of involving all aspects of a business in product development. Prod•gnosis references Toyota’s “Big Rooms” (Obeya), which Ward studied extensively, as an example of effective cross-functional collaboration.

3. Systems Thinking

Both reject piecemeal improvements and advocate for fundamental shifts in organisational perspective. As Ward wrote and Prod•gnosis quotes: “Change will occur when the majority of people in the organisation have learned to see things in a new way.”

And see also: Organisational Psychotherapy as a means to help organisations see things in a new way.

4. Flow Focus

Both emphasise the importance of flow in product development, with Prod•gnosis particularly focused on aspects like flow rate, lead time, cycle time, and process cycle efficiency – both of the PVDS and the OVSs.

Practical Applications of the Combined Approach

Organisations seeking to apply these ideas might consider:

  1. Creating a dedicated Product Development Value Stream responsible for designing and implementing operational value streams (a.k.a. new products)
  2. Removing software development from IT departments and placing it within the PDVS
  3. Adopting a “whole product” approach that brings together all business functions in the service of product development
  4. Implementing early versions of operational value streams viw the PVDS, and then iteratively improving them
  5. Measuring and optimising flow through the product development process

Getting There: Transitioning to Prod•gnosis

Moving from conventional product development approaches to a Prod•gnosis model represents a significant organisational transformation. As Prod•gnosis acknowledges,

“getting there from here is the real challenge”

The transition requires more than just structural or process changes—it demands a fundamental shift in collective mindset.

The Challenge of Organisational Transformation

The Lean literature is replete with stories of organisations failing to move from vertical silos to horizontal value streams. Prod•gnosis presents additional challenges by proposing to remove software development from IT departments and create an entirely new organisational capability (the PDVS).

As Ward wisely noted and Prod•gnosis quotes:

“Change will occur when the majority of people in the organisation have learned to see things in a new way.”

This insight highlights that sustainable transformation depends on shifting collective beliefs rather than merely implementing new processes.

Organisational Psychotherapy as a Path Forward

In Organisational Psychotherapy I propose as a methodical approach to shifting collective assumptions and beliefs. As an Organisational Psychotherapist, I apply psychotherapy techniques not just to individuals but to entire organisations.

OP recognises that organisations, like individuals, operate based on deep-seated assumptions and beliefs—i.e. “memeplexes” These collective mental models determine how an organisation functions and often unconsciously resist change. And see my book “Hearts over Diamonds” (Marshall, 2018) for more in-depth discusion of memeplexes.

Organisational Psychotherapy works by:

  1. Helping organisations become aware of their current collective beliefs (surfacing)
  2. Examining how these beliefs serve or hinder effectiveness (reflecting)
  3. Supporting the organisation in exploring new, more productive mental models
  4. Facilitating the adoption of these new models

For organisations seeking to move toward Prod•gnosis, this might involve addressing fundamental beliefs about:

  • The nature and purpose of product development
  • The relationship between software development and IT
  • The definition of “whole product”
  • The organisation’s relationship with customers and all the Folks That Matter™
  • How value flows through the organisation

As Prod•gnosis emphasises, this isn’t a quick fix. The transformation to Prod•gnosis represents a significant evolution in how organisations think about and structure product development. The journey requires patience, persistence, and a willingness to examine and change foundational assumptions about how product development might work significantly better.

Conclusion

The synthesis of Allen Ward’s operational value stream concept and Prod•gnosis offers a powerful framework for rethinking product development. By viewing product development as the creation of complete operational value streams and establishing organisational structures that support this perspective, organisations can potentially achieve the kind of rapid, profitable product development that Toyota has demonstrated.

As more organisations struggle with digital transformation and the ever-increasing importance of software in product development, these two complementary approaches may provide a valuable roadmap for fundamentally rethinking how products are developed and brought to market.


What are your thoughts on the operational value stream approach to product development? Have you seen examples of it in practice? I’d love for you to share your experiences in the comments below.

Further Reading

For those interested in exploring these concepts further, the following resources might provide some useful insights:

Ward, A. C. (2007). Lean product and process development. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.

Sobek, D. K., & Ward, A. C. (2014). Lean product and process development (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.

Lean Enterprise Institute. (2021). Lean product and process development: Introduction. https://www.lean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/lean-product-and-process-development-introduction.pdf

Marshall, B. (2012, August 4). Prod•gnosis in a nutshell. Think Different. https://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/prodgnosis-in-a-nutshell/

Marshall, B. (2013, February 12). Product development flow. Think Different. https://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/product-development-flow/

Kennedy, M. N. (2003). Product development for the lean enterprise: Why Toyota’s system is four times more productive and how you can implement it. Richmond, VA: Oaklea Press.

Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Redondo Beach, CA: Celeritas Publishing.

Marshall, R.W. (2018). Hearts over diamonds: Serving business and society through organisational psychotherapy. Falling Blossoms

Cost-Effective Microservices for Startups: A Modern Approach

A slight departure from my usual topics, but after several conversations with early-stage founders, I felt compelled to address a common misconception about microservices architecture. Far from being an expensive luxury only for tech giants, modern tooling has made this approach increasingly accessible and potentially cost-effective for startups.

Introduction

For years, conventional wisdom has warned startups away from microservices due to operational complexity and associated costs. While this advice was sound in the early days of distributed architectures, the landscape has evolved dramatically. Today’s cloud-native ecosystem offers startups powerful, consumption-based tools that can make microservices more economical than traditional monoliths under the right circumstances.

AI has changed the equation of microservices significantly. Where teams once needed deep expertise in distributed systems to implement resilient patterns, AI-assisted development tools can now generate sophisticated code for handling network failures, circuit breakers, and other microservice communication challenges. This democratisation of distributed systems knowledge has reduced one of the most significant barriers to entry for smaller teams considering microservice architectures.

This post explores practical strategies for implementing microservices in a startup environment whilst keeping costs lower than conventional monolithic approaches.

Serverless-First Architecture

Perhaps the most transformative approach for cost-effective microservices is adopting a serverless-first mentality. Rather than provisioning always-on servers that accumulate costs regardless of usage, serverless functions (AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, Google Cloud Functions) allow you to pay precisely for the computing resources you consume.

For startups with variable traffic patterns or distinct peak usage times for different services, this model can significantly reduce infrastructure costs—potentially by 40-80% compared to running persistent servers required for a monolith, though your mileage may vary significantly based on workload patterns. It’s worth noting that for high-volume, consistent workloads, reserved instances might actually be more cost-effective than serverless options.

Your authentication service might see heavy usage during morning logins, while reporting features spike in the evening – serverless architectures scale each independently.

// Example AWS Lambda function handling user authentication
exports.handler = async (event) => {
    // Process authentication request
    // Only charged when users are actually logging in
};

Containerised Scaling Efficiency

When serverless isn’t suitable for certain components, modern container orchestration provides another avenue for cost efficiency. Managed Kubernetes services such as EKS Fargate, GKE Autopilot, or Azure AKS offer fine-grained resource allocation.

Unlike monoliths where you must scale the entire application to handle load in a single component, containerised microservices allow precise scaling of only the resources under pressure. This prevents the common scenario where a resource-intensive report generation feature forces you to provision larger servers for your entire application.

Service Mesh Lite

One historical cost of microservices was the substantial engineering effort required to implement resilience patterns like circuit breakers, retries, and service discovery. Modern lightweight service meshes have dramatically reduced this burden.

Many startups might not need a full service mesh immediately. Built-in service discovery in managed Kubernetes or simpler options like AWS App Mesh can provide an excellent starting point. For those requiring more advanced features, tools like Linkerd and Consul Connect offer lightweight alternatives to complex service mesh implementations.

When you do need features like automatic retries, a proper service mesh configuration might look like this:

# Example Linkerd ServiceProfile configuration for retries
apiVersion: linkerd.io/v1alpha2
kind: ServiceProfile
metadata:
  name: payment-service.default.svc.cluster.local
  namespace: default
spec:
  routes:
  - name: POST /api/payments
    condition:
      method: POST
      pathRegex: /api/payments
    retryPolicy:
      retryOn: ["5xx"]
      numRetries: 3
      perTryTimeout: "100ms"

Managed Data Services

Database costs often dominate infrastructure spending. Microservices enable significant optimisation by matching each service’s data store to its specific needs rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach.

Leveraging purpose-specific managed databases (DynamoDB, MongoDB Atlas, CockroachDB, etc.) that scale independently and charge based on actual usage can be substantially more cost-effective than provisioning a single large relational database. Many services may only require simple key-value storage at a fraction of the cost of a traditional RDBMS.

When considering distributed SQL options like CockroachDB, carefully evaluate licensing costs against your specific needs—while technically excellent, the enterprise features can impact the cost-effectiveness equation for very small startups. Open-source alternatives or managed services with free tiers may be more suitable in early stages.

Event-Driven Communication

Asynchronous communication patterns enable further cost optimisation. By implementing event-driven architectures using managed message brokers like AWS EventBridge, Google Pub/Sub, or Azure Event Grid, services can operate independently without waiting for synchronous responses.

This reduces tight coupling and allows services to scale based on their specific workloads rather than the demands of the overall system. It also enables more resilient operations, as temporary service outages don’t necessarily block the entire system.

// Instead of direct API calls, publish events
await eventBridge.putEvents({
    Entries: [{
        Source: 'order-service',
        DetailType: 'OrderCreated',
        Detail: JSON.stringify({ orderId: '12345', total: 99.99 })
    }]
});

Developer Productivity Tools

Modern development environments with AI-assisted coding can dramatically accelerate the creation of new microservices. Tools like GitHub Copilot or similar AI coding assistants help developers implement common patterns consistently and quickly.

Additionally, scaffolding tools for generating service templates ensure teams don’t reinvent the wheel for each new service. This reduces the time-cost that historically made microservices development more expensive than monolithic approaches.

Platform-as-a-Service Options

For startups wanting microservice benefits without infrastructure complexity, modern PaaS offerings provide an excellent middle ground. Platforms like Railway and Render have gained significant traction for new projects, offering developer-friendly experiences with competitive pricing models. Heroku remains an option with its mature ecosystem, though its positioning has evolved somewhat since its Salesforce acquisition.

These platforms bring deployment simplicity nearly on par with monoliths while maintaining the benefits of service isolation. Many offer generous free tiers that make experimentation with microservices almost risk-free.

When This Approach Makes Sense

Cost-effective microservices aren’t suitable for every startup. This approach works best when:

  1. Your application has components with significantly different scaling needs
  2. You have distinct traffic patterns across different features
  3. You need to optimise for specific non-functional requirements in different areas
  4. Your team can leverage cloud-native managed services effectively
  5. You value the ability to evolve and scale components independently

Conclusion

The microservices landscape has evolved dramatically from the days when it was primarily the domain of large tech companies with substantial engineering resources. Modern cloud infrastructure, serverless computing, and managed services have democratised access to these architectures.

For startups willing to embrace cloud-native development patterns, microservices can now be implemented in ways that are not only more flexible than monoliths but potentially more cost-effective as well. By focusing on consumption-based resources, right-sized data solutions, and modern development tooling, startups can gain the benefits of microservices without the historical cost penalties.

Remember that architectural decisions should always align with your specific business needs—but don’t automatically dismiss microservices on cost grounds without considering these modern approaches to implementation. Start small, perhaps with a modular monolith, and extract services strategically as your needs evolve and specific components require independent scaling.

What has your experience been with microservices in startup environments? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

More Dukkha

A follow-up exploration of suffering and its cessation in organisational life

In a previous post, I explored the Buddhist concept of dukkha and how it manifests in organisations. Today, I’d like to delve deeper into this rich concept and its implications for our working lives.

In this exploration, I’ll draw connections between Buddhist wisdom on dukkha and the practical Folks Matter™ framework I’ve beeing posting about recently. A framework which offers 14 principles for addressing organisational suffering while creating more humane workplaces.

The Pervasiveness of Organisational Dukkha

The Buddha’s teachings on dukkha weren’t meant to depress us but to illuminate our condition so we might find liberation. Similarly, recognising organisational dukkha isn’t about wallowing in corporate misery, but about seeing clearly what prevents our workplaces from flourishing.

The Folks Matter™ framework recognises this pervasive nature of organisational suffering and responds with 14 comprehensive principles designed to address different manifestations of workplace dukkha.

The Subtler Forms of Workplace Dukkha

Beyond the three categories I previously outlined, organisational dukkha manifests in ways we often fail to recognise:

  1. The dukkha of constant optimisation – The relentless drive to improve, optimise, and maximise creates a treadmill of striving where nothing is ever “enough.” This connects directly to the Folks Matter™ principle of Time Value Awareness, which encourages a more mindful relationship with time beyond mere optimisation.
  2. The dukkha of comparison – Organisations constantly measuring themselves against competitors or benchmarks create suffering through perpetual dissatisfaction with present circumstances. The Folks Matter™ principle of Focus Management addresses this by helping organisations deliberately choose which comparisons matter rather than chasing every metric.
  3. The dukkha of identity – When organisations cling to outdated self-conceptions (“we’re an X company, not a Y company”), they resist necessary evolution. This reflects the challenge addressed by the Folks Matter™ principle of Collective Mindset Awareness, which helps organisations understand and evolve their underlying collective assumptions and beliefs, including their (mostly subconscious) self-image.

From Recognition to Release

Recognising dukkha in our organisations is merely the first step. The Buddha taught that fully knowing dukkha enables us to release craving – the root cause of suffering. In organisational terms, this craving takes many forms:

  • Craving for certainty in fundamentally uncertain markets
  • Craving for control in complex, emergent systems
  • Craving for permanence in a business environment defined by change
  • Craving for approval, status, and competitive dominance

The Folks Matter™ framework addresses these organisational cravings through principles like Change Facilitation Capability and Systems Thinking Integration, which help organisations see interconnections and manage transitions with greater awareness.

When organisations can recognise these cravings as sources of suffering rather than as essential drivers, they create space for different approaches to emerge.

Cultivating the Organisational Middle Path

Just as the Buddha’s Eightfold Path offers a middle way between extremes, the 14 principles of the Folks Matter™ framework provide a structured approach to reducing workplace suffering:

  • Right Understanding: Seeing the organisation as it truly is, not as we wish it to be
  • Right Intention: Aligning organisational purpose with genuine human needs
  • Right Speech: Fostering honest, compassionate communication
  • Right Action: Making decisions that acknowledge interconnection and impermanence
  • Right Livelihood: Creating sustainable business models that don’t cause harm
  • Right Effort: Balancing striving with acceptance
  • Right Mindfulness: Staying present to organisational realities without aversion
  • Right Concentration: Focusing collective attention on what truly matters

Beyond Corporate Buddhism

This isn’t about turning corporations into Buddhist monasteries. Rather, it’s about recognising that the Buddha’s insights into human suffering apply wherever humans gather – including in our workplaces.

As the quote from my previous post reminds us: “What ordinary folk call happiness, the enlightened ones call dukkha.” The quarterly profits, market share gains, and competitive victories that organisations chase are themselves forms of dukkha when they become objects of attachment.

The Folks Matter™ principle of Joy-Centred Workplace Culture demonstrates how this wisdom can be practically applied, creating environments “filled with camaraderie, human energy, creativity, and productivity” rather than fear and ambiguity.

True organisational well-being might look quite different from conventional notions of corporate success. It might prioritise adaptability over stability, meaningful work over maximised productivity, and collaborative networks over hierarchical control.

Organisational Wisdom and Buddhist Insight

In exploring the intersection of dukkha and organisational life, I’ll mention some f my books that approach similar territory through different lenses. My organisational psychotherapy trilogy offers particularly relevant insights for those seeking to apply mindfulness principles to workplace challenges.

Hearts over Diamonds” introduces organisational psychotherapy (OP) as a practice that prioritises relationships over traditional management approaches—much as Buddhist practice prioritises right relationship with experience over attempts to control it. “Memeology” provides practical methods for surfacing collective assumptions and beliefs in organisations, similar to how Buddhist practice encourages awareness of the mental formations that create dukkha. Finally, “Quintessence” encourages organisations to find their own path to effectiveness rather than following prescribed methods, reflecting the Buddha’s emphasis on direct experience rather than dogma.

These works complement our exploration of organisational dukkha by offering practical approaches to the very suffering we’ve identified here. While they don’t explicitly use Buddhist terminology, they share a fundamental recognition: that organisational life improves when we become aware of our collective patterns, release unhelpful attachments, and cultivate more skilful ways of working together.

A Practice, Not a Destination

The cessation of dukkha isn’t something we achieve once and for all. It’s a continuous practice of seeing clearly, letting go, and responding skilfully. Organisations, like individuals, will always encounter suffering. The question is whether they have developed the capacity to work with it wisely.

In your own organisational life, where do you see dukkha manifesting? And more importantly, what would it mean to fully know it, to let go of the craving that sustains it, and to experience even brief moments of its cessation?

Perhaps in asking these questions, we begin to cultivate the organisational eightfold path that leads beyond suffering.

— Bob

The Ultimate “Folks That Matter™” Organisation

As detailed in my work with “Quintessence,” the ideal people-oriented organisation operates according to these key memes or collective beliefs:

Core Philosophy

  • Needs-Centred: The organisation defines success as meeting all the needs of all the Folks That Matter™, not just shareholders or executives.
  • Nonviolence: Rejects fear, obligation, guilt and shame (FOGS) as motivators, embracing joy, voluntary action, and attending to what’s alive in people.
  • Relationship-Focused: Believes “relationships between people are our greatest asset”, not the people themselves.
  • Meaning-Driven: Embraces Viktor Frankl’s concept that humans fundamentally seek meaning rather than pleasure or power. Work becomes a vehicle for discovering purpose and significance beyond mere productivity. (Note: This was the root ethos at Familiar).

Structure & Management

  • Self-Organisation: Structures are fluid and adaptive with distributed decision-making rather than hierarchy.
  • No Traditional Management: Managers have relinquished control in favour of enablement, resourcing and support.
  • Value Streams Not Silos: Organises horizontally around value flow rather than vertical departmental silos.

Work Approach

  • Play Not Work: “Do nothing that isn’t play” – treats knowledge work as serious collaborative play Cf. Schrage rather than labour.
  • Workers Own the Way Work Works: Those doing the work decide how it should be done, not managers.
  • Transparency: Embraces radical transparency in all operations, including salaries, financials, and decision-making.
  • Purpose Through Service: Creates conditions where people find meaning through serving others and contributing to something larger than themselves.

Innovation & Improvement

  • Continuous Change: Sees change as a constant companion to be embraced, not feared.
  • In-Band Improvement: Embeds improvement into daily business-as-usual rather than through special initiatives.
  • Flow Over Waste Reduction: Seeks economies of flow rather than economies of scale.

Quality & Risk

  • Zero Defects Philosophy: Believes “doing it right first time, every time” is possible and preferable to quality through inspection.
  • Risk is Opportunity: Sees risks as signals of opportunity, embracing disciplined risk-taking.
  • Evidence-Based Decisions: Makes decisions based on evidence, gathered by those directly involved.

People & Collaboration

  • Theory Y Beliefs: Trusts that people naturally want to do good work and will excel when liberated to exercise intrinsic motivation.
  • Psychological Safety: Creates an environment where questioning and dissent are welcomed, not punished.
  • Skilled Dialogue: Values the ability to have difficult conversations with candour and respect.
  • Significance Through Connection: Recognises that substantive relationships at work fulfil a core human need for belonging and purpose.

Purpose & Time

  • Multiple Time Horizons: Balances short, medium, and long-term thinking rather than focusing solely on quarterly results.
  • Shared Purpose: Collectively develops and evolves its purpose, involving all stakeholders.
  • Cadence Not Urgency: Works at a sustainable rhythm rather than constant urgency.
  • Transcendent Purpose: Connects daily work to a larger mission that provides significance and direction, in line with Frankl’s principle that fulfilment comes from dedicating oneself to a cause greater than oneself.

The quintessential organisation fundamentally believes that business effectiveness and human flourishing arise from creating an environment where people can discover meaning and purpose through worthwhile work, positive relationships, and resilience in the face of challenges—aligning closely with Frankl’s logotherapy principles that emphasise purpose, connection, and the ability to find meaning even in difficult circumstances.

Further Reading

Marshall, R. W. (2018). Hearts over diamonds: Serving business and society through organisational psychotherapy. Falling Blossoms. https://leanpub.com/heartsoverdiamonds

The foundational text on Organisational Psychotherapy, “Hearts over Diamonds” introduces the concept of bringing psychotherapy techniques into organisational settings. This book argues that interpersonal relationships are at the heart of successful business, and presents a framework for transformational change that prioritises human connections over traditional management approaches. This book aims to support organisations seeking to become more humane, people-oriented, and productive.

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

A self-help guide for organisations seeking to understand their culture at a deeper level. “Memeology” provides practical techniques for surfacing and examining collective assumptions and beliefs (or “memes”) that often unconsciously drive organisational behaviour. The book offers methodical approaches for unearthing these cultural patterns, helping organisations recognise how their unexamined beliefs may be limiting their effectiveness and preventing meaningful change.

Marshall, R. W. (2022). Quintessence: An acme for highly effective software development organisations. Falling Blossoms. https://leanpub.com/quintessence

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.

Schrage, M. (2008). Serious play: How the world’s best companies simulate to innovate. Harvard Business School Press.