Hacking HR to Build an Adaptability Advantage
Adaptability relies on flexibility:
1. Mental flexibility - It's not possible to adapt actions without adapting mental models. The "older" the organization, the more established the mental models and the less likely they are to change.
2. Structural flexibility - It's not possible to take action without coordinating all parts of the system to act cooperative. The larger the organization, the more difficult it is to gain this cooperation.
3. Social flexibility - It's not possible to mobilize change without getting the commitment of others. The more diverse the organization, the greater the number of needs that have to be met and the more difficult it is to create a single unifying message.
Paula
I can't remember if the reference is in the book, but I remember it from her TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html). There is a another great book by Brene Brown called "The Gifts of Imperfection", it is not directed at understanding organizational change, but I think it offers an insight into understanding some of the personal emotional "snares" that can hold people back, which ironically, can also produce great results under certain conditions, e.g. perfectionism can produce great quality work, but innovation is about lots of imperfect solutions; removing uncertainty focuses effort and creates clarity of direction, but change requires being comfortable with changing direction quickly.
Brene Brown identifies 10 things to "let go of":
1. What people think
2. Perfectionism
3. Powerlessness
4. Scarcity and fear
5. Need for certainty
6. Comparison
7. Productivity as self-worth
8. Anxiety
9. Self-doubt
10. Always being in control
Brilliant! I *LOVE* new books :-)
#wonderwhethercansneakianotherbookintothehousewithouttheotherhalfnoticing
And I bet each of us has our own mix of areas where we can contribute to support others and areas we should watch our own weak flank.. for example, assumptions of powerlessness and scarecity awaken the 'yes we can!' reaction in me - and no surprise therefore that I'm prone to using productivity as my proxy for self worth... and I DO like being in control!
Great food for thought. Enjoy the long w/e (assuming you're UK based and therefore due a Bank Holiday on Monday?) :-)
Paula
On 1, the difficulty seems to be shifting the mental model that states: "you can't have both", i.e. can we efficiently look after our people. I think people struggle to integrate mental models because of the emotional investment that they have in their existing ones. As Kathryn Schultz (author of Being Wrong) said, "what does it feel like to be wrong? Exactly the same as it feels to be right."
On 2, there was some research done by MetaGroup that showed that any IT project with a team of more than 100 people had a 99% chance of failure. So yes, it is too big an ask in almost all cases, just because the number of individual connections increases significantly. But, like the human body, not all connections have an equal role to play, the joints are the "connections" where flexibility is most important. By identify the "joints" in an organization where functions connect, and practicing some "organizational yoga", maybe it is possible to at least increase structural flexibility.
Martin
Thank you - and before I reply on the content, can I just digress slightly and say how delighted I was to see your reference to the book 'Being Wrong'? I came across this book totally by accident a couple of years ago in a delicious little bookshop in Cape Town and devoured it! I think it particularly spoke to me because I definitely grew up in an environment where being wrong was considered unacceptable, as opposed to 'useful', 'inevitable' or 'all part of the journey' (which is ironic because there are trained research scientists in my background and trial and error experimentation is part of the bread and butter, right?). Having said that - I don't recall the particular comment you're referring to :-)
I'm interested by your point about how we get emotionally invested in a position... I've been experimenting a little bit with trying to unlock the negative impact of pent up emotions underlying some of our organisational positions by acknowledging that they're there ie that we do often end up feeling quite strongly about things we've invested time and effort in creating, rolling out, embedding etc (and I guess the place I'm trying to come from is that having emotional engagement is a good thing - it's when that becomes a blocker by leading to kneejerk negatives that we run into problems). I'm not sure whether I'm being effective at all - but I'm certainly finding some fun (/relief) in taking the freedom to bring this aspect of the dynamic 'into scope'.
Martin
Really interesting thoughts.
On 1. - yes, and not only the mental models of the dominant group but potentially the opposing mental positions of long-standing factions who disagree with each other (polarities?). Which can leave an organisation stuck and feeling like 'didn't we have this exact same conversation 1, 5, 10 years ago?'. Actually a number of our issues should and will come round time and again [for example, a question like 'should we push for efficiency or take care of our people?' to which the answer in my view is 'both of the above' and of course the tricky bit is how to handle the trade-offs where these two objectives come into conflict with each other.] The real problem comes when we're lurching between binary knee-jerk unsatisfactory positions and never sensing that we learn or move forward on either.
On 2. - hmmm, well, it feels conceptually possible to get away with creating flexibility to develop at sub-levels within the organisation ie is it REALLY necessary for ALL parts to be engaged on the same journey at the same time? But going down that route makes a huge ask in terms of intra-organisational trust and communication. Probably verging on too great an ask, in most cases?
You need to register in order to submit a comment.