informal coalitions

Reframing communication

The long-established view of management communication starts from the assumption that the meaning of a particular event, change or policy, etc. is determined by the relevant manager(s) and transmitted to staff through a variety of methods.  This formal, structured view sits at the heart of most approaches to organizational communication, with its primary focus being on “getting the message across” to those involved.  When done well, this can provide an important informational backcloth to what follows. But, of itself, it communicates nothing. In practice, it serves as an ‘invitation’ for people to communicate with each other about what they’ve heard or read, what they believe it means for them and how they might respond.  

Communication is a relational process, and it is this joint sense-making that ultimately determines how people act and what happens overall. Every conversation is a co-creation forum. That is to say, organization is continuously (re-)emerging from the widespread interplay of people’s small-group and one-to-one interactions. Two other things that we can say about this are that most of these conversations take place informally, without the relevant manager being present; and that this practice is occurring throughout the organizational hierarchy, whatever form that might take.

The wiggly world of COVID-19

Most people view the COVID-19 pandemic as a rare outlier of normal events. An aberration. It is important to recognize, though, that the process through which it emerged as a pandemic was not extraordinary at all.  On the contrary, the direct and indirect transmission of the virus between people was a particularly vivid expression of the complex social process of everyday human interaction. For the most part, of course, this involves small-group and one-to-one conversations, rather than the exchange of potentially deadly, airborne particles!  However, if we were to take our own and others' experience seriously, we would recognise that the pandemic brought into sharp focus our inability to predict and control what happens as a result of the widespread interplay of people's interactions, both locally and across the world. It is through this continuous, interactional process that we are all perpetually creating the future together - in all of its richness and beauty; ugliness and poverty; hope and despair.

The right and left hands of organizational change

Several years ago, I agreed to take part in a workshop looking at the nature and dynamics of organizational change.  The central question revolved around the relative merits of taking either a revolutionary or an evolutionary approach; with the case in favour of each being put by two other contributors.  I'll call them Tom and Harry.

Anyway, when I was asked by the session organizer which side of the fence I would be on, I told her that there was only one place that I could be – and that was on the fence. Or, to be more precise, on both sides at the same time.

When my turn came, I shared the above brief exchange with the workshop participants  before continuing as follows...

MMObilizing commitment

As a youngster, I used to play a card game called "I Commit" (above), which was originally devised in the 1930s. During the game, players competed to collect sets of three cards which would enable them to ‘commit a crime’. I should add that, to redress the moral balance, they also strove to collect 'policemen' to thwart the criminal activities of their opponents!　In essence, before a player could say "I commit ...", they needed to show that they had the motive, the means and the opportunity to do so.

So, what has a 1930s parlour game got to do with 21st century organizational life? Well, if people are – figuratively speaking – to say "I commit", in relation to their everyday roles, relationships and results at work, they similarly need the motive, means and opportunity to do so. From this perspective, the task for managers – from CEO to the front line – becomes one of helping to foster a work climate in which people have the motive, means and opportunity to excel. That is, one in which they are encouraged, assisted and enabled to contribute their time and talents to the full. 

Introducing VAR - A clear and obvious error

The recent controversy concerning the performance of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), in the Premier League match between Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool, is the latest in a catalogue of incidents involving the increasing dominance of the technology in the professional game.  Most tellingly, although the eventual decision made by the VAR favoured his own team, the 'Spurs manager, Ange Postecoglou, was scathing in his condemnation of its use. His concerns appear to be shared by other managers; with England boss, Gareth Southgate, reputedly having said that the game was better pre-VAR.

 

As a one-time engineer, I appreciate the value of technology. But only when it is applied in an appropriate context. The fact that a particular technology exists doesn’t mean that it automatically adds value - less still that it leads to ‘correct’ decision-making in the context of association football.  The game is a complex, fast-moving process. VAR is not simply flawed in its practice but in its basic concept.  Things that happen in football are not reducible to pseudo-scientific decision-making.  Apparently, many onfield decisions are so clearly and obviously mistaken that it often takes several minutes for those operating the technology  to reach their decisions. As part of this, they use slow-motion replays and views from multiple angles that bear no relationship to the complex social reality of the in-the-moment interactions that took place on the pitch.

 

The only thing that is clear and obvious to me is that it is not simply the way in which the technology is being applied that is flawed. Its very use is fundamentally ill-conceived.