Hootenanny #CUEBOOM

I was privileged to be able to attend the CUE Hootenanny at the San Diego Maritime Museum with 50 incredibly dedicated and awesome educators.  Jon Corippo, the Executive Director of CUE had mentioned that at the end of the day they would be giving away “golden” clickers to the best #CUEBOOM.  While I did not get a chance to participate in the #CUEBOOM, earlier in the week I had a flash of inspiration and thirty minutes later this spoken word piece rolled out.  So, while I did not participate in the #CUEBOOM, I thought I would share the result of that flash of inspiration (even though it is a bit raw and unfinished)…

 

Embed from Getty Images

 

Wait

What’s that you say?

You can be anything you want to be, I hear.

Just follow my passion, move forward without any fear.

Yet, all I see when look around is chaos, crisis and fear?

A world encased in…

Volatility

Uncertainty

Complexity

Ambiguity

I still hear that the future is so bright that I’m going to need sunglasses,

but I don’t always see the skills I’m going to need taught in many of my classes.

Worksheets continue to overshadow time for moonshots,

And I’ve noticed that rows still take precedence over circles

But wait, should I be worried that my passion for what I want to be may be stolen by robots?

A world consumed by…

Automate

Accelerate

Obliterate

And Eliminate

What am I facing, what will be left

Are we gambling with the highest level of future theft?

What are we facing, exponential possibilities, or a dystopian future,

Or will UBI and colonization of Mars eventually serve as our 21st century suture?

Artificial this

Artificial that

As Friedman has said, we live in a hyper-connected world that is officially flat

Give you a device and teach you a few lines of code

Uh-oh, didn’t teach you how to think different, so you never broke out of the mold.

How do I gain access to this new world?

Where’s my entry point to a better future?

Design is no longer just about products and couture,

It is in providing me a variety of opportunities,

Not just cognitive left-overs that take me towards a bleak future.

Resilience

Compassion

Love

Don’t be afraid to tap my soul,

I am still trying to find out who I am, what is my role?

Take a chance, be vulnerable, be a model, be the one that helps me discover my goal.

Don’t ground me down in days filled with rote, please

When today’s world is demanding a much better understanding of the 4Cs.

Yes, things are much different today

Finding it much harder to find the signals, to see the way

Wait

Hold on

Sorry, too late, your chance is gone.

Automate

Automate

Automate

Help me discover and hone the skills that Silicon Valley cannot replicate.

Equality may be great,

But equity is what we need.

We count on you because Superman is VR and only Artificial Intelligence is coming,

We hope that you can help us prepare for a world that is difficult to determine,

What it is, and what it is becoming.

 

 

Advertisements

5C’s For Focusing Organizational Innovation

Embed from Getty Images

 

“Your primary job as a leader is not to innovate; it is to become an innovation architect, creating a work environment that helps your people engage in the key innovation behaviors as part of their daily work.”  -Miller, Wedell-Wedellsborg via Innovation As Usual: How To Help Your People Bring Great Ideas To Life

Far too often, we approach the idea of innovation as this nebulous concept, in much the same manner as we might consider the existence of a distant planet.  We know its there, we know its size, we know its distance from us, we even know its atmosphere and what it is made up of, and yet, we still wonder how much do we really know about it?

For many, innovation is that distant planet in their organization.  There is this acknowledgement that it exists, both internally and externally, as well as inside and outside of their profession.  There also may have even been opportunities to attend “innovative” conferences, read up on the research around it, as well as learn of the myths that still tend to surround it.

And yet, it still seems to exist as this nebulous concept, this distant planet that we don’t truly understand or know enough about to feel comfortable in exploring. 

So what often happens is that we approach it in our organizations and institutions with these broad stroke statements and platitudes.  We talk about being innovative, taking risks, moving quickly to failure, pushing the envelope, being disruptive, thinking different, without truly defining what that means, what that sounds like, or what that even looks like, for individuals, teams or the organization as a whole.

Most of the time, we approach it with a hope that we will get “innovatively lucky.”  If we keep it as a nebulous concept and allow it to exist as this distant, far-away planet in our organization, maybe people will be willing to step up and provide some new, imaginative and creative ideas and thinking that will push us forward in some dynamic fashion or manner.

We approach it with strategic hope.

In many instances, we don’t want to scare people away from being creative or innovative, so we keep the rhetoric light, easy and safe.  Often using “innovatively lucky” and “hope” as the strategic plan in moving forward.  We try and get people to go play in the safety of the “innovation sandbox,” hoping they will provide some new insight, until we can truly wrap our heads around what innovation really means for the individuals and teams working in our organization or institution.

On the other hand, while we know that innovation will be vital to moving forward more relevantly as individuals, teams and organizations, we also tend to fear that invoking terms like accountability, constraints, focus, metrics, and standardization would end up diminishing and depleting our willingness to pursue and engage in any innovative efforts or pursuits.  Instead, we rely on “hope” that the innovative efforts will, for some reason, be tightly aligned to the work of our teams and the organization or institution.

Which, more often than not, will not be the case. 

Too often, when there are no constraints or focus for innovation, the innovative efforts of people are not always closely aligned to the vision of the organization.  So instead of terms like accountability, metrics and standardization diminishing and squelching people’s innovative efforts, what really happens is that the lack of innovative focus or alignment to a north star, more often than not, extinguishes the innovative spark as the organization finds itself unwilling, unwanting, or unable to pursue those innovative efforts and outcomes.

The inability or unwillingness of the organization or its leadership to focus the innovative efforts on the front end, ultimately leads to frustration and disinclination, especially as people’s innovative efforts are not only not “lucky,” more often than not, they do not lead to or come to fruition on the back end.

Today’s organizations and institutions need to approach innovation in a much more transparent, focused, and  systemic way across the entirety of the organization. 

There needs to be a north star, a direction and a vision conveyed transparently throughout the organization of what is trying to be accomplished.  A direction of how people’s innovative efforts, if they are to provide the greatest value for our individuals, teams, and those that the organization serve, need to be aligned to this north star.

As Paul Plsek shares in the book Accelerating Health Care Transformation with Lean and Innovation, “If we are going to innovate, where are the areas and what are the big dots we are trying to move?” 

Otherwise, innovation without a vision or north star to serve as a guide, becomes little more than a discovery game of trying to find the new, rather than a deeply empathic process of searching for value creation that leads to both individual and collective impact.

Or, as Eric Ries shares in The Lean Startup, “Success is not delivering a feature; success is learning how to solve the customer’s problem.”

In fact, when innovation is not creating authentic value or a better way forward for those it serves, it is often found to be unnecessary or unwanted.  Which is often the case in many organizations, as we find ourselves caught up in the chase for the shiny and new becoming the real value proposition.

We find that our focus becomes bent on creating the next breakthrough product, service, support, or program…rather than focusing in on and considering how our innovative efforts are creating an experience of improvement and value.

It is within that mindset, that people are intrigued and drawn to the new, as they see the benefits and the value proposition that is being provided and offered over what currently exists.

Unfortunately, if we continue to approach innovation as this vague and ambiguous concept of how we change our way forward, we will continue to see diminished efforts from our individuals, teams, and organizations.

For continuous improvement and innovative efforts to be engaged across our systems, there needs to be an understanding and focus of what we are trying to achieve, what we are trying to improve, and what we innovating towards.

Especially when our improvement and innovation efforts necessitate people working their way collaboratively through and iterating cycles of experimentation, discovery, learning, spread, scale, and ultimately standardization, which are not only necessary, but ongoing, iterative and repeating.

To better support the innovative efforts of our individuals, teams and organizations, as well as shifting away from the nebulous concept of “hope” and “innovatively lucky” serving as our way forward, there are 5C’s that can be considered for focusing the efforts of the organization in a more strategic manner to better engage and improve the innovative efforts of its people and teams:

  • Clarity – How are leaders and the organization creating a deeper understanding of the vision and north star?  How are innovative efforts playing into and aligning with that vision and north star?  Providing clarity and coherence on the front end, keeps people from being frustrated on the back end.  It keeps the leaders, the organization, as well as individuals and teams from being at odds with each other as they find that their innovative efforts are in vain, as they are misaligned to moving the organization forward towards the determined vision.
  • Capacity – Platitudes and permission are not enough to support people in their innovative efforts.  If we are going to expect our individuals and teams to be more innovative, if we are going to be transparent in how we focus and align our innovative efforts, then we also have to be prepared to provide the opportunities to build capacity and capability to engage in innovative work, at all levels of the organization.  Otherwise, we move our people and teams towards organizational frustration when we provide capacity without autonomy, or autonomy without capacity.  This is not an either/or proposition, rather it is one of AND.
  • Constraints – Providing flexible constraints does more to engage, than diminish the creative and innovative efforts of individuals and teams.  Too often, the question we start and stay with is, “What can we do?”  But we can’t be afraid to also ask ourselves, “What should we do?”  Just because we can do something does not mean that it should be done.  Understanding the design of what you are trying to accomplish through your innovative efforts better allows for creating the constraints that drive people and teams towards those outcomes.  Once we have determined “What we should do?” we can then begin to consider and ask “How might we?”
  • Collision – Impact, impact, impact.  Innovation is most easily adopted when it has individual and collective impact.  Innovation should be solving a problem or problems, not adding to them.  It is vital to not only keep focused on the organizational north star, but just as much on the value proposition of what these innovative efforts will provide to the individuals and teams within the organization.
  • Challenge – While innovation can be both incremental and disruptive, it should be invested in reaching challenging targets.  If it is easily accomplished, attained and accepted, then how truly innovative was it?  We have to understand that with any innovative effort, the change that often accompanies it will be met with some form of pushback.  Understanding that will allow us to not be inhibited by the willingness to set challenging targets for our innovative efforts.

Consideration of these 5Cs, especially in a time when words like “creativity” and “innovation” are often thrown around in platitudes, allows an organization to focus their innovative efforts in providing real problem solving power and new value propositions for their people and teams.

“The starting point lies in realizing something important: innovation may seem to be an elusive phenomenon, but the possibility of innovation permeates our lives.  Just think about it: every single day, people face the opportunity to try something new, to do something different from how they did it yesterday.  -Miller, Wedell-Wedellsborg via Innovation As Usual: How To Help Your People Bring Great Ideas To Life

 

Future of Things (FoT): In An Era of Encroachment

Embed from Getty Images

 

It’s interesting how seldom we consider what we believe to be innovative today, will eventually become the status quo of tomorrow.

Not that long ago we marveled at the idea of humans being able to fly.  Now we have more than eight million people who fly through our skies each day, supported by an intricate infrastructure and expansive system of supports worldwide to ensure the safety and comfort of those eight million arrivals and departures.  No longer do we contemplate the wonder of flight, as much as we complain of small seats and the lack of wifi.

As Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google, USA puts forth, “[In the future], the Internet will disappear…you won’t even sense it, it will be part of your presence all the time.”  Which makes me think of how far we have come from our first curiosity and wonder of the possibility for flight, to what we have created today.  We no longer marvel or fancy the idea of flight, or how far the current level of technology has really taken us, or even the incredibly vast infrastructure and system we have created in support of flight.

Rather, it has just become a natural part of our everyday life.

In many ways, we stand at that same place of consideration, curiosity and wonder we had towards flight, when it comes to this idea of automation and artificial intelligence in today’s world.

Determined to figure out what we can do, well before we know out what we should do.

Which takes me back to the idea of flight and Eric Schmidt’s quote on the presence of the Internet, especially in light of the rapid and accelerated pace of change in today’s world…

It makes me wonder if automation and artificial intelligence will just become the new normal and natural part of our everyday lives in the future?  If so, how long?  5 years?  10 years?  20 years?  How long before its presence is no longer noticed or felt, it just is?  And how will that change our personal and professional lives?  How will it change the way we live and work?  How will it change our world and our place in it?  

While we don’t have that same intricate and expansive infrastructure and system that we have since built up from that first flight, we do know that idea of automation and artificial intelligence in our world is no longer that grounded and curious wonderer envisioning a time in which flight is possible.  From agriculture to manufacturing, from driverless cars and trucks to neural networks, the march is on.

The question then is no longer if it is coming, but where is it actually taking us.

And while we are not in a time where automation and artificial intelligence can take away all of work, it is definitely a time of encroachment into that world.  As Thomas Davenport and Julie Kirby share in Only Humans Need Apply, “As computer programs focus on the tasks they can do, it’s those pieces of jobs that are taken away.  The encroachment happens one task at a time, meaning that a job that is only 10 percent automatable doesn’t go away.  It’s just that, now, nine holders of that job can do what used to be the work of ten.”  

As they add, “Instead, they’re just nudged, nudged, nudged toward the door.”

In many ways, automation and artificial intelligence are like the early days of flight, as we figured out what we could do, it also opened up a plethora of new possibilities and new pathways as it expanded its wings into the future.  No one could have foretold from those first flights, the level of sophistication that we would have today, as well as the millions of jobs and opportunities it has provided for people, from airports to travel agencies.

But what we do know, it required new skills, new learnings, and the ability to adapt to those changes.

So, then the question becomes, will automation and artificial intelligence have the same effect on our future world as flight has had on our past?  Or will it be different this time, as many have predicted.  Will its ramifications on the future dare us into new arenas or  push us into dire straits?  Will automation and artificial intelligence decimate jobs and work as we have known it, as many have anticipated, or will it rewrite the rules of work?

While time will only tell, for now, we must be aware that we exist in a time of encroachment by automation and artificial intelligence.  

Which means we are living in the nudge.  A few jobs here, a few jobs there.  Often barely noticeable.  Almost like a frog that has found its way into a vat of heating water, we don’t understand that the water is boiling until it is too late.  Or as Hemingway adds, “gradually, then suddenly.”

It doesn’t mean that we no longer need cashiers, it just means that we don’t need as many.  It doesn’t mean that we no longer need radiologists, we just don’t need as many.  And so on and so on.  I think you get the picture.

As this encroachment increases, so will the need for people to adapt and learn.  It requires that we are constantly upskilling our knowledge and our skillsets.  Especially as Davenport and Kirby share, “The parts of our jobs we’ll keep are just the parts that can’t be codified.”  For which they add, “If work can be codified, it can be automated.  And there’s also the corollary: If it can automated in an economical fashion, it will be.  Already we’re seeing a rapid decomposition of jobs and automation of the most modifiable parts – which are sometimes the parts that have required the greatest education and experience.”

Which means, in the future, like the Internet that Eric Schmidt speaks of, upskilling will need to become a natural part of our existence.  To the point that it won’t even be felt.  Continuous learning will just become a part of who we are and how we live and work.  There will be this need for us all to become curious, creative, critical thinkers.

Especially as automation and artificial intelligence enhance the “threat of deskilling.”  Davenport and Kirby add in Only Humans Need Apply, “The jobs are deskilled when technologies are introduced that no longer require workers to have formerly necessary skills – meaning that semiskilled our unskilled workers can now hold those jobs. In turn, the labor force is deskilled when, enough machines having taken over a particular task, the skill becomes a ‘lost art’ to people.”

In many ways, we are seeing the deskilling of the “hard skills” and the necessity for upskilling what are known as the “soft skills,” or those skills that remain difficult for automation and artificial intelligence to replicate and codify.

Either way, awareness is paramount as automation and artificial intelligence begins to get its wings.  

Which means that the question is no longer as much about whether automation and artificial intelligence will come after my job, but whether or not I am continuously learning the skills, skillsets, and knowledge that will still make me viable and valuable whether automation or artificial intelligence comes after my job or not.

I will leave you with these thoughts from Davenport and Kirby, “It’s important to understand all this because, in our work alongside cognitive technologies, we will need to keep adjusting to their evolving capabilities.  To be able to anticipate how our own roles will change, we must be able to predict the pathways from today’s state of the art to future possibilities.”  For which they add…

“Complacency is not an option.”

Discovering Emergent Innovation In The Educational Ecosystem

Embed from Getty Images

 

“Innovative organizations regularly change the ‘rules of engagement’ with ideas, isolate and define problems in new and unusual ways and look harder for plausible solutions.” -Emergent Innovation: A New Strategic Paradigm via The Journal of Strategic Leadership

What we often fail to realize is that innovation is already occurring across our organizational landscapes on an ongoing basis.  Whether or not we are open to recognizing it is a very different story.  Pockets of positive deviance exist, both individually and organizationally, providing new ideas and novel solutions to the problems that endlessly plague our organizational ecosystems.

Unfortunately, especially in times of change, we fail to allow space for the emergence of that innovation.  Most often, we lack the will or ability to engage those novel and new ideas and solutions in constructive ways that spread and scale at any level.

In most cases, we find organizations sporadically searching out external consultants and ideas, hoping to ride the promises of the quick wins and quick fixes that abound within the ecology of education.  Rather than taking the time to recognize the possibilities and bright spots that are already emerging within and across the organization.

And while we can see the success that these positive deviants are creating within the system, we avoid those novel and new solutions for the fear of the disruption,  disequilibrium, and instability that those ideas have power to create across the organizational landscape.  Or we look to find excuses to the “why” and “how” these bright spots are determining ways towards creating success within the system, with the same resources and support.  As they often say, it is difficult to be a prophet in your own land.

Especially, in the midst of the chaos and turbulence that erupts in times of great change, we spend little time in recognizing the innovative opportunities that are emerging.  Rather, we spend more time recoiling back from the volatility that ensues from these disruptive forces, insulating the organization in a facade of safety and stability, predicated on the comfort of static, status quo processes and structures.  We find ourselves resorting to reactive actions, rather than engaging in proactive feedback loops.

Rather, we spend minimal time and provide little to no space for the emergence of the novel and new.  Let alone the recognition of the positive deviance spread across the organizational landscape and how to effectively engage the learnings of those bright spots within the organizational ecosystem in an effort to scale up the innovation that is emerging and emanating from those bright spots.

To engage this emergence, Goldstein, Hazy and Lichtenstein share in their work, The Complexity and the Nexus of Leadership, four phases that “operate together to bring about adaptive emergence.”

Those four phases they include are Disequilibrium Conditions, Amplifying Actions, Recombinations, and Stabilizing Feedback.

Let’s take a quick look into each of these phases and how they support emergent innovation:

Disequilibrium Conditions: for emergent innovation to take hold, there must be a level of disequilibrium that is occurring within and across the organization.  It requires moving past “the use of models of stability” and “enforcing top-down structures” that protect and insulate organizations from the discomfort that change is creating, and recognizing the novel and new ideas and innovations that are emerging through this disequilibrium.  Too often, this disequilibrium is too uncomfortable to tolerate, pushing both individuals and the organization away from what is emerging and the implications of that emergence.  Organizations that are able to push through the discomfort, open themselves to what Goldstein, Hazy, and Lichtenstein refer to as “opportunity tension” which allows for leadership to “engage, plan, pursue and capitalize on the potential.”

Amplifying Actions: as Goldstein, Hazy, and Lichtenstein share, “As disequilibrium increases, most organizations will see an increase in stress and tension, as well as an increase in in experiments in novelty.”  Unfortunately, in the midst of this disequilibrium, leaders will look for ways to de-stress and stabilize the system, instead of increasing their innovative efforts to push forward into this change with more effective ideas and solutions.  Leadership will often look fervently to past practices to keep the organization locked in linear and predictable processes and structures that provide some sense of stability.  As Goldstein, Hazy, and Lichtenstein add, leadership needs to learn to “live with-and-even-embrace-the discomfort of disequilibrium, encouraging experiments and amplifying successes in whatever form they may come.”  Which is a reason that many organizations never reach a state of change, as they tend to recoil back in the face of the stress of this instability.  As the authors add, “As stress and intensity grows, the system approaches the possibility of a state of change.”

Recombinations: Goldstein, Hazy, and Lichtenstein share that, “Once a critical threshold is crossed, the system’s inertia has been overcome.  The organization now enters a period when it can be influenced by forces for emergent order.”  What is vital to this, is the understanding that individuals and the organization must push through the disequilibrium brought on by these change forces, rather than giving in to the discomfort and recoiling back to the safety and stability of what it has always known, what it has always done.  It is in this phase that individuals and the organization can be driven by the learning that accompanies ongoing experiments in novelty and determining how that learning can move the organization forward more effectively and relevantly.

Stabilizing Feedback: as Goldstein, Hazy, and Lichtenstein put forth, “Finally, new emergent order, if it is indeed creating value, will stabilize itself in order to retain this increased capacity.”  For which they add, “As this stabilizing process takes hold, the system finds the appropriate ways to position itself for overall sustainability in the ecology.”  It is at this point that change truly takes hold in the organization and moves from the novel to a new way of operating and working.  It is where the innovation diffuses across the organizational ecosystem.

Understanding these phases of emergent innovation better prepares our individuals and organizations to withstand the disequilibrium and instability that can often accompany the change of the new.  It provides a framework for pushing through the discomfort that is often at the core of embracing emergent innovation and the organizational change accompanies it.

“Emergent events are driven by an entrepreneurial opportunity that pushes the organization outside its normal ruts and into taking new directions.”

Very often…

“A state of disequilibrium or instability…led to an unexpected outcome, namely, the emergence of the unexpected.” -Goldstein, Hazy, Lichtenstein via The Complexity and the Nexus of Leadership: Leveraging Nonlinear Science to Create Ecologies of Innovation

 

 

Networks: An Engine For Scaling Learning And Innovation (Part 3)

Embed from Getty Images

 

We live in a connected world, wait, strike that…

A highly connected world.  Or as Thomas Friedman might say, we now live in a “hyperconnected world.”

Inability to tap into the diversity of thinking and novel and new ideas that exists within those networks, severely limits our individual and organizational ability to move into the future in a much more progressive and relevant manner.

It is within these spaces, these networks, that connectivity is acquired and achieved, cognitive resources and idea flows are managed and exchanged, and where provocation for action upon these ideas is often mediated, accelerated and catalyzed.

Or as the work Network Science by the National Research Council shares, “Networks lie at the core of the economic, political, and social fabric of the 21st century.”  For which the National Research Council adds, “Society depends on a diversity of complex networks for its very existence.”  And yet, “In spite of society’s profound dependence on networks, fundamental knowledge about them is primitive,” at best.

What we are learning, especially as we look at the scaling up and proliferation of networks across society, and the level of data and knowledge they are providing, is that today’s organizations must learn to support a much more robust and dynamic set of internal and external networks, utilizing a variety of metrics that lead to a greater understanding how divergent idea flows, as well as organizational novelty and innovation awareness and dissemination can be cascaded across the organizational landscape in much more fluid, clear and coherent manner.

Today’s organizations must be able to unlock and engage both internal and external networks, in an effort to not only tap into a diversity of voices, but a diversity and divergence of thinking and ideas.  These networks not only provide a platform for engaging an ongoing flow of the novel and new, they also create a cognitive space to play with ideas that often leads to not only the creation of new knowledge, but new actions and new ways of working.  Unfortunately, most organizations plateau from an inability to create more dynamic, robust and expansive networks of learning that feed forward these idea flows that lead to the creation of new knowledge and curation of new learning.

Rather, most organizational networks remain fragmented at best, unable to tap into these internal, external and periphery idea flows that feed the core of our organizational ecosystems with a steady diet of new and innovative thinking and ideas, keeping us caught in a constant iteration and amplification of the known.  Constantly caught up on a never ending chasing or our own tail on the hamster wheel of what we don’t know, we don’t know.

Which again is unfortunate, as authors Krebs and Holley share in their work, Building Sustainable Communities Through Network Building, where research from as far back as the late 1990’s shows the benefits of networks within large organizations, for which the provide below:

  • Teams with better access to other teams inside and outside the organization finished their assignments faster.
  • Teams with better connections discovered, and transferred, the knowledge they needed within the organization.
  • Managers with ‘better connections’ [inside and outside the organization] spotted and developed more opportunities for their departments or organizations.
  • Project managers with better network connections were more successful in reaching project goals within time and financial parameters.

So even in the 90’s, years before the explosion of the instant access provided by today’s social networks, we see research illuminating the benefits of how networks not only allow for enhanced communication, but increased speed of learning and spread of innovation across our organizations.

As with many things, it is not an either/or proposition.  It is not just about internal or external networks, rather it is about AND and the ability for both to exist in a dynamic and interrelated manner within an organization.  It is about connecting the inside, both the core and periphery, as well as the outside.  It is in that combination our networks allow for the access, reach, spread and scale of new and novel ideas that allow innovation to move across our organizations in a much more fluid and dynamic manner, at all levels. Or as Krebs and Holley add, “The lack of outside information, and dense cohesion, within the network, removes all possibility for new ideas and innovations.”

It will benefit today’s leaders and organizations to spend time investing in and learning how networks can better serve our individuals and organizations for scaling the level of learning and knowledge that is necessary to stay vital and relevant in a world of accelerated and often turbulent change.  Or as the National Research Council puts forth in the work Network Science…

“In summary, human understanding of networks has the potential to play a vital role in the 21st century, which is witnessing the rise of the Connected Age.  There is an enormous demand for information on how to design and operate large global networks in a robust, stable, and secure fashion.”

 

 

Creating Organizational Relevance

Embed from Getty Images

 

“It is the very uncertainty, unpredictability, and uncontrollability of organizational processes that signal the adaptive capability of complex systems; their capacity for the emergence of novel practices, processes, and routines is at the heart of an ecology of innovation.”  -Goldstein, Hazy, Lichtenstein Complexity and the Nexus of Leadership: Leveraging Nonlinear Science to Create Ecologies of Innovation

Learning lies at the very heart of any complex, adaptive and innovative system.  Especially those organizational systems that are able to continually grow and evolve.  And while we can let that statement linger, it is not enough.  It requires more, much more.

It requires…

A diversity of learning

Curation and creation of new knowledge

Environments of experimentation where novel and innovative ideas and thinking can emerge

Spaces where ideas can collide to create new thinking and ideas

Engaging learning networks and idea flows, both internally and externally

Ongoing reflection of mental models, assumptions and cognitive biases

Ability to adapt and change in response to the ongoing emergence of the new

Unfortunately, in the midst of today’s organizational complexity and chaos that encompasses today’s accelerated and turbulent change cycles, leaders look to insulate and simplify, instead of embracing the opportunity and/or opportunities that begins to emerge from this complexity and chaos.

When change is needed most for an organization, it is often the status quo and stasis that is sought out and exemplified (both consciously and unconsciously).

In the face of change, whether incremental and/or disruptive, the comfort of the known is often held up as a model to stave off the fear of the unknown, even when the current model is proving to be ineffective.  There is safety in the known.  Unless the emergence of the novel and new can provide a strong promise of future success it is squeezed out in favor of the familiar and known.

Which is why the above “requirements” are necessary for any organization to be able to continually adapt and maintain innovative ecologies, environments, and ecosystems.  

Or as the old adage puts forth, “you don’t know what you don’t know” remains true for our organizations, as well as individuals.  For much of what happens in an organization is based on a “we’ve always done it this way” approach to working that has seldom been considered or questioned.  Which then begets the question, are the individuals and the organization itself on a journey to continually seek out “what it doesn’t know?”  Or is it happy to remain in the comfort of the known, often at its own peril and relevance.

For which Goldstein, Hazy, Lichtenstein add, “Since ecologies are driven by all of the exchanges, interchanges, interactions, and connectivities existing between its subsystems, whatever is essential takes place at these interfaces.”

Which reminds us that if individuals and organizations are not searching out and creating new learning and knowledge, engaged in internal and external learning flows and networks, seeking out and allowing for experimentation and the emergence of the novel and new, and constantly reflecting on their mental models as they collide with a diversity of learning and ideas, those “exchanges, interchanges, interactions, and connectivities” will do little to move individuals and organizations beyond and amplification of what is already known.

Or as Goldstein, Hazy, Lichtenstein share, “At the core of ecosystems are patterns of interactions – the vital exchanges – that connect all the subsystems together.”  For which they continue, “Because a complex system is composed of interdependent, interacting subsystems, information about the functioning of the system is distributed throughout the networks of connection.  This nexus of relations is the source of influence, the driver of innovation, and the regulator of change.”

Which reminds us that all individuals and organizations have their own borders, their own space where the known and the unknown intersect.

It is at this intersection, that the future relevance of our organizations is often determined and discovered.

 

Beyond Reverse Engineering: In Consideration Of Continuous Improvement (Part 3)

Embed from Getty Images

 

“But why are you so interested in the solutions we develop for our specific problems?  Why do you never study how we go about developing those solutions?  Since the future lies beyond what we can see, the solutions we employ today may not continue to be effective.  The competitive advantage of an organization lies not so much in the solutions themselves – but in the ability of the organization to understand conditions and create fitting, smart solutions.”  -Mike Rother Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness, and Superior Results

Years and years of leadership and organizational indoctrination has done very little to prepare today’s leaders and organizations for a future world that has shifted and a past world that no longer exists.  Leadership and organizational frameworks and structures that have often touted…

Answers over Questions

Control over Autonomy

Technical over Adaptive

Structure over Process

Bureaucracy over Agility

Standardization over Differentiation

Compliance over Creativity

Implementation over Innovation

Short-term over Long-term

Reform over Transform

In a world that has doggedly determined to accelerate the pace of change, linear mindsets and linear ways of thinking are often lulling leaders and their organizations into stasis and status quo ways of operating and responding to this turbulent manner of change.

Instead of responding with an “abundance” mentality of determining the opportunity that exists and arises from this chaos, most leaders and organizations rather choose to apply a “scarcity” mindset and look more towards finding ways to safely insulate themselves from the volatility that surrounds them and their organization.

In many instances, they choose to recoil and then reform…rather than adapt and move to transform.

So, rather than moving towards gaining the ability to adapt and transform, many of our leaders and organizations choose instead to try and “reverse engineer” their way forward.  For which Mike Rother shares as the process of “taking an object apart to see how it works in order to replicate it.”  

Which has been a continual problem plaguing our educational organizations for a plethora of years.  This idea that we can take something apart, see how it works, and then easily replicate it in our own organization.  Just like putting a new overhead on the projector.  Easy.  Right?

Only it’s not right and it’s not working…

Or as Mike Rother adds in Toyota Kata, “We have been trying to copy the wrong things.”

Rother provides us with 3 reasons in Toyota Kata as to why “reverse engineering” isn’t working:

  1. Critical Aspects Are Not Visible: Which means that you can’t employ the things you see without being able to understand the things that you can’t see.  The underlying  processes that led to the visible changes.  Or as Rother purports, “We have been trying to add practices and principles on top of our existing management thinking and practice without adjusting that thinking and practice.”  For which he adds, “techniques will not work properly, will not generate continuous improvement and adaptation, without the underlying logic, which lies beyond our view.”  Too often we try and change behaviors without attending to the thinking and mindset that enables those behaviors.  Without attending to the mindset, this approach to change will always be veneer at best.
  2. Reverse Engineering Does Not Make An Organization Adaptive and Continuously Improving: Organizations have this tendency to jump right to solutions without determining if they are even solving the right problem.  And if they are solving the right problem, are they really gathering a divergence and diversity of thinking towards solving that problem.  Too often, as we look towards this “reverse engineering” way of working, we try to save time by moving right to implementing solutions that worked well for other leaders or organizations, without considering the context, time and a culture in which those solutions were created…and then seem perplexed when they fall flat in our own organizations.  As Mike Rother adds, “Focusing on solutions does not make an organization adaptive.”  Instead of focusing on solutions, look to create the environment and processes that lead to the thinking and doing that provides the ability and capacity of the organization to continuously improve and adapt.
  3. Trying To Reverse Engineer Puts Us In An Implementing Mode: Focusing on solutions over engaging better problem-solving processes leads to an organization, “having an implementation orientation” which “actually impedes our organization’s progress and the development of people’s capabilities.”  Which takes us back to linear mindsets and linear thinking, which is based in trying to create certainty, which is very much in alliance with an organization being in implementing mode.  Whereas, a problem-solving orientation allows leaders and organizations to become much more comfortable with the uncertainty that is required of being more adaptive and focused on continuous improvement.  If we are going to move from where we are to where we want to be, it will require taking a path that is often filled with uncertainty and unknowns.  Or as Rother shares, “If we believe the way ahead is set and clear, then we tend to blindly carry out a preconceived implementation plan rather than being sensitive to, learning from, and dealing adequately with what arises along the way.  As a result, we do not reach the desired destination at all, despite our best intentions.”

We fail to adapt and continuously improve as leaders and organizations when we try to “reverse engineer” our way forward into a very uncertain and unknown future.  We have to understand that there is a large chasm of this uncertainty and unknown that lies between where an organization is and where they eventually want to be…and inability to deal effectively with that chasm of uncertainty and unknown that stands before us will impede progress towards that preferred future that stands waiting beyond.

“If someone claims certainty about the steps that will be implemented to reach a desired destination, that should be a red flag to us.  Uncertainty is normal – the path cannot be accurately predicted – and so how we deal with that is of paramount importance, and where we can derive our certainty and confidence.” -Mike Rother Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness, and Superior Results