'Why' manage performance?

People - and organisations - sometimes get so caught up performing a role that they don't serve a purpose.  They focus on the 'what', do detriment of the 'why'.  This is a pet hate of mine because it has so many knock-on effects, in particular preventing people from working together.  Many organisational cultures of defensive isolation, finger pointing etc. are fed by the prioritisation of roles over creating value, particularly in a high pressure and highly accountable environment.


So in other words, places like the public service.


Under a 'managerial' approach, internal performance systems are usually set up to do exactly this.  It is assumed that managers can identify the best way for those accountable to them to do what the organisation needs to do.  Often, this means taking the 'why', of the purpose of the organisation, and translating it into a 'what', of what other employees need to do.


This isn't always the case, but often good employees (including good managers) need to fight against their performance system to break through with the 'why' of the reason they are there - and restore a bit of humanity to the work.


Listening to Simon Sinek's TED talk on the central importance of 'why' in leadership (despite its frequent relegation to being a footnote), really highlights how back-to-front a performance system is when based on roles and activities, and strips the 'why' out.  I comfortably call it an anti-human approach - it strips leadership and motivation out of the work relationships.


So why manage performance like that?  It doesn't need to be like that at all - there is plenty of room for the 'why', it just needs to be returned to its priority position.


-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

Collaboration - combining shared values, and valuable diversity

Increasingly, I am seeing the virtues of collaborative intent, and appreciating better understanding how this happens.  I have also been very lucky to have been involved in some of the strategic thinking underpinning collaborative activity (like @CollabMelbourne), so I'm also getting a sense of how this works in practice.  (One of the many upsides to going out and getting involved in what you believe in!)


At the last @CollabMelbourne strategy session, Andrew (@drfroth) talked about his conceptualisation of the Collab network.  He saw that people are drawn together around a shared set of values, with mixed overlapping interests, but diverse areas where they actually apply themselves.  So I should note - this post is just my articulation of his idea.


It seemed insightful at the time, and over the last few weeks it has come up a few times, and is proving itself useful as a frame for thinking about shepherding collaborative endeavors.


A few days later, finally watching Simon Sinek's TED talk on leadership (and the importance of the 'why'), I had an inescapable - very graphical - sense that his concentric circles were describing the same thing.  Perhaps - where he talks about motivation and what speaks to us - it is this psychology that underpins why it is so effective for the Collaboratory to bring people together around their values.


This is how I see the mesh of Andrew's conceptualisation (the top line) and Sinek's three concentric circles. The idea is to describe how a network can organise around ideas, despite a valuable diversity:

As it turns out, Andrew has been even busier putting these thoughts into action, applying the principles to @VivMcW's upcoming conference (re the uses of improv in organisations - note she's looking for organisations to get involved).  Centralising the 'why' in understanding the conference is valuable.  I was also really excited to hear his thoughts on the 'what' - using time at the conference for participants to envision and design how they are going to be able to apply what they take away in their own organisations.


This is a fantastic idea if it can be done well (following some trial and error), and may really bridge the gap between the excitement of an inspirational event, and how to make that mean something more significant for us.  So many events are great while they're on, but processing and applying the experience only happens - if at all - in the following days and weeks, with variable results.


The 3-element model has clearly been paying its dues, and I'm very interested to further explore how it can guide the formation of collaborative groups and events.  Do you have thoughts or experiences?




www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

'Agile' - much to learn about working in complexity

I have been able to get a sense of what 'agile' is over the last month and I've had to conclude that, yes, there is vast experience in programming that will be of value for those helping government manage complexity better.

The method parallelogram

We can create a neat parallelogram, combining

• Waterfall > Agile
• Government (as it is typically today) > Redesign (and like design-thinking methods)

Waterfall programming gets its name from an approach to work where each step is completed in-full before progressing to the next stage. The issues with Waterfall programing and typical government methods are the same: the methods are built on an industrial-era philosophy of the world and work that is much simpler, and can be reduced to predictable bundles to be addressed efficiently in compartmentalised steps (along with other traits that are no longer applicable).

Agile is much more fluid, and includes (re)design-like elements, including rapid prototyping.  The heart of agile isn't a rule-book, but rather a manifesto and a set of principles.  Those familiar with design-thinking will see an obvious similarity - strip out the programming-specific elements and the heart of the approaches is much the same.

Programming methods and language generally

Programming methods and ways of understanding tasks tend to pop up in unexpected places.  I asked someone (Matt @Collabforge) their opinion on how well government manages complexity, and in response he talked of how government seems to not deal with complexity, but rather be counter-productively reductionist  - which in programming would apparently be understood as 'inappropriate compartmentalisation'.  In government, you won't have much luck explaining it, let alone have a word for it.

There's something about the very conscious logic and structure of software project management that appeals, and I'm curious about how much one can learn.

Experience

The thing that is getting me excited - particularly about 'agile' at the moment - is the experience of making this very different approach work.  The experience fighting up the other arm of the parallel. Practitioners that have had a clear vision for years, of a working method appropriate for complex systems, but still seem to need to fight to make those principles work.

So how do they fight? And where they do, how do they win?

www.jsbaxter.com.au

@JohnSBaxter

Curiosity never killed any cat

I realised today how valuable it has been for me to be curious.


I caught up with Mark and Matt at Collabforge for a discussion on government, collaboration, consulting and complexity.  By all rights - at least according to my CV - I shouldn't be able to engage on any but the first of these topics, and I certainly shouldn't have anything to contribute.  My CV shows a few areas I've been able to lay some foundations of expertise, through experience. I'm the first to admit there isn't much there (I've written before about how shallow my skillset is). But my curiosity has served me well.


I've always been a proactive learner. So in a workday I would chase references and leads to understand the policy context, rationales, mechanisms, alternatives... irrespective of whether I could identify its value. Often I would stay back for the sake of chasing things up - and though I enjoyed it, at times I definitely questioned whether I was wasting my time.

Curious cat! It never hurt (... or at least, it was worth it anyway)

But the investment is paying dividends, as my understanding proves useful in exploring new options, making connections, and in general finding my way.


In particular, understanding is a critical base for forging my own path.  If I hadn't taken that time to look out at the world, I wouldn't know how to leave the public service, even if I had a sense of the need to move.  I'd have been, in short, where I was when I left uni - a wealth of opportunities, but clueless as to how to find them.


So - be curious! It can be good for you, even if it seems like a waste at the time.


-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

Government business model generation

Government has a diverse range of roles in helping make society a better place. But it only uses a couple of basic business models.  The main one looks something like:

collect independent revenue (e.g. tax) > use it to deliver something

(that aligns with the minister's priorities, and hopefully has a positive BCR)

In addition to 'policy' work (~delivering services to the minister), line departments are set up to do this - and that's about all their structures enable them to do.  Luckily, governments have the taxation authority that means this model will never break, though there's no guarantee it will be effective.


Having been referred to businessmodelgeneration.com (via @carlscrase) today got me thinking.  In many cases it will be effective, but is it always the best way?  And when will it not be - how do we know that we should be thinking about creating a different business model?


-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter

A vision of progressive policy implementation

It should not be possible to commit to broad impact, systemic policy without understanding how it will work at the micro level.

This seems an obvious suggestion when written down, but it's usually not followed - which is why basic and fundamental things like 'human centered design' are so radical to the public service.

Government approaches delivering social value quite differently to how a startup does. A social enterprise startup may have a high-level social objective, but it will fail if it tries to achieve everything at once (known as 'boiling the ocean').  No matter how central that objective may be, it needs to start by being successful delivering value at the smallest scale, to a small set of individuals.  For a startup, this is an important way to validate hypotheses about the business model - and in particular the experiences and interactions - minimise risk, and progressively seek funding for expansion. It also fosters a completely different perspective on social change to that of the bureaucrat.

There is no one approach to developing policy that will foster a better understanding of impact at all different scales.  Enterprises scale up because they need to, they operate and grow very differently to government, and the different actions of government can't be shoved into a single model for implementation. Nevertheless, there should be a better way to make policy than to design a magnificent national system, then fill in the unpredictable and inconvenient gaps known as 'people'.  It may be hyperbolic, but this is closer to reality than it should be.


Some elements of human centered design can definitely help, particularly to understand how individuals interact with numerous different government systems (think MindLab). But in other contexts, it might be more useful to rethink how programs are implemented, inspired by enterprise approaches and led by the need to understand impact at different scales. A program will first test the most central hypotheses that are the easiest and lowest risk to trial - not necessarily the smallest scale - focus on getting this right, and progressively build on the growing foundation.


Thinking like this requires a conscious approach to risk, iteration and learning-through-doing that is confronting, unsettling - far from straightforward.

Nevertheless, thinking about 'progressive' policy as an option, to deliver a broad-impact policy - particularly on a difficult issue - without testing hypotheses about how it works for actual people would be crazy.  It's a large investment and has high risk.

Government can be pretty crazy sometimes.  In fact, some days I wonder how it escaped the straight jacket.

Slack blogging

I've neglected this blog a bit and that definitely needs to change.


I chatted with a friend this evening about professional referees. I asked whether he would feel able to do so, given our interactions over the past few months, and my concern that it would be difficult to communicate the value of what I've been involved in.


Being the kind soul he is, he of course said yes. But the insight he offered - as usual - was much more valuable.


He pointed out that developing an online presence will speak for itself.  That in particular, something as simple as blogging - i.e. simply keeping it up - is a great record of where you've been, and how you have processed and learnt from your experience.


This is not rocket science. But it is science that I haven't applied yet.


I consciously created this blog as a ready point of connection to my thoughts - and it has proven useful for that.  But I have since been caught up in doing things, rather than just thinking them, and engaging people directly. This is a positive sign - I count it as progress against my 'resolutions' - but I've lost track of the value of having this point of connection.  And in particular, having a record of what has been going on.  Believe me, I haven't been slack for lack of anything to say!


It really should be obvious! The blog is such a neat fit for reinforcing and illustrating these experiences. But sometimes it takes someone else's contribution to put two and two together.  Cheers!


-------
John Baxter
www.jsbaxter.com.au
@JohnSBaxter