Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
Richard Veryard Once upon a time, people thought of an information model as defining the structure of the stuff you want to remember. Nowadays, this definition is too restrictive: it might possibly be adequate for a system/database designer, but is not adequat…
There is a growing interest among enterprise architects in systems theory or thinking. (In this context, the words “theory” and “thinking” seem to be for all intents and purposes interchangeable.) There are several possible reasons for this interest.1….
Katy Steward of @TheKingsFund asks What Makes a Board Effective? (Feb 2013). She’s looking specifically at the role of the Board in the National Health Service, but there is much that can be generalized to other contexts. She asks some key questions for any given board.
In this post, I want to develop this line of thinking further by exploring what the concept of organizational intelligence implies for boards.
1. Boards need to know what is going on.
2. Boards need to make sense of what is going on.
3. Boards need to ensure that all decisions, policies and procedures are guided by both vision and reality. This includes decisions taken by the board itself, as well as decisions taken at all levels of management.
4. Boards need to encourage learning.
5. Boards need to encourage knowledge-sharing
6. Boards work as a team, and collaborate with other teams
Note: The six points I’ve discussed here correspond to the six core capabilities of organizational intelligence, as described in my Organizational Intelligence eBook and my Organizational Intelligence workshop.
See also
Brian Robertson, The Sociocratic Method. A Dutch model of corporate governance harnesses self-organization to provide agility and a voice to all participants (Strategy+Business Aug 2006)
Steve Waddell, Wicked Problems, Governance as Learning Systems (Feb 2013)
Updated 1 March 2013
Katy Steward of @TheKingsFund asks What Makes a Board Effective? (Feb 2013). She’s looking specifically at the role of the Board in the National Health Service, but there is much that can be generalized to other contexts. She asks some key questions for any given board.
In this post, I want to develop this line of thinking further by exploring what the concept of organizational intelligence implies for boards.
1. Boards need to know what is going on.
2. Boards need to make sense of what is going on.
3. Boards need to ensure that all decisions, policies and procedures are guided by both vision and reality. This includes decisions taken by the board itself, as well as decisions taken at all levels of management.
4. Boards need to encourage learning.
5. Boards need to encourage knowledge-sharing
6. Boards work as a team, and collaborate with other teams
Note: The six points I’ve discussed here correspond to the six core capabilities of organizational intelligence, as described in my Organizational Intelligence eBook and my Organizational Intelligence workshop.
See also
Brian Robertson, The Sociocratic Method. A Dutch model of corporate governance harnesses self-organization to provide agility and a voice to all participants (Strategy+Business Aug 2006)
Steve Waddell, Wicked Problems, Governance as Learning Systems (Feb 2013)
Updated 1 March 2013
#kfleadership Excellent lecture at @TheKingsFund this evening by Professor Michael West. Here are some of my notes.When he left college West was short of money, so he took a job in the coal mines. Productivity was important to everyone, and the pay at …
#kfleadership Excellent lecture at @TheKingsFund this evening by Professor Michael West. Here are some of my notes.When he left college West was short of money, so he took a job in the coal mines. Productivity was important to everyone, and the pay at …
The pioneers of cybernetics borrowed the concept of entropy from thermodynamics, the tendency of systems to become less organized over time.They regarded structure and information as ways of halting or reversing entropy, and information is sometime…
The pioneers of cybernetics borrowed the concept of entropy from thermodynamics, the tendency of systems to become less organized over time.They regarded structure and information as ways of halting or reversing entropy, and information is sometime…
There is a common view in the enterprise architecture world that complexity is a big problem, perhaps the biggest problem, and that the primary task of enterprise architecture is to deal with this complexity.
Indeed, I’m sure I’ve said things like this myself. But if complexity is a problem, whose problem is it? I am not seeing a huge rush of businessmen hiring enterprise architects just to deal with The Complexity Problem. Usually they have much more practical problems that they want addressing.
Frank Furedi argues that human thought and action are being stifled by a regime of uncertainty. The only thing we have to fear is the ‘culture of fear’ itself (April 2007),
|
McGregor introduced the distinction between Theory X and Theory Y, referring to different beliefs about the behaviour and motivation of workers, which may be embedded in management practices and organization culture. Ouchi argued that McGregor’s distinction doesn’t work for all cultures, and identified a third theory, Theory Z, which he used to explain the behaviour of most Japanese companies and some Western companies.
Theory X refers to a set of beliefs in which workers are lazy, require constant supervision, and are motivated only by financial rewards and penalties. Theory Y refers to a set of beliefs in which workers can be trusted to pursue the interests of the firm without constant supervision, and respond to a range of motivators. Theory Z refers to a set of beliefs about lifetime commitment between employers and employees. |
If we frame fear in terms of Theory-X, then it becomes fear-and-blame and we can all go tut-tut. But isn’t there also a way of framing fear in terms of Theory-Y, without yoking it to blame? Performing artists may experience some stage-fright prior to producing an outstanding performance, and while excessive stage-fright may be debilitating, some degree of anxiety may be a positive stimulus. Are we to ban all forms of anxiety and uncertainty from the organization, so that everyone can feel cosy and safe?
And what about Theory-Z? If an organization is under existential threat, then the members collectively need to focus all their energy and creativity on restoring the viability of the organization, and it would be perfectly normal for them to be emotionally as well as intellectually engaged in this task. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention.
All I’m saying is that there are different types of fear, which may have different effects on organizational behaviour. Fear-and-blame is one particular type of fear, but there are other types.
Many workers rightly feel responsible for their work. In most organizations, employees or contractors are ultimately vulnerable to loss of status or loss of earnings if they fail to perform satisfactorily. A completely fear-free organization would be disengaged from its customers and environment, and therefore ethically problematic.
However, a caring organization may be able to attenuate some of this feeling of vulnerability, and provide some kind of safety net that allows people to take reasonable risks without too much fear of failure. Whereas an uncaring organization either fails to provide proper boundaries, or amplifies the sense of vulnerability by capricious and unjust management practices.
Frank Furedi argues that human thought and action are being stifled by a regime of uncertainty. The only thing we have to fear is the ‘culture of fear’ itself (April 2007),
| McGregor introduced the distinction between Theory X and Theory Y, referring to different beliefs about the behaviour and motivation of workers, which may be embedded in management practices and organization culture. Ouchi argued that McGregor’s distinction doesn’t work for all cultures, and identified a third theory, Theory Z, which he used to explain the behaviour of most Japanese companies and some Western companies.
Theory X refers to a set of beliefs in which workers are lazy, require constant supervision, and are motivated only by financial rewards and penalties. Theory Y refers to a set of beliefs in which workers can be trusted to pursue the interests of the firm without constant supervision, and respond to a range of motivators. Theory Z refers to a set of beliefs about lifetime commitment between employers and employees. |
If we frame fear in terms of Theory-X, then it becomes fear-and-blame and we can all go tut-tut. But isn’t there also a way of framing fear in terms of Theory-Y, without yoking it to blame? Performing artists may experience some stage-fright prior to producing an outstanding performance, and while excessive stage-fright may be debilitating, some degree of anxiety may be a positive stimulus. Are we to ban all forms of anxiety and uncertainty from the organization, so that everyone can feel cosy and safe?
And what about Theory-Z? If an organization is under existential threat, then the members collectively need to focus all their energy and creativity on restoring the viability of the organization, and it would be perfectly normal for them to be emotionally as well as intellectually engaged in this task. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention.
All I’m saying is that there are different types of fear, which may have different effects on organizational behaviour. Fear-and-blame is one particular type of fear, but there are other types.
Many workers rightly feel responsible for their work. In most organizations, employees or contractors are ultimately vulnerable to loss of status or loss of earnings if they fail to perform satisfactorily. A completely fear-free organization would be disengaged from its customers and environment, and therefore ethically problematic.
However, a caring organization may be able to attenuate some of this feeling of vulnerability, and provide some kind of safety net that allows people to take reasonable risks without too much fear of failure. Whereas an uncaring organization either fails to provide proper boundaries, or amplifies the sense of vulnerability by capricious and unjust management practices.
@benhammersley at #RSAwork talks about the future of office work, and identifies some of the ways that organizations make themselves stupid. The irony is that a lot of these mechanisms were supposed to make offices more productive and efficient, and to promote collaboration and creativity. As Ben puts it
“We have optimized being on top of things rather than getting to the bottom of things.”
Let’s start with open plan offices. As Ben tells the story, these were introduced in an ideological attempt (supposedly originating in North California) to flatten the office hierarchy, to remove barriers between people, and to encourage people and technology to work together in perfect harmony. There are various dysfunctional versions of this Californian Ideology – see my post All Chewed Over By Machines (May 2011).
In practice, various interesting forms of behaviour emerge in open plan offices. Ben notes the widespread practice of more powerful workers grabbing the desks near to the wall, leaving juniors huddled in the middle in a state of permanent anxiety, as if they were antelope anticipating the lion’s pounce.
Many offices are designed as semi-open plan, with people huddled in cubicles, but with the constant chance of someone popping a head over the partition.
In some offices, there is a deliberate policy to move people around – sometimes called hot-desking. One of the supposed benefits of this policy is that it encourages workers to constantly develop new relationships with their transient neighbours. For companies whose workers don’t spend all their time in the office, this policy also reduces the amount of office space required. However, the uncertainty and anxiety of getting any desk, let alone a decent desk near the wall and away from the more irritating co-workers, might be regarded as a negative factor.
Putting aside the economics and culture and psychological impact of open plan offices, the essential justification is that they promote communication and collaboration. These elements are necessary but not sufficient for productivity and innovation in a knowledge-based organization. Not sufficient because productivity and innovation also depend on concentrated hard work.