Agility and Fear

by

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.

Agility and Fear

by

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.

How Offices Make People Stupid

by

@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.

Read more »

How Offices Make People Stupid

by

@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.

Read more »

Culture Mapping Tool

by

Dave Gray posted on his blog that he has created a tool to help understand corporate cultures. This looks very interesting… I could see lots of uses for this tool as an Enterprise Architect. The typical stakeholder management only gets…

drEAmtime – modelling

by

Finally I can see the end of the red line created by the great post from Ivo Velitchkov. So far I have created following posts:

  1. drEAmtime – Communication
  2. drEAmtime – Bridging the Silo
  3. drEAmtime – Capability Cemetery
  4. drEAmtime – EPIC SCAN
  5. drEAmtime – Archetypes
  6. drEAmtime – WISE SCAN
  7. drEAmtime – PACE SCAN 

  8. drEAmtime – Frameworks

Two more posts to go, this one and another final one. To quote Ivo: 

Then of course modelling itself is believed to help in dealing with complexity. But what kind of modelling? A very complicated architecture diagram does not show complexity. It just shows a lot of effort spent in denial of it.
 

Actually I personally believe that modelling is a great tool and support communication quite a lot, if applied correctly. I also have a couple of models here in my blog which help me to explain and visualize what I think. Looking at them isolated they are most likely confusing and difficult to understand, which makes it sometimes indeed difficult to use them alone. But in the support of the whole storyline, be it as part of a blog post or as part of a presentation the model helps to align the thinking. The one I refer to most here in the blog is actually the circulatory GLUE system:

 
Just a cube with lots of confusing lines. Only by working through my GLUE thinking and GLUE posts it hopefully gets meaningful. Which reminds me that I need to label my posts a bit more organized, otherwise it gets difficult to find information. Or I need to put all of it together, reorganize it and write it again in a more structured way, more like a book? Maybe a project worth to go, maybe not. If you have feedback here you are more than welcome.
 


Coming back to Ivos post there is jokes circulating around me: “When have you last time had a meeting with Kai without him using the whiteboard?” or “We are trained to sit so that we have free view towards the whiteboard.” Scott Ambler has heavily influenced my thinking with his great website about Agile Modeling besides a lot of great colleagues I had over the years who showed skilled approaches in supporting their line of argumentation with the right model at the right moment. I also liked his Whiteboard Warrior concept, but he has put it offline from his website. There is some traces left in the web though.

One of my key approaches is to draw while I speak. Many words (and I say and write a lot) are more often confusing than enlighting, while a single diagram just shows it. Finding those is not always easy, but the more I model the easier it is to create the right drawing at the moment when it is needed. So my advise is: draw to support your line of thinking, explain in pictures, add a story and the whole gets  its own life. Which most likely will return back to you one day, grown over time, transformed and morphed, but beautiful. I try to show Enterprise Architecture and the elements which are delivered via Enterprise Architecture in their full beauty, sometimes I fail, sometimes I succeed.


And a model which is beautiful will carry the story way longer and way more emotional than any dry facts. If Dennis Dutton is right with his assumption than it is rooted in human beeings. I found the success in this approach by try and error. Feedback and comments as always more than welcome.

drEAmtime – modelling

by

Finally I can see the end of the red line created by the great post from Ivo Velitchkov. So far I have created following posts:

  1. drEAmtime – Communication
  2. drEAmtime – Bridging the Silo
  3. drEAmtime – Capability Cemetery
  4. drEAmtime – EPIC SCAN
  5. drEAmtime – Archetypes
  6. drEAmtime – WISE SCAN
  7. drEAmtime – PACE SCAN 

  8. drEAmtime – Frameworks

Two more posts to go, this one and another final one. To quote Ivo: 

Then of course modelling itself is believed to help in dealing with complexity. But what kind of modelling? A very complicated architecture diagram does not show complexity. It just shows a lot of effort spent in denial of it.
 

Actually I personally believe that modelling is a great tool and support communication quite a lot, if applied correctly. I also have a couple of models here in my blog which help me to explain and visualize what I think. Looking at them isolated they are most likely confusing and difficult to understand, which makes it sometimes indeed difficult to use them alone. But in the support of the whole storyline, be it as part of a blog post or as part of a presentation the model helps to align the thinking. The one I refer to most here in the blog is actually the circulatory GLUE system:

 
Just a cube with lots of confusing lines. Only by working through my GLUE thinking and GLUE posts it hopefully gets meaningful. Which reminds me that I need to label my posts a bit more organized, otherwise it gets difficult to find information. Or I need to put all of it together, reorganize it and write it again in a more structured way, more like a book? Maybe a project worth to go, maybe not. If you have feedback here you are more than welcome.
 


Coming back to Ivos post there is jokes circulating around me: “When have you last time had a meeting with Kai without him using the whiteboard?” or “We are trained to sit so that we have free view towards the whiteboard.” Scott Ambler has heavily influenced my thinking with his great website about Agile Modeling besides a lot of great colleagues I had over the years who showed skilled approaches in supporting their line of argumentation with the right model at the right moment. I also liked his Whiteboard Warrior concept, but he has put it offline from his website. There is some traces left in the web though.

One of my key approaches is to draw while I speak. Many words (and I say and write a lot) are more often confusing than enlighting, while a single diagram just shows it. Finding those is not always easy, but the more I model the easier it is to create the right drawing at the moment when it is needed. So my advise is: draw to support your line of thinking, explain in pictures, add a story and the whole gets  its own life. Which most likely will return back to you one day, grown over time, transformed and morphed, but beautiful. I try to show Enterprise Architecture and the elements which are delivered via Enterprise Architecture in their full beauty, sometimes I fail, sometimes I succeed.


And a model which is beautiful will carry the story way longer and way more emotional than any dry facts. If Dennis Dutton is right with his assumption than it is rooted in human beeings. I found the success in this approach by try and error. Feedback and comments as always more than welcome.

Categories Uncategorized

Three Best Practices for Successful Implementation of Enterprise Architecture Using the TOGAF® Framework and the ArchiMate® Modeling Language

by

How should we organize ourselves in order to be successful? An architecture framework is a foundational structure for developing a broad range of architectures and consists of a process and a modeling component. The TOGAF® framework and the ArchiMate® modeling language are two leading and widely adopted standards in this field. Continue reading →

“Fairy Bright Eyes”, Projects, and Decay

by

“Fairy Bright Eyes” is an installation by Ryan Monro, one of a dozen artworks in Auckland’s Learning Precinct Micro Sites initiative1.  A unexpected curiousity in an unusual location on a university campus, this piece represents beautiful aspirations and their subsequent inevitable decay: A chandelier hangs over an alleyway. At first it symbolises luxury and hope […]