Remodelling of employee-employer relationship

This article describes my understanding of the current state and the desired direction of evolution of the employee-employer relation (EER). I was triggered to share my view by the McKinsey’s Organization insights presented in the “Great Attrition or Great Attraction? The choice is yours.” article published here.

I fully agree with the bottom line presented, "Employees crave investment in the human aspects of work (whereas employers were more likely to focus on transactional ones like compensation).".  This is our current reality on the global scale, there is no doubt about it.

Still I feel I need to share my view both on the presented means of attraction as well as on the wider topic of the employee-employer relation itself. I believe the attrition issue needs to be solved on a deeper, more systemic level. On the level of the nature of the employee-employer relation itself.

The research confirms the gap between the employees' expectations and what employers offer. The opportunity for remote work on the big scale is a relatively new phenomenon and clearly a significant contributor to "The Great Attrition". Employees have gained a new dimension, a new degree of freedom that they can shape for their convenience. 

However the overall landscape has not changed, it has existed for decades. The landscape is defined by, as the report says, the transactional nature of the employee-employer relation. As a consequence of the transactional nature of this relation we observe deep and common disconnectedness of employees from their employers and employers' goals.

It is the very nature of the relationship that we need to challenge in order to eliminate the gap. Imagine the world of work if we can find a more balanced relation, a relation that matches the needs of the both parties closer. Imagine the world of work if we can align the goals of both employees and employers!

Any other means, including those suggested in the article, are not sufficient to solve the original issue. Their impact is limited, and these may only serve as temporary fixes to something that needs a proper remodelling or even a replacement.

Here is what I mean by that. The transactional nature of the employee-employer relation creates a gap. Clearly the gap originates from the difference in goals of the two parties. On one hand employees care for and expect adding the human aspects of work into the equation, on the other hand employers offer a transaction. A transaction that can be decorated by additional elements, which may obscure the underlying nature, but still is a transaction. The transactional nature will not change if we sprinkle the relation with additional elements. 

Employees invest their most precious irreversible resource - their personal time and, so no surprise, they expect this sacrifice to be valued and appreciated by the accepting party of employers. Yet, employers are not in the frame of appreciating this kind of gift, employers are not equipped, not in the position to satisfy this expectation of employees. Employers are rather positioned in the frame of exploiting this gift to generate profit for the investors, the magical Return of Invested Capital (ROIC), the holy grail of nowadays business. Such a framing of employers defines companies' attitude to the relation and, as a result, defines the nature of the relation with employees. As long as employers are trapped in the frame of ROIC the relation will remain transactional and the gap will exist.

The level of the roots of the nature of the relationship is the appropriate level on which we can tackle the gap. If we want to eliminate the gap, and I believe this is what we all want in the long term, we need to talk about remodelling or even replacing the transactional nature of the relationship. We need to help employers relieve themselves from the frame of the ROIC, the root cause of the transactional nature of the relationship. Only then employers will be in a position to come up with an approach fitting the needs of employees. 

We may not yet know how to do this in practice, but this is clearly the direction to pursue. After all, employees are us, we are societies and it is societies that define the employee-employer relation. It may be hard to imagine, because the currently existing relation has been with us for really long and we got used to treating it as an unchangeable element of the landscape. 

I believe we are well equipped for such a change. We have proven for ages that we are capable of reacting to challenges of life and we can update our value systems and worldviews to adapt.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Simple truths, episode N: Process is dead

Process is dead. When it comes to process everything has been said. Starting from theory of constraints, through Value Mapping, kanban, complexity theories, lead time & cycle time optimisations, dependency management, to the magic of incremental approach based on short iterations, incremental approach to delivery and product creation, goal and result oriented approaches, scaling, continuous improvement and operational excellence. 

In case of IT projects this knowledge shortened the software delivery live cycle from 3 years in 1980s to 1sec 2010s. 

Nowadays there exist multiple ready to use process governance frameworks that present enormous value and quality: Scrum, Kanban, SAFe, Nexus, Less, to name a few. They really do a great job.

What is more: everything can be done when it comes to process. Nobody has reached the process optimization end though. Not because it is impossible to optimize further - the options here are endless. Nobody has reached the process optimization end because on the way down this route companies discover issues on their way to their effectiveness that with time destroy the energy of the process improvement effort. Due to the attribution error, the issues are attributed to the process / framework itself and the framework gets blamed and accused that "it does not work for us". 

Yet the true reasons of not reaching expected effectiveness improvements lay somewhere else. The expected effectiveness boost is not reached because process is only one of a few elements of an effective company. It is usually the one that is explored as first. And it is usually the last one... Most companies begins and ends within the process optimization aspect. And if they try again, they try in the wrong way - they try to apply another process governance framework...

Given the above vicious cycle it comes as no surprise that the process area is the area of the biggest buzz and the best money for consultants, majority of which never needed to look and explore beyond the process frameworks. These guys will not make your organization effective in the long term. They are capable of setting up a delivery machine, but that is it. Where is human in this machine? This question remains unasked and unanswered.

Few companies and few leaders think wider. I guess you do if you are reading this. 

Process is the easiest piece of the organizational effectiveness puzzle for us humans. It is logical and tangible - natural food for our neocortex brain.

What needs to follow in parallel to implementing an effective process are the areas of 

• organizational culture - how we get things done here, 
• organizational design and architecture - how an organization supports flow of value, and
• leadership style - what mindset and behaviours leaders promote. 

These areas add ocean-deep and ocean-wide potential into the big picture. One can cross the barriers of the machine metaphor as the work in these areas is with people and for people. 

All four dimensions are complementary and all are equally important. They are also closely related - one cannot grow and reach higher levels of maturity without others growing in parallel. It was Michael Spayd who I learnt from the special name for this phenomenon - the idea of all four dimensions tetra-arising.

p.s. Thanks Maciej Rusinek for triggering me to articulate my thoughts!

Photo by Jonathan Borba on Unsplash

Entrepreneurs that restore the common sense - Ricardo Semler

"The main thing I was looking for in the companies is How do you set up for wisdom?"

"We have come from the age of revolution, industrial revolution, an age of information, an age of knowledge, but we are not any closer to the age of wisdom".

With this classic from 2014 I am clearing my mind for a productive weekend. Absolute MUST HAVE for CEOs, HR and corporate middle classes. How much time you spent this week asking yourself how to set up your company for wisdom? Do you really need to follow the herd? Do you really have to accumulate first to give back later?

Clearly Ricardo Semler is our guru! His message restores the common sense and gives courage to free ourselves from the dominating perspective and status quo of the corporate world, and to hear and experiment with the natural intuitions.

My elevator pitch on the anti-patterns of Agile transformations

I was asked recently in a quite informal and time-bound discussion to share a few examples of known anti-patterns of Agile transformations. This topic has somehow become a topic of my high interest, as there is so many insights from multiple organisations in my mind. You can see a lot of resources at my website or in my mini book. I share the insights openly as I deeply care for transforming the workplace. And between us - after all these year of Agile, there is many highly appealing ideas beyond Agile that being Agile is currently a hygiene level not an avant-garde.

Anyway, I spontaneously came up with a kind of an elevator pitch, and listed these 3 anti-patterns without any up-front prep:

1. Big Bang approach - I witnessed transformations that started with a lengthly Design phase, say 9 months - 1 year of designing the new target state in a small group of executives and senior management. I believe than during this phase there is more value in actually de-freezing this stakeholder group than there is in the design. 

And then on Day 1 the master plan and the playbook are released to the wide audience and the expectation is to kick off in the new setup without significant glitches. After all we have done the prep work for you, right? All you need to do is just follow the script.

Nothing more illusional as you may know - on Day 1 people are surprised, confused, ask a lot of questions, there is disbelief, they feel betrayed. And indeed, it is an example of heavy up front process which is not verified in live so one gets unexpected feedback and the investment misses its goal.

I usually recommend to avoid Big Bang nature approach to transformations, and giving yourself a chance to include your employees in the transformation, invite them to co-author and co-own the workplace based on a shared purpose right from the beginning. Stating your goals vs throwing solutions. A classic, right? The smoother the experience and more inclusive approach is, the more and more you prove you are serious about Agile. After all, this way you show that the Agile transformation is your first initiative driven in an Agile way!

2. Horizontal approach

There is a tendency, backed up by The Conway's Law, to structure the transformation team in synch with the structure of the company leading the transformation and/or in synch with the structure of the company that is undergoing the transformation.

In many cases I have seen Agile transformations aiming to flatten the org structure, yet at the same time, the structure of the transformation team was significantly hierarchical. As a result I saw for example a setup in which an account leader who interacted with sponsors, there was a transformation leader who interacted reported to the account leader, there were Agile coaches who interacted with all parties within tribes and were supposed to report to the transformation leader, etc. And there was usually a gap between these layers, which resulted in suboptimal communication and information flow, and misunderstanding of intensions and goals.

I am a big fan of vertical setups in which the transformation team is actually a team, yes - a cross-functional team and it actually operates as a team, using itself an agile ways of working rather than reporting and splitting tasks, delegating work and reporting. Sounds as an obvious approach, but believe me it is still rather rare. In the vertical setup the transformation team acts across the whole hierarchy, meaning that individuals in the team operate in a Zoom-In and Zoom-Out mode. They Zoom Out to  see the whole landscape and plan the next steps and then each of them Zooms In according to what they agreed on to support the organisation and teams and individuals in going through the transformative change.

3. Put the old Performance and Incentive systems aside for the moment

During the first weeks of a transformations there is usually a hunger of information as employees try to re-model their behaviours according to the new value suit evangelised by the company. They need to understand their new or altered roles and responsibilities. Going further they also need to map what is evangelised as the highest value to incentive programs and performance management systems. And as you can image these programs are not yet existent and scheduled for later in the transformation backlog. And this topic distracts employees from the core change. Usually the lack of clarity or inconsistency within this particular area feeds directly into the resistance against the change. 

Honestly, the only approach I have seen that actually worked is to define an intentional target state so that people anticipate the governing principles and keep the old systems in place for the first 6 months in a frozen form, e.g. everybody gets the same scores of 60% for the next months before we work out the new systems. Of course it would be ideal to have these new systems in place as these are fragile matter, however these systems need to ensure "justice" and as such require wide consultations to reach the consensus. Remember that the procedural justice is what makes people to accept whatever is worked-out.

All right, that's all I can do on a Sunday morning without harm to my family - please stay in touch and share your thoughts. I am open to share more. You can also purchase the mini-book I mentioned above for more throughout and holistic view.

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.