informal coalitions

Reframing accountability in organizational practice

 

Naomi Stanford is widely-known for her insightful writing on organization design. In a recent LinkedIn post, she has questioned the ways in which accountability is understood and applied in an organizational context. This challenge is long overdue. I strongly agree with her that this taken-for-granted aspect of conventional management practice is in urgent need of a rethink.

At the same time, I would base my argument on a different issue from those that she has identified.

Ready… Blame… Fire!

Too often, the term “accountability” is used as a synonym for blame. It serves as a label to hang around the necks of ‘the guilty’ when things appear to have ‘gone wrong’. This does little to encourage people to comment candidly on their own practice and performance. Or to enable them, individually and collectively, to work to improve what’s going on. Most importantly, though, it completely ignores the complex social reality of organization, through which ‘outcomes’ emerge in practice.

Learning objectives and the complex reality of everyday organizational life

In a recent post, Johnnie Moore says,

"I can't bear most training offerings, especially those with confident lists of what you will learn. I like training to allow for messiness and surprise. Organisations find that a bit scary."

I agree wholeheartedly with his dismissive comment about "confident lists of what you will learn".

An up-front statement of so-called ‘learning outcomes’ might reduce anxiety – of learners and trainers alike – but it can’t determine what participants will and will not learn. Learning takes place in the context of all of the other things that are going on for individuals in the complex reality of their own ‘here and now’ existence. Often, some of the most important (that is, useful) knowledge that might emerge in or around a 'set-piece' event has nothing at all to do with its manifest purpose and content.

Enabling people to excel - remembering Sid's Heroes

In the mid-1990s, the BBC broadcast a series of six half-hour programmes entitled Sid’s Heroes.  This featured workers from a range of organizations (the “heroes”) who had been challenged to improve the effectiveness of a central aspect of their work, using techniques introduced in two-day workshops by management consultant Sid Joynson.  Sid suggested that a 30% increase in productivity was readily achievable in the chosen processes. And, based on the evidence of the shows, his confidence was well-founded. 

Sadly, on a couple of occasions, crass comments by managers in response to the workers’ findings undermined the work that had been done.  But Sid’s insistence that “the experts” in relation to the work processes were in the room with him, not in the management offices, was well demonstrated.  I recall trying to buy a copy of the series from the BBC – on VHS(!) – but it was never made available for purchase.

The consulting dilemma - to challenge or collude?

How can consultants create value for clients who seek certainty, predictability and control in a complex, uncertain and ever-changing world?

Difficult times

Managers’ ‘backs are against the wall’. They are under pressure to deliver. At times like this, many are tempted to ‘batten down the hatches’, and to retreat into the familiar world of formal plans, programmes and routines to see them through. "Do it better and get it right" becomes the order of the day, as they seek to cope with the never-ending demands of a world that is full of ambiguity and in constant flux.

At times like these - and somewhat ironically - external guidance and support is often one of the first things to be cut. But, if and when the call for help comes, what should the consultant's answer be? Faced with their own need to win business and earn fees to survive, how should they respond to this seemingly sensible but deeply flawed approach? Should they collude with the manager’s view of the world? Or challenge it?

The “What You Will Learn” trap in learning and development`

It has become almost obligatory for descriptions of management courses, development workshops, training programmes and the like to include a section headed "what participants will learn". This seems like common sense. After all, if we don’t know what people will learn, how can we know that the investment has been worth it?

Some training and development providers eagerly rise to the challenge. They produce detailed lists of the new knowledge, skills and attitudes that learners will acquire as a result of their participation. And they take confidence from the belief that clearly defined outcomes, coupled with the packaged ‘transfer of knowledge’, will ensure the desired learning. The anxiety-reducing promise of structure, predictability and control acts as a further incentive to follow this route.

Unfortunately, this is the same trap that designers of formal change programmes fall into when they assume that their well crafted strategies, plans and projects will guarantee particular organizational outcomes. The reality is that they won’t.

Individual, team and organization development – the missing ingredient?

Managers – quite rightly - invest substantial amounts of time, effort and money in individual and team development. Too often, though, they assume that improvements in these dimensions will deliver the desired level of organizational performance – especially if this is accompanied by a programme of organization development.

So why is this not the case? What else is going on? And why doesn’t classical OD fill-in the gap at the organization ‘level’?

Where is the magic in “best practice”?

Last week, as I was facilitating a workshop with a great group of people in Germany, the topic of "best practice" arose. I challenged the idea that the transfer of so-called best practice between organizations was a credible way of improving performance.

Too often, seemingly successful processes, systems and procedures are sought out and then meticulously implanted ‘lock, stock and barrel’ into other organizations. The aim is to transform the performance of those on the receiving end. More often than not, though, the reality falls well short of expectations.