82,891
edits
Change paradox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:—Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum}}{{smallcaps|We take it that}}, like any other intellectual proposition,<ref>We speak of none other than the [[Duhem-Quine thesis]] as to the theory-dependence of observation: that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because any test presupposes one or more background assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses.</ref> every management initiative must be driven by some ''theory'' or other — that is, it must be designed to prove out a hypothesis that ''already exists in someone’s mind''. | :—Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum}}{{smallcaps|We take it that}}, like any other intellectual proposition,<ref>We speak of none other than the [[Duhem-Quine thesis]] as to the theory-dependence of observation: that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because any test presupposes one or more background assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses.</ref> every management initiative must be driven by some ''theory'' or other — that is, it must be designed to prove out a hypothesis that ''already exists in someone’s mind''. | ||
Now, however much they might present to the outside world as embodiments of all that is ''laissez-faire'', remember: within their walls, large commercial organisations are dictatorships.<ref>We are not (just) being provocative here: the analogy is eerily precise: there is a tight command-and-control structure, no meaningful democracy; the centralised dissemination of information that is filtered, framed and sometimes rewritten to make the administration look good, and all is ably supported by a [[human resources|clandestine internal agency]] with unlimited power whose job is to keep the ranks in a state of fear and mistrust of each other and the powers that be. </ref> Only those at the top, or in human resources, have any kind of wherewithal, other than ''to keep quiet and do what they are told''. | |||
Thus, the minds whose hypotheses tend to get tested belong to those at the top: they can ''mandate'' organisational change: a “mandate” is an ''order''. Orders come from the top. | |||
Passive leadership is, thus, somewhere between a zero-sum and a negative-sum game. Therefore, we coin a proposition: ''To lead is to | Indeed, the very point of ''being'' at the top ''is'' ''to change things''. If you don’t, what are you even being paid for? In your best case, the organisation is ticking along nicely by itself and does not need your help. In a worse case, it does need your help, but you are not giving it. In either case, ''[[Get your coat|prenez ton manteau]].'' | ||
Passive leadership is, thus, somewhere between a zero-sum and a negative-sum game. | |||
Therefore, we coin a proposition: ''To lead is to change things''. | |||
Now. | Now. | ||
To | To want change is to believe things are sub-optimal: that the organisation is dysfunctional, elliptical or somehow out of whack. But those who lead organisations are precisely the ones who have lived their best lives within, because of, and thanks to, the organisation ''as it presently is''. They have flourished ''absent'' change. | ||
But those who lead organisations | |||
These people, if they know what is good for them, ''do not really want change''. | |||
The [[paradox]], therefore: those at the top are ''empowered'' and ''compelled'' to make change, but have the most to lose if they actually change anything. The key, therefore: ''look'' like you are changing things, and ''sound'' like it, but on no account actually ''do'' it. | |||
===The making of leaders=== | ===The making of leaders=== | ||
So, how do leaders get to lead? Well, an organisation is a ''[[system]]'': a pulmonary lattice of stocks, flows and feedback loops, sending information, consuming resources, generating artefacts and, over time ''building'' | So, how do leaders get to lead? Well, an organisation is a ''[[system]]'': a pulmonary lattice of stocks, flows and feedback loops, sending information, consuming resources, generating artefacts and, over time ''building'' ''itself'': speed up the frame-rate and you will see the organisation grow: whole new subsystems spawn and fiefdoms mushroom, while others wither and desiccate. The firm is alive; an organism: ''it makes itself''. In a [[I am a Strange Loop|strangely loopy]] way, the firm [[emerges]] from its own recursive [[systemantics|systems]]. | ||
Besides products, [[Externality|externalities]], fiefdoms and its stock-in-trade, another thing a firm self-generates is ''its own leaders''. In an odd way, the organisation ''makes'' its own personnel: it selects, fashions and moulds them; it weeds out those who are misaligned, promotes those who are fittest and, where home-growns are not yet match-fit, brings in and enculturates external candidates. | |||
Besides | |||
Only the most successful of these personnel — the most paradigmatically ''of'' the organisation; who most perfectly resemble its essence — ever make it to the executive suite.<ref>Cry bitter tears, my friends: almost certainly, you are not so destined. The sooner you realise this, the easier becomes your burden.</ref> The selection process by which one ascends that greasy pole is relentless, unending and brutal. It fashions people, the way a river fashions stone.<ref>Now you may notice ''another'' [[paradox]] here: however singly directed from on high it seems, the very illusion of command-and-control ''[[emergence|emerges]] from the subconscious machinations of the beast''.</ref> | Only the most successful of these personnel — the most paradigmatically ''of'' the organisation; who most perfectly resemble its essence — ever make it to the executive suite.<ref>Cry bitter tears, my friends: almost certainly, you are not so destined. The sooner you realise this, the easier becomes your burden.</ref> The selection process by which one ascends that greasy pole is relentless, unending and brutal. It fashions people, the way a river fashions stone.<ref>Now you may notice ''another'' [[paradox]] here: however singly directed from on high it seems, the very illusion of command-and-control ''[[emergence|emerges]] from the subconscious machinations of the beast''.</ref> | ||
| Line 44: | Line 43: | ||
Thus, management has derived some kind of prime directive: “I must change. For it is what leaders do. But whatever change I make, I must make it, without ...” — it is difficult to put this any way other than bluntly, readers — “... whatever change I make, I must make it without ''changing'' anything”. | Thus, management has derived some kind of prime directive: “I must change. For it is what leaders do. But whatever change I make, I must make it, without ...” — it is difficult to put this any way other than bluntly, readers — “... whatever change I make, I must make it without ''changing'' anything”. | ||
And so it comes to pass: no [[Outsourcing|outsourcing program]], no employee survey, no cost challenge, no well-being outreach, no human resources initiative in history has been designed to prove that, for example, the executive | And so it comes to pass: no [[Outsourcing|outsourcing program]], no employee survey, no cost challenge, no well-being outreach, no human resources initiative in history has ever been designed to prove that, for example, the chief executive is a useless, glad-handing dilettante, nor that the echelons of upper management, though in place for decades, have never made an ounce of positive difference; nor that the problem with our stars is not the cost of front-line staff but the sediment of useless management pressing down upon them, hindering their reactions to the changing needs and desires of their local markets, and ''stopping them from being able to bring about meaningful change''. We dare say it would be rather fun if someone were to try to launch such an initiative, but it would be a work of science fiction. | ||
We dare say it would be rather fun if someone were to try to launch an initiative | |||
''Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.'' Only their staff would do that, if anyone asked them. So no-one asks them. | |||
=== How change happens === | === How change happens === | ||
Change comes from fracture, disruption and disharmony: when shafts of light are thrown from unexpected angles by unintentionally broken windows, and they illuminate old problems or new opportunities in unexpected ways. | Change comes from fracture, disruption and disharmony: when shafts of light are thrown from unexpected angles by unintentionally broken windows, and they illuminate old problems or new opportunities in unexpected ways. Leaders are not positioned, or disposed, to see these opportunities. They lie around on the ground, in accidents, problems, snafus, temporal shifts, breaks in the weather, transitory vistas: fleeting opportunities hidden well beyond the visible range of the executive suite. | ||
Penicillin, the microwave, Velcro and the theory of the Big Bang were all discovered by accident. So too, Teflon, vulcanised rubber, Viagra and Coca-Cola.<ref>According to [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/g1216/10-awesome-accidental-discoveries/ ''Popular Mechanics'' Magazine].</ref> | Penicillin, the microwave, Velcro and the theory of the Big Bang were all discovered by accident. So too, Teflon, vulcanised rubber, Viagra and Coca-Cola.<ref>According to [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/g1216/10-awesome-accidental-discoveries/ ''Popular Mechanics'' Magazine].</ref> | ||