Consciousness levels wrt Change

Whether it comes to a personal change, change of a leadership style or an organizational change - we all, or the leaders, or the organizations, spend our time at one of the three consciousness levels, ordered level of awareness from low to high:

Level 1: Ego Blindness - we do not see a need for a change. Characterised by self-importance, being ego-driven, inability to see at the situation from different perspectives, being in the comfort zone, arrogance, complacency, etc. No change is possible at this level.

Level 2: Denial - we believe a change is necessary, but it concerns "them" rather than us. Characterised by attribution error, confirmation bias, group bias, fear, status quo, being in the comfort zone, etc. No change is possible at this level.

Level 3: Humble Contribution - we understand that we are a part of the change. Characterised by systems thinking, responsibility, belonging, contributing to something bigger than myself, driven by a purpose, etc. Change is possible at this level.

Do not loose your chance to spend most of your time at Level 3! This is where you are most open for a change which and treat the change itself as an element of your personal growth.

Level 1 and Level 2 are comfy and addictive yet can become painfully disappointing in a long-term. But only for those who will be able to realize that by eventually free themselves from Level 1. Some "lucky guys" will never leave Level 1 and can still live a self-oriented life.

Sometimes I envy those who stay on Level 1... but just for an eye-blink :)

Elaborate on the Effective Work Environment framework v3.0

Title: Elaborate on the Effective Work Environment framework v3.0

Subtitle: How it relates to EWE v2.0,  and how it corresponds to the EvoMap and how it addresses the drastic challenges of the mankind. 

A few weeks ago I published the new version of the Effective Work Environment framework on the Home of EWE. It is the 3.0 version. Here I would like to share a bit more of the context with you.

I had a moment of reflection over the EWE framework v2.0. A simple realization struck me - even after drawing The EvoMap expanding the evolution beyond Achievement-Orange and Pluralistic-Green, the EWE v2.0 was still rooted in those two stages of organizational development. As simple and obvious as it sounds now, I admit it took me some time to realize that the latest EvoMap was not in synch with the latest EWE framework v2.0. So here it is, tell me what you think. Now both these assets convey the same coherent perspective.

There is also a realization on top of the new version that I need to share with you: the EWE 3.0 and the EWE 2.0 do not exclude each other, in specific v3.0 does not invalidate v2.0 - they coexist. Why? Because they coexist on different levels of the organizational development. The EWE 2.0 is perfectly fine and valid within the set of organizational development stages starting from Conformist-Amber to Pluralistic-Green. Looking at your organization from the perspective of the EWE 2.0 provides you, as a transformation agent, all you need to develop maturity of your organization. At the same time you may use the EWE 3.0 as a north star for the developmental efforts and to develop awareness of the next stages of development and the key aspects of importance. Clearly, the EWE 3.0 is the choice on the Evoluitonary-Teal stage as it transcends v2.0 with its built-in focus on evolutionary issues we as a mankind envounter. 

So actually I should have a visualization that presents both versions of the EWE framework on a single image, where the EWE 3.0 resides on a plane above the 2.0 plane. (Please help me with drawing this image!)

And as the last but not least, I am not sure whether the Effective Work Environment still holds as a valid name for the EWE3.0. Apparently it is not about internal matters of organizations, namely about their effectiveness anymore, but more about organizations contributing to and shaping the external reality of mankind by pursuing evolutionary purpose, being guardians of human integrity, development of societies and sustainability of the global ecosystem. 

Looking for a relation to the Integral theory, the EWE v3.0 is further down the line of development from EWE v2.0 by introducing evolutionarily more mature aspects than the EWE v2.0 focused on. And this correctly represents my current understanding that the era of linear evolution of capitalist business is challenged by the drastically changing Life Conditions - a call to action for all of us to redefine our existing Value Systems to result in Behaviours that will reflect the need to protect mankind and the global ecosystem from the sustainability issues we currently encounter.

----------------------

This work is dedicated to my mother, Stefania Trojanowska, who taught me by example how to use every bit of time and energy to do what I believe is important, with an undisturbed determination, despite every obstacle she encountered on her way. Thank you Mom, I see you more clearly now.

A bit of motivational mentoring from Jim Carrey

For all that wander, hesitate or doubt, procrastinate, spin their wheels, ... , etc.

 

p.s. Thank you mematic.net, I hope I am not breaking any copyrights (which I could not find) by placing this image on my blog  My intention is to spread the goodness of Jim Carrey's thought.

Simple truth about a need for balancing codification of best practices and fresh innovation

For all these companies that grow fast and try to codify their best practice into some sort of DNA, or just a palette of processes and routines, here is a simple reminder straight from John Kotter that codifying needs to be balanced with spontaneous so that the whole spectrum of personal profiles is represented and thus the diversity necessary for continued innovation and growth is maintained. Otherwise codifying simply filters a range of profiles, e.g. entrepreneurial profiles, out causing bias towards what is known. Clearly entrepreneurs, aka Pioneers, aka Innovators need less rigid environment and more freedom.

https://vimeo.com/74875986

Tribute to Marshall Rosenberg - why don't you join me!

Please join me in recognizing the Marshall Rosenberg's legacy of Non-Violent Communication. There is never enough of recalling his masterpiece and the impact he made. 

Cannot wait to see your versions! :))

"This is what the children at home are saying to you, when they say 'No'. This is what the other person is saying to you. This is what they are singing when they are saying 'The problem with you is...'. If you have the giraffe's ears on, this is what you hear about what is going on inside this person".

The original video: https://youtu.be/eF6kMJxOpvI?t=2198

The idea of recording this song to tribute Marshall Rosenberg and encourage you to join "the movement" and sing was on my TODO list for a couple of weeks. It finally turned into action after a coaching call with Michael Spayd and Mariusz Kreft. Be careful with these guys - you have been warned ;) 

By the way - wouldn't singing the song together be a nice check-in for your team meetings?

On certifications

I hear a lot of criticism of individuals who share the fact they have completed a course with a certificate on social media, especially on LinkedIn. And, as you know me :), I am blogging about it as I think this criticism misses the point. Certifications can be valuable, no need to hate those, it's better to understand the context.

One cannot stop people from being proud of making a step ahead to being closer to what they identify with. And there is nothing wrong with it - each of us wants to fulfil herself / himself in life and this is only possible to achieve if one understands her/his identity first. It is for a reason the Identity level is high in the Dilts pyramid. Plus I cannot imagine hard work and breaking personal barriers without celebration!  

Having said that, it is a completely separate matter how their identity expresses itself on the level of capabilities and behaviours in reality of a specific work environment. So one cannot hire people based on their identity, but based on their skills, behaviours in a specific environment. It is a mutual responsibility of both a recruiter and a candidate to understand the match on all levels, before committing. (Well, one can also run a test for a couple of months and decide based on evidence and experience).

And finally, yes - many people believe that the route to mastery leads through certifications. And Imho these two are related to some extent. My belief is rooted in the Shu-Ha-Ri development model. And this is why I'd advice everyone interested in taking courses to look for ones that are led by practitioners who have hands-on experience vs theorists (unless you strive to become a theorist). Even more I'd encourage to replace courses with learning through work in a natural setup as courses pull people out of their natural environment into an artificial environment. So invite your guru and work with her/him in your work environment.

On the matter of organizational and human limits

In my experience companies, teams and individuals very rarely exhaust the full potential of a particular method or a particular approach - what they keep reaching much more often and much earlier is the limits of will. This is where enrolment breaks down and people disconnect. As the proverb says: "Do not tell me it cannot be done, admit it straight away that you do not want to do it".Where there is will, people will find a way. No need to worry about a method. Just focus on your goal. This will free you from the strongest limits of all - the internal barriers you got used to believe in.

And when it comes to methods the rule of thumb remains unchanged - choose the right method for the situation at hand. One does not caress her cat with a chain saw... (well, unless it is Stephen King's novel...)

The Lifecycle of Ideas

Everything in this universe has its lifecycle. Stars, planets, ecosystems, animals, companies, etc. No surprise that the same applies to Ideas.

How many times you saw people hyped up by some new cool idea or technology? And then you saw some of them disappointed to an extent that the idea or the technology was not a silver bullet? And then you saw people trying to accommodate it and get the best of it? And finally you saw the idea or the technology growing mature enough to enter the commodity phase.

According to the Gartner's research the adoption lifecycle of a new technology follows a specific pattern called the hype cycle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle. Looking at this model I am tempted to apply it to lifecycle of new ideas. I will describe how both the understanding of applications builds up as well as will point out how individuals of different PST personal profiles find their natural comfort zones in this proces.

When it comes to new ideas, the Peak of Inflated Expectations phase is a "religious phase"- when people's minds get inspired and in the absence of direct experience, are driven by beliefs rather than factual evidence and fed with buzzwords. This phase is necessary for an idea to spread - people adopt new ideas on the Why level. This is a phase for entrepreneurs, leaders and generally people with the Pioneer profiles, aka early adopters.

The Trough of Disillusionment and Slope of Enlightenment are the phases where individuals with Settlers profiles try to apply the new idea into various areas in which the idea promises some kind of pain relief and/or improvement and/or breakthrough / disruption. This is where high hopes are validated, lessons learnt through applications and general body of experience is gathered and cross-pollinated widely. The "WHAT is possible" and "HOW to add value" questions are answered in practice.

And finally, when an idea flows through the hype cycle to reach Plateau of Productivity beliefs and expectations are replaced with direct exposure and physical experience. Some hopes die out, the scope of applications of the idea finds its natural horizon. This is where broad population of people understands the value of an idea, its practical applications and how to best utilize it, including the necessary tooling and specialized infrastructure to utilize it. In fact the Idea is no longer just an Idea - specific Artefacts have flourished from the Idea and entered their Wardley's lifecycle from Genesis to Commodity. It is definitely a place for people with Town Builder profiles to shine. And also a place where the world is ready for birth new ideas...! :)

Bonus thoughts ;)

1. Victor Hugo: Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. 

2. One needs to take into account the environment in which an Idea was born. There are usually forces in the environment trying to maintain the existing status quo.

3. Since this is a blog about personal integrity and evolution of workplace, its natural to reflect on state of the major ideas of the recent decades: Agile (Schwaber at all), Spiral Dynamics (Beck) and Reinventing Organizations (Laloux). How would you describe maturity of these three big ideas at the dawn of 2020s? 

p.s. Hint: To find out my personal thoughts check out the Workplace section of this blog and also on the resonate website.

Interview: What's on a mind of a Systemic Coach - Michelangelo Canonico

"Agile movement is in a confusion. We need to stop trying to change the world using the magic word of "agile". Step back, seek for renewal, open up the doors for other notions."

I had a really good time conducting the interview. It was designed to be a surprise interview to catch the instinct responses and for the interview to be as realistic and natural as possible. 

In this interview Michelangelo Canonico shares his personal experience with Agility, transformational engagements, systemic coaching, and even about constellations!

What's On a Mind of... a Business Strategist - Interview with Chris Daniel

The interview with Chris Daniel was conducted remotely by Piotr Trojanowski, on Aug 31st 2020. 

Part I: ON MY STYLE

What is the source of your satisfaction when coaching organisations?

Breaking status-quo. 

People do not call me when things are going smoothly for them, but rather when they face an obstacle that they are not sure how to cope with. I augment their knowledge of the field with Wardley Mapping, and they learn how to verbalise their strategy concerns and ideas which they already knew but could not efficiently express. Once that happens, once I see first complicated matters discussed, I feel content and my job is nearly done.  

How do you typically start your engagements?

It is usually an introductory call when we together try to identify the area which we will work on. It may be a problematic outsourcing contract, disrupting competition or internal inefficiency. This is a starting point after which we assemble a team that will work on the challenge. Those two steps, in my eyes, decide about 80% of the value the customer gets. 

On which aspects do you usually focus on first?

In the world of Wardley Mapping, we call it Landscape. Those are all those things that are around your organisation that influence it but you cannot change them (regulatory requirements, customers, shareholders, competition, providers). If you add forces that influence the Landscape, you get a pretty good understanding of the context of the work that you are supposed to do, and better alignment. 

How do you recognise the impact?

I could say that as a result of my work, important projects are launched or cancelled or money are spent or saved, but the reality is that you never know (nor can you know) what impact can be attributed directly to you, especially that you never get a chance to compare with alternative versions of reality.

I do my job in the best way I can. And I am ready to say I was wrong, I assume I am wrong, and if even with that assumption customers are willing to act in the way Wardley Mapping tells them, the situation can get only better.

What is the toughest issue for organisations to change?

Organisational knowledge. Organisations learn just like humans. 

They store knowledge in the form of processes, procedures and policies. Once such a thing is approved, and once people change jobs, we have policies that may or may not be relevant for a current situation, and nobody knows what the case is.

Managers avoid breaking stuff, so those artefacts sometimes live for decades unchallenged.

Please share a story from your experience

Anonymised answer because of NDA:

I was helping a customer who was pushed by the provider to migrate a particular solution to the cloud. The customer was not sure whether the migrations was a win-win movement, they suspected it was a move that helped the provider only, especially given earlier experiences they had with the provider.

After a not-so-long analysis, the customer figured out that:

(1) they did not trust the provider to meet SLAs during and after the migration. The impact on the customer would be unacceptable.

(2) the migration could be a win-win move.

(3) There was no action that could change the situation without inducing too much risk.

(4) Not changing anything was safe for the organisation.

(5) Other opportunities were more interesting.

Sometimes, this is perhaps the toughest conclusion - there is not much that can be done, so it is better to focus on things that you can change. This customer had plenty of other opportunities, the one that was analysed looked important, but it was not.

I found it to be an act of courage, and I have seen similar situations resolved without taking any actions. Waiting is an action, too.

Part II: DOMAIN OF BUSINESS STRATEGY

How would you explain what Business Strategy is?

The Business Strategy, for me, is about continuous learning what is your current situation, what resources you have available, what opportunities do you face, and in which direction you should move, all of that, of course, with a great degree of uncertainty.

What is the relation between a Strategy and Risk Management?

This requires a short introduction to Taleb works - peolpe in general (including risk specialists) put too much focus on Gaussian distributions. Real life risks are far less predictable than many of us think, and this is the reson why many risk management frameworks give us sense of protection without doing much. But if you accept our limits in how we measure and quantify risk, you get a pretty holistic framework that does not differentiates between Risk & Strategy. They are the same, because you can define a risk called 'Strategic Failure' and derive your entire strategy from it.

What is the race as of today in the field of Business Strategy? Is it about who will make it to the 1% of the population that will join the Space colonisation vs those 99% who will not?

My this year's challenge is to focus only on things that I can change. The race, its fairness, prize & winners do not fall into this category, so I am afraid I will not answer this one.

How can one be a follower of the 3 Big leaders at the same time? I mean Dave Snowden, Simon Wardley, Nassib Taleb? 

I do not want to diminish the work of any person from the Big 3, and while I do appreciate their different attitudes, I think they are very convergent in their thinking. Moreover, to me things that they differ are the source of complementarity between them rather than conflicting them. I guess I should play the question back: "How can you follow only one"?

What is the hygiene level in the Business Strategy that all companies simply must obey?

Know your customers, who they are and why they are using your products and services. And I mean a true "why", not because of "we are the best". This is an entry point that allows you to think about how your customers may change over the years, pick up subtle change indicators and prepare accordingly. 

What is the delight level in the Business Strategy that all companies should aspire to? 

We have just started our adventure in Business Strategies and Situational Awareness, so many years may pass until we learn what the ideal is.

In other words, I have no idea, but I can only imagine that experimenting more seems like an excellent direction to explore. 

Part III: THE JOURNEY

When you take a retrospective look at the last decade of the Business Strategy field - what outcomes are most valuable in your opinions?

This is something vaguely defined as the position - how well is company positioned to exploit current market opportunities and how well can it spot and transition to other fields. This trumps everything else, but, unfortunately, is not immediately visible in the company balance sheets, so only unlisted companies may find this attractive.

From the perspective of shareholders, it is all about profits, not strategy. They "do strategy" on the portfolio level. 

How would you describe the state of the Business Strategy field at present, in the beginning of the 2020s?

It's 2020 and we seem to have just learned that the world is so complex that we cannot predict results of our own actions (Taleb, Snowden, plenty of others). We are still trying to figure out how to reconcile goal-oriented budgeting and planning with the exploratory, experimental nature of strategy. Some companies do that, some pretend doing it, and plenty of others does not understand what is the difference.

What the Business Strategy needs most to continue making an impact?

Leaders willing to take risks and field experts willing to speak up, but mostly the former. When the environment is supportive, experts talk.

How do you imagine a business-wise successful company that is a Good citizen of the world (in terms of sustainability of ecosystem and human disintegrity)?

I refuse to speculate, but I can identify a few first steps which will help any company - calculate your carbon footprint and make sure you have nothing to be ashamed of.