Category Archives: Complexity

Complexity

One ounce of emotion beats a ton of scientific evidence. It’s all about “the babies….”

Posted on by
1

20130519-165205.jpg

Last week I attended an event organised by The Alliance for Useful Evidence and Wales Public Services 2025 (#a4ue on Twitter). The aim was to work out how you get policies developed and practices delivered that are better informed by evidence. The problem seems to be that millions of pounds (of taxpayers money) is spent on things for which there is limited evidence of success.

There were lots of views about how you collect better evidence and a bit of ‘hand wringing’. Why is it that evidence doesn’t get used properly? To paraphrase; “We produce compelling, factually accurate evidence yet the politicians ignore it and make decisions based on political values, not the evidence we put in front of them……”.

This situation could apply almost anywhere. Head down to your Local Council Planning Committee and you probably won’t have to wait too long before you see the Committee Members overrule some technically correct, fully evidenced advice from the Planning Officer. A cruel but compelling spectator sport.

In their defence I’d say its not just politicians that are ‘guilty’ of this, and in fact, it’s more to do with how you communicate the evidence. Here’s a personal experience.

Lets clean up the Gas Works. About 20 years ago I was working in environmental protection when a proposal to clean up a former heavy industry site landed on my desk. This was an imaginative and cost effective proposal that would deal with the huge quantities of toxic waste that had blighted a local community for over a 100 years. In three years time the site would be regenerated, creating space for new clean employment opportunities and a community recreation facility. What could possibly go wrong?

The Public Meeting. Imagine this, a village hall packed with about 100 local citizens and a bunch of experts sat on the stage. The experts had absolutely tons of carefully researched scientific evidence about why this proposal was a good thing:

  • Long term risks to health from the site would be removed;
  • Risks during cleanup would be minimal and well managed;
  • Economic benefits during the clean-up would be significant (jobs);
  • Long term job opportunities were predicated;
  • River water and ground water quality would improve significantly;
  • The Environment and biodiversity in the valley would be improved; and
  • Sustainability was constantly mentioned.

This was a very logical, rational, well balanced and fully evidenced argument to proceed with the scheme. As a trained scientist I was completely convinced.

The Counter Argument. A lady stood up at the back of the room and yelled “what about the babies……?”. She then proceeded to describe in graphic detail a case of birth abnormalities that had occurred close to a waste management facility in a nearby community. That situation was completely different to what we were talking about, but that didn’t matter. The damage had been done. The carefully prepared evidence had been rendered useless by 30 seconds of pure emotion. That’s where I learnt the phrase, “one ounce of emotion beats a ton of scientific evidence”.

As I recall, the clean up of the site was delayed for several years (of continued pollution) while an agreeable compromise was reached.

Why don’t we accept what experts say? In this seminar I heard Dave Snowden talk about how you need to be prepared to accept new ideas. Patterns of recognition need to be developed beforehand so that you can accept the new idea. If we don’t recognise what is being offered we are more likely to reject it straight off. I’ll dig out my notes from the session and put together a more substantial post.

For me the learning from “what about the babies…”, has great relevance to the ‘useful evidence’ debate. It’s all about choice. Whether you are a local citizen, policy maker, delivering a service or a politician you have the choice of ignoring or using evidence. Understanding that people will make choices about what they absorb, no matter how scientifically accurate, is worth thinking about if you are trying to get people to use your ‘really useful evidence’.

So, whats the PONT?

  1. People can choose what evidence they accept. Scientific ‘fact’ does not automatically equal acceptance.
  2. How evidence is presented is important if you want people to understand and accept it. Recognition of something familiar is important.
  3. Emotion will beat evidence and facts, just remember “the babies……”

Picture Source: Just a thought. The evidence bag in the picture says ‘to be opened by authorised personnel only’. I wonder how much other evidence is given this ‘experts only’ status!

Linked posts: How Florence Nightingale used infographics to convince Civil Servants and Politicians that they needed to improve sanitary conditions to reduce deaths during the Crimean War. http://whatsthepont.com/2013/01/27/florence-nightingale-the-mother-of-infographics-btw-she-was-also-a-nurse/

Encouraging Innovation. Use some Naive Experts, Belbin Resource Investigators and send them ‘back to the floor’.

Posted on by
6

20130203-214349.jpgHere is something you may have encountered.

Situation: A major problem with a service not meeting the needs of customers. If you don’t innovate you will be deeper in trouble or out of business.

Answer:  Assemble a team of subject matter experts to promote innovation.

Result: A deep focus upon improving what already exists but nothing very innovative.

Why this happens is all perfectly reasonable and logical. You have a difficult, high risk situation and who do you ask to drive the innovation? Experts who have worked in this area before or someone with no experience in the field? Obviously you choose the experts, a trusted pair of hands. This is where problems can arise, people trying to develop a novel solution based upon what they already know. Would it be better to try something completely different?

Here are two reasons why you might want to avoid total reliance on subject matter experts when you are trying to encourage innovation.

Experts have patterns of how to do things. This comes from the process of how we become experts. I’ve mentioned this before in connection with London Cab Drivers and ‘The Knowledge’. Experts go through an extended process of learning, doing and understanding which fixes patterns in the brain and a certain way of doing things. When it comes to dealing with a new problem, experts will try to impose the best fit pattern based on what they already know. Breaking the influence of these patterns takes a huge conscious effort, almost like ‘un-learning’ what you already know.

Knowledge is power. This might be a bit more controversial but not every expert is open to new ideas or happy to be questioned. You do see the occasional subject matter expert that will kill off all new ideas in case they undermine their status and power base. I mentioned this in my post about Idea Antibodies.

So what can you do about it? It’s easy to say “be aware of your behaviours”, but how many of us actually do that, particularly if there are strong subconscious factors at work. Here are three suggestions I picked up from Dave Snowden at this seminar last week.

Get Belbin Resource Investigators to run the Innovation Team. Have a look at the Belbin website on Team styles for a full explanation, but essentially Resource Investigators think that ‘someone else has the answer’. As a result they are prepared to listen to people, continually look around and borrow ideas from elsewhere. A bit of a Curious George and a desirable member of any innovation team.

Introduce Naive Experts. This is an expert from another field that can ask the naive questions, the neurobiologists who asks the question of the astrophysicist etc. This is one of the concepts associated with the coworking movement where conversations between unconnected individuals have created serendipitous outcomes.

Send Experts ‘Back to the Floor’ (or better still a different floor). This is quite a radical suggestion and I suspect a few experts would hate this. The benefits of experiencing things from a different point of view might help disrupt a few of the existing brain patterns and help with accepting new ideas.

There is a huge need for subject matter experts; I’m not saying we can do without them, quite the opposite. It is the balance of experts I am questioning. If there are too many of the same type of experts, all with deep knowledge and well-developed patterns of thinking about a specific area of activity it can be a problem. This can work against the introduction of new ideas, subconsciously or consciously.  If you don’t believe me have a look at this video about the discovery of Longitude. Introducing something different into the innovation team and allowing new ideas to flourish has to be a good thing.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Experts are absolutely essential; it is the balance in innovation teams I am questioning.
  2. As with any other team the range of styles used by people needs to be considered.
  3. Naive experts and others need to be involved in innovation teams to ensure you get a diverse range of ideas.

Picture Source: Curious George, the perfect member for your innovation team.

http://coolspotters.com/movies/curious-george/wallpapers/43012

Agile Project Management and a Naval Bombardment in Newport, South Wales

Posted on by
2

20121202-193420.jpgThis is actually about the game Battleships and not some sinister plot (probably by Cardiffians) to obliterate Newport in a naval bombardment.

Last week I went to Newport to learn about agile project management from James Scrimshire of hurricanefour.com and got involved in a game of Battleships. It was at a Port80 event organised by all round good guy (and web strategy gun-slinger) Joel Hughes. The methodology for what we did can be found here on James’ site, and here is a link to James’ slides. This is what I took from a very illuminating exercise, thanks James and Joel.

The idea behind the exercise is to demonstrate that when you are delivering a large complex project, small cycles where you repeatedly; plan act and review are far more effective than a single ‘big bang’ approach. I found the phrase ‘waterfall’ used to describe the project management approach of designing and specifying everything at the beginning of the project and then delivering it all together a useful analogy. This was a big contrast to the agile approach where there are repeated cycles of planning, taking action, reviewing and moving into the next phase of action based upon the feedback you have gathered. It’s similar to the Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle used in continuous improvement methods.

If you’ve never played the original game of battleships read the instructions here. This is how the battleships exercise with James worked:

  • Both players placed their ships in secret as required.
  • Player A then launched all of their bombs in one go. There is no feedback between bombs.
  • Player B then launches their bombs. Following each bomb they are given feedback, “was it a hit or a miss?”
  • The game ends when Player B has sunk all of Player A’s ships or run out of bombs.
  • The result? Player B scores more than Player A, because they have more effectively targeted their bombs based on the multiple feedback cycles. It was certainly the case when the results were taken across the approximately 20 pairs of players in the room.

Playing the battleships game it became obvious that the process of pausing, getting feedback and planning the next bomb position in response to the information was far more effective than the single ‘50 bombs in one go’ approach. Playing battleships this way is a very useful practical exercise to demonstrate the difference between the agile and waterfall approaches to project management.

The big question that remains is do we actually recognise this in real life? I don’t think I would have to look very far to find a few complicated projects that are sticking to the ‘waterfall’ approach, tightly specifying everything up front and rigidly sticking to the plan. I have written about something similar previously where I mentioned safe to fail pilots and Trojan Mice. Recognising that the world is a complex and unpredictable was at the heart of what James spoke about, and the title of the presentation, ‘Welcome to Uncertainty’. Unfortunately in lots of cases simplistic and highly rigid project management approaches are applied inappropriately.

James and I did speak about complexity and project management and the Cynefin Framework came up. By sheer coincidence I’d listened to Dave Snowden speak about Cynefin the day before at this seminar in Cardiff.. Dave mentioned that Cynefin has been highlighted by Gartners who said that “By 2016, the Cynefin framework will be used in 10% of IT operations organizations as a sensemaking methodology.” Good news and something to chat more about over a game of battleships.

So, what’s the PONT?

  • No battle plan survives the first engagement with the enemy. The same is true of project plans so why stick with a rigid out of date plan?
  • Utilising rapid feedback loops to plan, act, sense and respond is an effective way of getting a better result.
  • This version of battleships was very useful at illustrating the advantages of taking an agile approach to project management.

 

20121205-201743.jpgNot what I was expecting from a search of ‘cats playing battleships’. Helen Reynolds, Cat Picture Consultant tells me its OK though. Picture source:

http://coverslike.com/cat_vs_battleship-facebook-cover-photos.html

Experts are great……. you just have to keep them in their box.

Posted on by
6

This is something a former boss of mine used to say. I realise it has the potential to upset a few people (particularly experts); please don’t get offended just yet.

This post Is Best Practice the Enemy of Innovation generated a bit of discussion that got me digging deeper into the role of experts in innovation. Here are a few of the things I learned.

It takes hard graft to become an expert. You study, develop your understanding, you practice a lot (an average of 34 months for London Cabbies to get The Knowledge), you learn from failure and keep on working to become more experienced and knowledgeable about what you do. Becoming an expert takes a lot of effort.

Part of the development involves learning about how to identify a situation and then how to respond to it. It is a process of pattern entrainment in the brain which is described in this video by Dave Snowden. In the case of the London Cabbie, they will recognise the patterns of street signs and buildings that will allow them to identify where they are, and where they need to go (amongst 25,000 streets). The same could be said for the experts scanning the contents of suitcases at the airport check in. They know the patterns of what is ‘normal’ amongst the thousands of things people carry onto aeroplanes and can quickly pick up what’s abnormal or different.

From sport I heard Matthew Syed (three times Commonwealth Table Tennis Champion) speak about the same pattern entrainment process in tennis. Expert players will recognise the body patterns of people serving to them. As a result they make predictions and position themselves to receive the ball as it arrives. Someone unable to recognise the ‘patterns’ of the server would take much longer to react, and loose the point.

On an entirely parochial note, I do wonder if this happened in Welsh Rugby? The attacking patterns of our strike runners have been recognised and learnt. Opposing teams now know exactly how to react in defence (maybe it is time for another Shane Williams?)

What happens to experts when things change? If an expert is out of their known problem solving environment, things could get challenging. There is a risk they might apply what they know and force a solution which could have negative consequences. Interestingly, I bet if you took a London Cabbie to Cardiff and asked them to navigate across the city they wouldn’t do it based upon what they know about London; they would seek some local information. I’m not sure that’s the case with all experts who find themselves tackling problems outside of their experience. They quite naturally apply what they know.

So how do experts approach innovation? Given that innovation is about things that are new and different, beyond what you already know, things could be tough for experts. In this video about the discovery of longitude, Dave Snowden says “when the basic structure around you changes expertise can be an inhibiting factor”.

Business Psychologist, Phillipa Davies commented on the previous post that, “‘experts’ defending their status against loss of face can cripple the new and the risky”.

I’d imagine that if the power base you have developed through years of hard graft (your expertise) is under threat, it’s probably a natural response to fight against the new and unknown.

The approach for experts (to avoid being kept in the box) probably needs to be around understanding and willingness. Understanding that being an expert (who are absolutely necessary), may be a barrier to innovation and the willingness to do something about it. Returning to my former boss where this started, he was an expert in several areas (some of them quite obscure). What he did have though was awareness of his limitations in areas outside of his expertise. Shortly after being put in charge of a sensitive, people focused department (definitely not his forte) he said “it’s like putting King Herod in charge of Mothercare, I need some help!”

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Experts are absolutely necessary. The hard graft they put in to achieve their expert position should be recognised and rewarded.
  2. Innovation is about new things that may be unknown to experts. It’s not about doing the old things better.
  3. Experts need to be aware of the potential risks and not force solutions based upon what they know already.

Picture Source: http://4realleaders.com/2012/07/expert-syndrome/

This is from an interesting post by Doug Blackie who talks about Expert Syndrome. Worth a read for anyone involved in participation, engagement and collaboration projects.

Document Management is not Knowledge Management….. ask any London Cab Driver with ‘The Knowledge’

Posted on by
3

Have you ever noticed people riding mopeds around London with a clipboard on the front holding a route map? (apologies to Londoners for my provincial naivety).

These are the Knowledge Boys and Girls undertaking the extremely challenging training necessary to become a licensed London Black Cab driver. The requirements are astonishingly difficult and include things like memorising 320 standard routes across London, the location of 25,000 streets and the sequence of theatres on Shaftesbury Avenue. It takes on average 34 months, a lot of London driving (plus a number other requirements) to acquire The Knowledge. It’s so mentally demanding that this BBC article  reports that the brain of a Knowledge Boy/Girl swells during training.

That’s very interesting, but what’s it got to with documents and knowledge? The answer lies in this post by Dave Snowden where he illustrates the difference between information and knowledge with the example of using a map of a city to navigate (document containing information) compared to what a London taxi driver possesses (knowledge). In the context of London Cabs, information could consist of route plans, landmark descriptions, traffic reports, maps and other documents. Knowledge however is different. It has developed through experience, insight and a lot of hard graft. Quite appropriately, ‘The Knowledge’ is a phrase that has a great deal of kudos when associated with London Cab Drivers.

Back to document management vs. knowledge management debate. The example of the London Black Cab Divers and The Knowledge has helped my understanding of the differences between the two. So that I don’t forget here are a few points to remind myself of why a document management system (a very necessary requirement for all sorts of reasons) will not provide what is needed for knowledge management.

Most documents are not knowledge. Very few documents capture real knowledge. The insight and experience that accounts for knowledge rarely gets translated into written documents. What we write down is only a fraction of what we actually know.

Knowledge can only be volunteered, not conscripted. Another Dave Snowden quote. I have written about this previously where I also suggested that some documents (even those in a document management system) would be at the best incomplete and possibly wrong. People tend to write versions of events that meet the requirement of organisational procedures and policies, rather than what actually happened. It’s not a great basis for a sound knowledge management system if your ‘building blocks’ are incomplete and possibly wrong.

Document management systems don’t claim to be knowledge management systems. Well at least they don’t in the Wikipedia definition. I enjoyed reading this definition, it makes no reference to knowledge management…….”A document management system is a computer system used to track and store electronic documents. It is usually also capable of keeping track of the different versions modified by different users“. I find the rest of the article just as helpful and will be re-reading it regularly to avoid any confusion with knowledge management.

Ultimately this leaves a big question ‘how do you approach knowledge management?’  Given the social nature of knowledge (it’s about what people know and think), there has to be huge scope for linking knowledge management with social media approaches, a subject for future posts.

One final definition, information will tell you a tomato is a fruit, but knowledge tells you not to put them in the fruit salad.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Document management is not knowledge management.
  2. Knowledge is something people hold in their heads which has been gained through experience, insight and effort. Sharing this knowledge is a deeply social process, not easily achieved through a document management system.
  3. If you had options for crossing London, at rush hour, who would you choose? Someone using a top end ‘sat nav’, radio traffic updates and a glossy map; or a London Cab Driver with The Knowledge?

Linked posts: Why is good practice such a bad traveller? http://whatsthepont.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/why-is-good-practice-such-a-bad-traveller/

Picture source:http://hurryupandwaitblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/for-love-of-knowledge-knowledge.html

http://www.taxitradepromotions.co.uk/keep-calm-ive-got-the-knowledge/keep-calm-ive-got-the-knowledge-print.html

Is Best Practice the Enemy of Innovation?

Posted on by
17

Here’s a confession. Before I go to bed I like to watch an episode of How It’s Made.

There is something very soothing about manufacturing processes. The logical sequence, efficient systems, robotic arms, complete repeatability, high levels of certainty and quality products are like a comfort blanket before I go to sleep.

Unfortunately the world I wake up to isn’t quite like this, generally it’s all a bit more confusing.

This mirrors some of the confusion around best practice and innovation. Frequently I hear; ‘organisations must be more innovative’ rapidly followed with ‘organisations must implement best practice’. But how do the two fit together, particularly if you’ve got other voices saying ‘best practice is the enemy of innovation’?

Here’s the Wikipedia definition of best practice: ‘a method or technique that has consistently shown results superior to those achieved with other means, and that is used as a benchmark. ……..used to describe the process of developing and following a standard way of doing things that multiple organizations can use’.

This, and many other definitions imply to me that ‘best practice’ is the single and ‘best’ way of doing something, it’s not ‘pick and mix’. If this is the case, how can an activity be improved if it’s already ‘the best ‘? Standardisation also features. If this is the case, how do you innovate in an environment where everything is carefully fixed, controlled and repeatable?

So, is it true, best practice really is the enemy of innovation?

There are a few examples that support this argument. Possibly the most well-known is about the inventors of ‘Post it’ notes, 3M. There are many commentaries about the decline in their ability to innovate following the introduction of Six Sigma techniques. This case study from The Design Council talks about ‘over zealous management techniques stifling creative thinking’. The application of Six Sigma within the 3M R&D function was preventing innovation.

This article from Business Week, talks about the tension between Six Sigma ‘control’ vs innovative ‘freedom’. They say that Six Sigma control is great for standard or routine processes in manufacturing and the scale-up of new products. However, Six Sigma was a disaster for innovative new products at 3M. Is this an example of best practice overkill?

Innovation is not Best Practice is a thought provoking perspective from Professor Alf Rehn from the University of Manchester Business School. The section on ‘The Problem with Best Practice’ defines best practice as, “stuff that worked in the past“. He makes the link with work on human development and suggests that the drive to seek and stick with ‘best practice’ is ‘programmed’ into humans as a survival instinct.

This idea that the human brain is programmed to look for and accept best practice (the quickest solution) is picked up by Stephen M. Shapiro in his book, ‘Best Practices are Stupid’. Check out this video Stephen talking about ‘expertise is the enemy of innovation’.

Finally here’s a sporting example, Dick Fosbury. Prior to 1968 Olympics, high jump best practice was going over the bar sideways or face first. Dick Fosbury failed to comply with the prevailing best practice went over backwards, and the result is history. Since smashing the world record the ‘Fosbury Flop’ has been the accepted best practice for the high jump, and even inspired a commemorative Silver Dollar.

Back to the confusion, where this started. I think there is a place for best practice. In the world of manufacturing and ‘How it’s Made’ it’s a key part of success. I am very happy that the engines of planes I fly in are built and maintained by Six Sigma enthusiasts. However, in other environments I’m not so sure. There are multiple ways to approach the complex issues faced by public services. It can be counter-productive to adopt a; ‘one size fits all’, ‘adopt or else’, best practice approach in these situations. At the very least it will probably be the enemy of innovation.

So, what’s the PONT?

  • The phase “best practice” is a widely misused and poorly understood. Before its used people should be clear about what they mean.
  • There is evidence that the ‘over zealous’ application of ‘best practice’ type management thinking and techniques can stifle innovation.
  • There is an important place for best practice, but it’s dependent upon the context, which needs to be understood.

Picture source: US Olympic High Jump Silver Dollar. Best practice ignored!  http://www.usmint.gov/historianscorner/?action=coinDetail&id=29524

Maybe cats had the high jump sorted out long before Dick Fosbury?

Self Organised Workgroups – Keystone Cops or Well Oiled Machine?

Posted on by
3

Recently my kids held a ‘garden party’, which has reversed many of my expectations. The end result has been a much neater garden; some repaired power tools and an enhanced reputation for me as a really cool dad. I’d like to say it was down to my supreme leadership, but actually I had very little to do with it. The kids just did things themselves. It’s astonishing what the shame of an unkempt garden can do for the motivation of teenagers wishing to impress their peers.

My expectation had been of something like an episode of the Keystone Cops, a complete mess, lack of coordination, and a great deal of energy spent achieving nothing (ring any bells?). Instead I got weeding in the rain, hedge cutting and internet searches to locate a replacement part for a broken strimmer. Wonders will never cease.

The point of all this is to direct a friend towards some advice on how they might get a group of people to self organise.  It’s a fairly straightforward challenge (compared to a teenage party).  Approximately 30 people who need to pair up to carry out some work together. The options currently being considered are:

  • Issue precise instructions on exactly how they should do things;
  • Get involved and organise them; or
  • Let them get on with it (they are after all grownups).

Here is the advice; watch this video who needs leaders? This was shown by Nick Obolensky one of the speakers at this year’s Welsh Public Services Summer School .

Nick’s video illustrates that it is possible for a large number of people to self organise to carry out a reasonably challenging task. The keys to success seem to be:

  • A clearly defined outcome that everyone understands;
  • Setting a limited number of clear boundaries (basic rules); and
  • Trusting people to get on with it and do the job.

I won’t spoil the video for you, have a look for yourself. In particular look out for the bit at the end where Nick asks, “how long would that have taken if we had put someone in charge?”

Back to my friend; my advice to them, go on, have a go at self orgaisation. All you need to do is trust them (and yourself). Imagine how much time and effort you will save, which you can then spend doing something much more interesting and productive than herding cats.

So what’s the PONT?

  1. Self organised workgroups are possible and do work, even with the most unlikely subjects (my teenage kids).
  2. Everyone having a clear understanding of the outcome and small number of basic rules is important.
  3. Above all trust is critical. Trusting people to get on with it, and trusting yourself to let go.

Link to herding cats post: http://whatsthepont.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/herding-cats%e2%80%a6-is-this-an-unconference/

Negative Capability, John Keats and Half Man Half Biscuit.

Posted on by
1

Everybody sing along…….

There is nothing better in life,

Than writing on the sole of your slipper with a biro.

There is nothing better in life,

Than writing on the sole of your slipper with a biro.

There is nothing better in life,

Than writing on the sole of your slipper with a biro,

On a Saturday night instead of going to the Pub.

Lyrics: The Best Things In Life by sometimes surreal Half Man Half Biscuit (hmhb).

Well there is……spending Saturday night, not with slipper and biro, but researching the 19th century English Romantic Poet John Keats and his ideas on Negative Capability (my wife tells me that by now most people will have left). There is a very good reason for my mindshift…….

Earlier this year I was at Welsh Public Services Summer School where I was introduced to the idea of negative capability and Keats. This was in the context of how to approach learning and how I might best experience new ideas during the week. Helpfully it was broken down into some ideas I could get my head around.

Positive Capability: Acts of certainty; Confidence; Extend Boundaries; Control; Comfort; and Adding Skills (the place where we spent most time).

Negative Capability: Self inquiry; Observation; Adaption; Humility; Imagination and Uncomfortable Learning (not visited very often).

This explanation was great as a starting point but something kept troubling me and was the reason why I ended up researching John Keats on a Saturday night, whilst listening to hmhb. The question I kept asking myself was; is negative capability really any different to some of the learning and self-development ideas I’ve heard about before? Things like:

  • Push the boundaries;
  • “Do one thing every day that scares you” (just did that).
  • Get out of your comfort zone;
  • Think outside of the box;
  • Be comfortable with ambiguity;
  • Deal with complexity etc,etc.

Here are the results of my research and a few links that might be useful.

  • Wikipedia: Negative Capability, to be honest this didn’t help. I’m a lapsed scientist and the language  was all a bit too literary and then edged into psychoanalysis  (blimey).
  • French, Simpson & Harvey explained it more helpfully in a paper on Creative Leadership. Here they use the Keats quote to describe the state in which a person “is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason”.

This is all great, but what you really need on a Saturday night is YouTube……….

  • Video by conferencereport. A useful explanation if you can cope with the cars passing in the background.  Having the presenter talk to a hand-held camera while walking around was curiously engaging.
  • Eben Pagan’s Get Altitude video has a more ‘management seminar’ style and talks about understanding another person’s emotions. A bit tangential.
  • Bright Star is a 2009 film about the Keats poem of the same name, here is the official trailer. Helpfully there are other videos linked to the film where negative capability is explained. Here is one with chaps diving in the lake Mr. Darcy style. To my surprise, the explanation of how to ‘understand poetry’ helped a lot with my understanding of negative capability.

“The point of diving in the lake is not to immediately swim to the shore, but to be in the lake. To luxuriate in the sensation of water. You do not, ‘work the lake out’. It is an experience beyond thought”

Summer School was a bit like diving in and immersing myself. Now I’m sitting back and doing some of the ‘working out’, on Saturday nights as it happens. As for hmhb lyrics, I’m still in the lake, luxuriating in the mystery.

So what’s the PONT?

  1. Negative capability is different from just ‘pushing the boundaries’ of things you already know about.
  2. Accept that you cannot and may not need to understand everything you encounter.
  3. It can feel uncomfortable but by immersing yourself in things you don’t fully understand, new things can emerge.

Photo source: John Keats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Keats_by_William_Hilton.jpg

I have to finish this off with one more hmhb reference for Helen Reynolds. John Keats wrote several odes including ode to a nightingale. As far as I know hmhb only have one ode, ‘ode to Joyce’, which does have a video featuring this picture of a kitten playing a guitar. Awesome!

Will descending from Welsh Sheep Farmers prevent you collaborating?

Posted on by
Reply

Back in the mid 1800’s a group of Welsh emigrants were being rescued from an island where they been shipwrecked.  Before they left, they modestly showed their rescuers what they had achieved during their years of isolation. “These are our houses, this is the school, this is the reading room, this is the rugby field, and these are the two chapels”. “Why two chapels?” asks a rescuer.  The reply, “Oh, that’s the one we don’t go to…….”.

We have a long history of not getting along with our neighbours in Wales, but maybe we aren’t that different to lots of peoples who have descended from animal herders (sheep farmers). That’s the theory offered by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers in the chapter on Harlan County, Kentucky.

The theory is that cultures that have developed around animal farming on marginal land (eg upland sheep farmers) are inherently more confrontational than those where there has been a strong requirement to collaborate (lowland arable farmers). If you are a shepherd looking after a flock of sheep you constantly need to be on your guard against predators, of the animal or most commonly the human variety. Preventing people stealing your sheep requires some demonstration of your physical prowess and a evidence you will take action to prevent your flock being pilfered. This has led to a ‘culture of honor’ (prevalent in the Southern United States) as Gladwell describes it, or ‘getting a bit chesty’ as we like to say in South Wales.

Gladwell illustrates how this has been carried forward into the modern age and across continents by using the example of the violent family feuds that took place in Harlan County in the early 19th century. He argues that the roots of this ‘honor code’ behaviour can be traced back many generations to the culture of the herdsmen who farmed the marginal uplands.  Many of these people emigrated to America and ended up in the rural areas of the Appalachians and places like Harlan County. He identifies the North of England and Scotland as the areas where these people originally came from, but there’s probably just as much as a case to be made for Welsh immigrants.

It’s an interesting theory that has been backed up by some research done at the University of Michigan, where certain groups of people (young men from the Southern States) were far more likely to ‘get a bit chesty’ if you insulted their honor. Have a look at the work of psychologists Cohen and Nisbett for more detail (Nisbett, R.E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South).

With the current emphasis upon collaboration between public services in Wales I wonder if we need to think about where our ancestors came from before we start? If they were (or still are) sheep farmers from the uplands are we starting at a disadvantage, particularly if we insult someone’s honor? This will be an interesting one to observe at the next committee meeting on collaboration………, ‘who gets a bit chesty’ and why?

The other great joy of reading Malcolm Gladwells book was that he does describe Harlan County in detail. Harlan interests me a lot as it seems very familiar. Not only is it the setting for Justified (a brilliant bit of TV based on books by a favourite author Elmore Leonard), they also have a strong coal mining tradition. As if it couldn’t get better, Steve Earle (another favourite) has even sung about the place, Harlan Man. Harlan might be in Kentucky but for me there are many similarities with bits of South Wales; feuding, coal mining, the general struggle to prosper and ‘getting chesty’. Maybe it is all to do with some common ancestry and descending from the same bunch of sheep farmers and miners?

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Our ancestors might have more of an influence upon our behaviours than we realise (have a read of Outliers).
  2. Collaboration may not be the default position for some people; it depends upon where they come from.
  3. At your next collaboration committee meeting, avoid insulting someone’s honor if you don’t want them getting all ‘chesty’ with you.

The staff don’t understand, quick draw them a picture or something……..

Posted on by
6

You are engaged! http://www.delta7.com

Suspend reality and imagine this strange situation…….

  • Boss: “The staff here are a huge problem. They just don’t get my latest initiative, what’s wrong with them?”
  • Smithers: “Ah yes Sir. The words in your manifesto document are so beautifully crafted, truly inspirational, and it’s printed on the finest paper”
  • Boss: “Well here’s something that might work. I’ve heard that some organisations are drawing pictures….. to dumb things down ……..so the staff get it”
  • Smithers: “errrr…… perhaps you mean graphical representation Sir? A picture is drawn so that the  message can be understood and communicated at many levels, in a high impact way?”
  • Boss: “Yes that’s the sort of thing. Right, I want you to knock up an oil painting or bronze sculpture of my fantastic ideas. Then they will understand and I shall achieve true greatness.  Make it happen Smithers!”

This (obviously) is a bit of a parody of a real life situation I heard about. Those involved represent a kind of staff engagement ‘anti-matter’. They were struggling to justify yet another failed initiative and ended up blaming the staff for their lack of cognitive ability. The failure (in their eyes) was on the part of the ‘dumb’ employees, to understand and implement the clever ideas that were being thrust upon them. The ‘draw a picture’ discussion was actually just a diversion to avoid confronting the real problem, a lack of engagement with staff around the ‘clever new initiative’.

This is a great shame as there are genuine benefits in using diagrams, pictures and graphics to communicate messages, understand ideas and generally make sense of the complexities of organisational life.

A good example the approach I’ve seen is archetype extraction used by Cognitive Edge. This is a process where common understandings will emerge out of discussions, workshops, focus groups or other social interactions. A cartoonist / graphic facilitator will capture these common understandings and present them as a cultural archetype. These archetypes are a physical picture of how a community views things; common behaviours, social conventions, rituals and beliefs, common language, role models, “the way things happen around here”, etc (archetypes).  According to Cognitive Edge; “Archetypes can then be used in various initiatives such as branding, communications or strategy. Archetypes that are extracted from the anecdotes told naturally in a community resonate: they have bite.”  Have a look at their website for more details.

Another good example I’ve seen of using pictures and cartoons is by Delta7. The graphic I have included in this post (you are engaged!) is one of many examples on their website. In a similar vein to the Cognitive Edge archetypes the example I’ve included here does look like a bit of an extreme version of what happens in organisations, or perhaps not? A bit like mentioned above, ‘it has bite’ and could be perceived as a bit uncomfortable for some people. It’s well worth having a look at the Delta7 website gallery for a few more examples of the pictures and archetypes they have created, I bet you will see a situation you recognise.

Coming back to the Boss and Smithers mentioned earlier. I don’t think these are the sort of pictures the Boss had in mind. It’s a case of being careful what you wish for. If all you want are simple graphical illustrations, that’s fine but you do run a huge risk of patronising people and seriously disengaging them by ‘dumbing’ things down. If you go for something that digs a bit deeper that engages people (which I think you should), be prepared to live with the results. The pictures might actually have ’bite’ and tell you how things actually do happen around here, possibly not what you wished for.

So, what’s the PONT?

1. Pictures, graphics and diagrams are a really effective way of communicating complicated messages, ideas or making sense of situations.

2. They are also a good way of engaging staff, particularly if they are involved in creating the image as something that is commonly understood in the organisation, an archetype.

3. Bosses be careful what you wish for here, some egos may not withstand the archetypes created, they can ‘bite’.

Picture source: http://www.delta7.com/you-are-engaged/

http://www.delta7.com/walking-the-talk/  another great one from Delta7.