The Home movie, Bertrand and Besson, 2009

Home is a 2009 French documentary film by Yann Arthus-Bertrand. The film is almost entirely composed of aerial shots of various places on Earth. It shows the diversity of life on Earth and how humanity is threatening the ecological balance of the planet. Read more on The Wikipedia.

Human Purpose is the next Big Time Transformation

Are good products most important? Is Business Agility most important? Is Collaborative culture most important? Well, not anymore. Not to mention frameworks, projects, or technology... Those all are just the hygiene levels, the necessary conditions for companies of today to survive. They are important, and we need to keep mastering them, yet those are not sufficient conditions for companies of the future. 

The next decades will bring a shift towards Good Companies, as I call them. Good Companies will drive us to a meaningful future by helping us to fulfill our humankind mission: to leave the world better than it is now. To respond and to internalise this new meaning of their existence is the necessary condition for companies to survive in the future. 

As the first step we will need to restore our own integrity and meaning to be strong enough to create such companies. This task requires us to redefine the current societal meaning of business and the mental model of the economy. It is high time for us to update all the legacy we inherited from our grandparents and create our own response to the living conditions of today. 

p.s. See also the full EvoMap here.

Community silo-idosis vs collaboration

When I observe the silo effect when it comes to communities of interest, e.g. Agile, Teal, Sociocracy, Holacracy, Org Development, Coaching, etc. , I deeply believe there is a better way to bring value to this world. I see plenty of events, meetup groups and communities tailored in a silo shape. Those are characterized by separate agendas.

What if we create a cross-domain communities? They would be able to deliver end-2-end value stream to the customer, woudn't they? Having experienced the power of interdisciplinary approaches I have no doubt the synergy of working together would take the communities to the next level of maturity, and next level of impact!

Yves Morieux 2014 TED talk - another call for applying the KISS rule at work!

 Keep It Simple Stupid rules 😀 This is just another example. 

This almost 10 years old is very much to the point and funny classic.

Interestingly Yves was able to present many lean and agile principles and ideas without using agile jargon at all 🤔

Three distinctive features of SAFe which I highly appreciate

Three distinctive features I highly appreciate about SAFe are:

• Dual operating model: decoupling of org structures from value streams. Honestly, in many companies it was a real cracker to start transformation promptly as the restructuring efforts of the functional hierarchy was a fragile topic. The org structure usually represented decades history of how senior managers were building the organization according to their vision, and yes some of them were also building their kingdoms, trying to shape the organization by how they thought was best for it. Thanks to the decoupling of these two aspects, it is possible to start a transformation swiftly while giving the re-structurization as much time and respect for people, their ambitions, and visions, as it needs. From my perspective the nature of these two processes: organizing around value and organizing functionally is indeed of a different nature, and the timelines are of different magnitute, and as such it deserves to be treated separately.
• Organizing into operational value streams. Designing the value streams, as described by SAFe is logical and elegant. It is an exercise I recommend to all organizations, even to those that think they have it sorted. Why? Because it will add transparency to why we organized the way we organized. I believe, to know this logic is highly important to everybody in the organization. Not only will people understand that it is an act of conscious design, but they will also respect it. Trying to design the value streams surface the choices that have to be made and the multitude of options there usually are to choose from. People quickly realize there is a degree to which the design decisions are tough as there usually are multiple equally good designs. On the other hand, the usual lack of such transparency weakens the belief that leadership knows what they do when they announce a re-org to employees, causing people to spend too much time divagating. 
• PI Planning. Planning at scale always seemed a daunting task to me. All those hundreds of people on one hand and the will to invite them all into the planning process, to make sure decisions are made where knowledge is. That has always been a challenge in my career. And here SAFe offers invaluable help for me. It offers me a template of a facilitation scheme for the PI Planning event that does exactly that. Whatever people say, I rarely see such great support.

p.s. Give any tool to bureaucrats and they will turn it into a heavy process that will make people suffer

p.p.s. Give any tool to skeptics and they will prove it does not work in our case

Attribution: Photo by Tony Hand on Unsplash

Big Dipper Org Constellation

Each time I see an org structure like this I take a deep breath and pause for a while... Omg, that is a vanity show! How do I influence such organization... The Warren Buffet's ABC of Business Decay is in front of my eyes... 

• Should I bother? As they say: do not change what is there, focus on the new, the old will need to adapt or extinct
• How many levels are there between the vision maker and the implementers? What does it tell me about the culture of this organization?
• What is the agenda of the middle layers? Can it be anything else than politics and kingdom wars?
• What is the domain knowledge decay curve across these layers of bureaucracy? Usually, team managers and above have insufficient skills to be active knowledge contributors. They happen to be structural proxies.
• What happened to the inverted pyramid model? Ah, sorry, wrong question - they have not heard about it most probably. 
• What happened to the hands-on leadership by example role modelling? But we don't have time, we have more important strategic topics on our agenda... Don't believe that - it is the usual excuse.
• How to evangelize for 0-layer onion structure? It's going to be controversial for some, but I am still going to say it: this is why I like the dual operating metaphor of SAFe as it cuts off the kingdom wars from value streams!
• How to dismantle the egos? You don't. Usually, it's too late. 
• How to connect teams with the source of truth? Through Value Streams!
• How to celebrate real doers? Locally, in value streams. Accept the fact the hierarchy will always get a higher bonus and career development opportunities.
• How not to disconnect? I would like to hear it from you! I saw multiple ways, people are creative.
• etc

Kate Raworth - economy designed to thrive not to grow! TED talk

I am apparently a few years after the pioneers, still trying to catch up, even with the whole research I did for the Good Companies book... :) And it still feels good that my ideas are genuine so that I can contribute them to the world! What a year that was - the Pinker's book and Raworth's book published!

Here goes the summary of Kate Raworth TED talk.

• It is time to reimagine the shape of the progress curve - do we need economies that grow, whether or not they make us thrive?
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) invented in 1930s and very soon became the overriding goals of policymaking
• Governments still think that the solution to their economic problems lies in more growth
• W.W. Rostow,  The Stages of Economic Growth, 1960 book installs the believe that growth is necessary for something beyond than itself, like national dignity or better life for children
• Roster left us flying into the sunset of mass consumerism. Yet the plane can never land. He knew this, and left us with the unanswered question:

What to do when the increase in real income itself loses its charm?

• We are financially, politically and societally addicted to unending growth, through ROI in business, GDP in politics, and a century of consumerism propaganda in societal dimension, respectively.
• GDP is 10x biger than it was in 1950s, brought prosperity to billions of people. Yet economy became devisive - 1% rich problem, degenerative - destabilizing this delicately balanced planet on which all our lives depend, 
• Politicians offer new destinations of growth, yet

    I think it's time to choose a higher ambition, a far bigger one: to meet the needs of all people within the means of this extraordinary, unique, living planet so that we and the rest of nature can thrive.

• No economist from the recent century saw this picture (of the current state), so why would we imagine that their theories would be up for taking up its challenges? We need ideas of our own because we are the first generation to see this, and probably the last with a real chance of turning this story around.
• The new economy must be regenerative by design and distributive by design. 
• We intuitively understand that when something tries to grow forever within a healthy, living, thriving system, it's a threat to the health of the whole. So why would we imagine that our economies could be one system that can buck this trend and succeed by growing forever?
• We need to overcome the structural dependency on growth so we can instead focus on thriving and balance
• It is boundaries that unleash our potential

Good Companies and Reinventing Capitalism book combo

Dear Network,

As promised, here is your special gift.

To celebrate joining forces with Steve Denning on the quest to reinvent the economy in order to Leave This World in a Better State Than It Is Now, I offer Good Companies for free.

We aspire to help catalyze, synthesize, and energize the emerging coalition of managerial, economic, social, political, and ethical forces that are already re-imagining management and capitalism.

Starting from Feb 2nd to Feb 6th, the kindle edition of my book Good Companies will be available for FREE. 

In addition, for those who purchase Steve's Reinventing Capitalism book, the list of gifts is significantly longer.

Here are the instructions what you need to do to claim all 30+ Steve's gifts:

1. Go to this website, review the 30+ valuable gifts that will be available at 2pm EST Thursday
2. Register on that site so as to have the best chance to claim the high-value gifts that are limited in number
3. If you like it, you may also share the link to the website with your friends, colleagues, and followers.

To be able to register to collect Steve's gifts, you will need a valid Amazon receipt for purchase of the book.

Joining forces with Steve Denning!

This is really happening. I contacted Steve just after Good Companies was released and he came back with promising feedback and an offer to join forces on reinventing the meaning of the economy.

Join us. Let's work together and use our collective intelligence to Leave the World Better Than It Is Now!

I will share a super welcome gift for you tomorrow, Feb 1st!  For now, let me invite you to join Steve's webinar tomorrow at 2pm EST.

               (...)

Honestly, this book has been a source of such a meaningful time for me, amazing! 

Method Hexi vs SAFe

So, what do you think about the new Method HEXI initiative of Dave Snowden and The Cynefin Co.? 

Will it end the method wars? Will it make even more fuss and add to the already existing complexity in the method arena? Will it start ego wars? Ah, excuse me, they already started a long time ago :) Are these old tricks refurbished? Is there a point to fighting against SAFe?

I am sharing my first impressions on Method Hexi here briefly, after listening to a couple of webinars about it. This one in particular:

Here are my initial thoughts as of today. Let me revisit the topic in some time to see how my understanding evolves.

• Honestly, from my perspective, there are more important issues that need to be solved beyond how effective is SAFe or whatever other method... The meaning of the whole business world and the purpose of the economy are more important to me these days. More about it can be found in my book. I wish Dave Snowden refocused on what is more important. It looks like he is engaged in method matters more than wanting to influence the future of humanity. Imho, it is not time to concentrate on what we do best, on optimizing ways of working in this case, it is time to focus on the meaning dimension of reality and our existence. We need leaders there!
• It has been an existing practice for decades that people were mixing techniques and tools and methods to get best results. The idea that mixing needs to be introduced like a discovery of the 21st century with a special blessing from Snowden, sounds strange. It lacks respect, and faith in the intelligence of practitioners. Honestly, I rarely meet ideological individuals who stick to one method or tool. Of course, one can sell everything to bureaucratic and politically steered companies, but that won't be fixed by Hexi. The real question is why decision-makers choose a particular solution, what drives them and how this driving forces can be balanced or reframed. These are questions that Snowden and most of Agile community ignore to answer while focusing on accusing SAFe of being at least controversial in terms of its value.
• SAFe is what it is. It is as good a starting point for your journey as anything else, as long as you start to customize it for your needs on the first day! 
• The problem is not about SAFe - it is about what bureaucrats do to it, and in fact what they do to any method, which distorts their original sense and value.
• The metaphor of object-oriented programming, polymorphism, method overriding, etc smells 90s... I don't like it. It does not feel right in this context - it speaks to IT people not to businesspeople who are decision makers. 
• And as an off topic only: I spent years on OO design and programming and need to challenge the metaphor: same concept can be introduced simpler, my gut feel says, without a need for polymorphism. This is what I learned about dealing with complexity when programming in C++.