How much would we all love that, if that was possible: To reduce the complexity of work processes and of organizations without having understood that complexity. Fantastic magic ball – no need to observe and analyse what is going on and what causes the complexity, no need to identify the real connection between system complexity and productivity (ask a machine engineer what he thinks about it). Just do a certain, simply applied thing to get rid of it. “Simple approaches create simplicity” – that is the assumption.

And there we go, how that is supposed to work: We are a manager in a newly appointed role, in an organization, where work processes have somehow become quite complex, in a sense that they are difficult to live and that results and customer value suffer.

In a charming and friendly appeal we now explain to our employees, that every single individual in the organization can try to spot out, where we make things more complex than necessary. Let’s identify where we over-complicate things and stop doing that.

Now, unfortunately, that won’t work out. Here are the reasons why:

• A complex system is complex, because it is a system composed of many parts that are all interacting with each other, either directly or indirectly.

• Each of these parts is in itself either complex (not simple, not fully understood) or at least complicated (not simple, but understood)

• The interactions, inter-dependencies and the dynamics that result as a whole among all sub-systems are not easy to observe (as a whole), not easy to analyse and usually, are not understood (not at all, not well or not fully).

Now let’s look at a complex system called organization: It is composed of many large units, including even more smaller sub-units or teams, including a considerably large number of individuals. But not enough, its elements include also KPI, targets, policies, processes, tools, skills and certain (written or unwritten, homogenuous or locally varying) ‘rules’ and practices of how things are being done.

What will now happen, if one individual in this very large and complex system simplifies something that is within his or her own range of visibility, understanding and reach of control? If we are unlucky, something not understood, not visible for him in the large, complex system comes up as an obstacle that prevents his change. Now, let’s be positive (optimistic) and let’s assume, the individual is successful in changing his piece. If we are lucky his piece of work becomes simpler by that change, maybe also easier, maybe even more productive. If we are not lucky, this change triggers something in the system, that comes back as negative effects towards the same person, or others in the system. That effect can make other things more complicated, more difficult, less productive for himself or elsewhere.

What happens to the complexity of the overall system? We do not know, we even cannot observe this properly, as long as we have not analysed and understood the complex system as a whole. Will the change of that individual in her/his corner remove the complexity? No, it won’t: The number of elements, interactions and unknowns is still as high as before (even if that person removed her own job, the overall number of elements and interactions does not change significantly to make any change for the overall system).

Let’s continue in the logic of ‘”Simple approaches create simplicity”: The appeal went to all individuals in the organization. Thus, what would happen, if all individuals did some change in their range of horizon and influence? Again: We don’t know, as long as we have not analysed and understood the complexity of the whole system. How big are chances that the complexity of the whole system decreases? Again: Still all the elements are there, still much not understood…. How big are chances, that unnecessary complexity is being removed? Interesting variation of the question – does that make a difference? Who would be able to judge upon what is necessary and unnecessary complexity, provided that the complex system as a whole is still not analysed and understood? We are not able to judge upon, thus the question does not make sense.

So, what chances do we have that changes done by every single individual in her/his reach of horizon and influence will make the system less complex? There is a chance, with a quite low probability, that by hazard all these changes fit together in the right way and that they will make a change towards a positive effect on the dynamics in the system. By chance, there might even be taken things out of the system (a KPI, a policy). Removing elements, might indeed help to reduce complexity. However, still we do not know what effect that will have on productivity, as we still do not know what is necessary and unnecessary complexity and we do not really know which would be the necessary and which the unnecessary elements in the system or which combinations of (remaining) elements are good and which not.

How would an individual – having a very limited, individual view of what influences what in which manner – be able to judge what element can be removed from the system, without reducing productivity? Maybe the individual is lucky, maybe not – that is the guess for each choice. Or are we assuming that the individuals have been dumb and irresponsible enough to not remove things, that obviously are not helpful and not needed? No matter, how much obviously good detail change might be visible to individuals, here is the next thing to consider: As things are inter-dependent in the system, but individual reach of view and control is limited, the chances are not really high,that an individual will be successful in removing or changing much, alone.

Now, even if they can, unfortunately, the rest of the probability of what happens if all individuals change something simultaneously includes all kinds of things that we don’t want to get as a result: The exact opposite of our goals can happen: By chance, all these individual changes add up in the worst possible way and increase the bad dynamics, the trouble, the unknowns in the system. They even might result in adding new elements to the system (policies, for example. New KPI for example). They might result in removing things that are crucial for the well-functioning of the whole. They might change something in their corner, but the good intended effect does not take place, because something else would have needed change before, or after, in a certain sequence. Or something else would have needed to remain unchanged. An individual might even find out, that her/his change can not be done, because other things are not changed (because somebody else failed in her change). A prominent example in this, because you can observe that easily in reality: Individuals might discover, that the dysfunctional dynamics of the complex systems keeps them so busy in maintaining it up and running, that they simply do not have the time and resources to change what they would like to simplify.

The result of this magic-ball approach is a game of collective trial and error, and usually, as the complex system is neither analysed nor understood as a whole, there is also no valid measurement to let everybody see what was done (all together) and what changed, objectively measured: Towards more or less productivity, more or less value? And even if we could observe good effects – which of the many simultaneous changes were the good ones, which were the bad ones, which were the ones that did not make any difference at all? This is the exact opposite of the ‘ceteris paribus’ rule in scientific research: Keep (if possible) all other factors constant and change only the one or the few whose effects you want to observe.

I hope that the complication and many open questions and open ends that this text now includes, demonstrates how complicated the topic of understanding and reducing complexity in a system is, unfortunately, in reality.

What is certain is the fact, that reducing complexity of a system is not that simple as calling every individual to simplify in her or his corner. This approach is true and helpful as far as I can simplify my own work approaches within the limits of what is just not depending on other pieces and influences of the whole system ‘organization’ (which is not much!). However, the approach is a dangerous and certainly not wise lottery game, if it is supposed to remove disfunctional complexity from a large, complex system.

Unfortunately, to finish this article, there is even one more effect why I would absolutely not choose to go with this simplistic approach. It is something that I have observed, unfortunately, so many times in how today’s common management practices try to generate more output: Calling for simplicity in individual work results in fostering quick fixes (of symptoms) and jumping to (guessed) solutions, where thorough analysis with not-easy and not-short-cutting methods would be appropriate. Not the reduction of our considerations to single, easily visible factors, but the widening to all possibly influencing factors and their complicated dependencies is necessary and appropriate. Appropriate to first of all figure out what changes will have positive impact at all and what changes are simply a waste of time or what changes will make it worse.

This ‘magic-ball’ way of thinking and calling for ‘simplify’-efforts at the end just keeps a whole organization more and more busy with ineffective approaches to improve. The call for simplification at individual level is a call to move into a vicious cycle of being more and more busy with the increasing trouble that approaches create, that do not solve any complex problem and do not do any well understood and well prepared better design of a complex system called ‘organization’.

Last but not least, if such magic balls were an option that worked in reality, everybody would do it successfully, already since long time (because, seriously, who would not love to use it, right-away? It is simple, easy and can be done by everybody on his own.) Or at least it would be good common practice in some organizations since about one year (since that trend makes the tour), with real good, objectively measured evidence of increased customer value.

There is a madness going on in this modern world of business. How do we want to call it? There is a race to get things done and to be faster. But the madness is not the fact that we want to become better and richer and more beautiful and that we want to have an easier life. Human beings are like that and, lucky enough have all the capability to reach it.

The madness is that it has become a common work attitude to chase for success in a way that does not really create progress – it only appears to. And everybody runs the race as if this really worked and as if it was the best that we can do. How do we call it? The race for the shortest shortcuts? The run for the longest lists of done tasks? The way forward for the best ways to keep people busy with what keeps them busy? The competition about who can execute the most things with the least questions about the purpose? The crazy speeding game? No… we will call it: The Flying Hamster-Wheel.

Why do we call it like that? Because it is about busy activity that is not much better than a hamster running in a wheel – so much running for not much real progress, or even rather more damage done. And, because, by a peculiar miracle, these hamster-wheels can fly – I mean, they can’t move forward, and the do not have any solid base, but they can move upwards in the career and in the hierarchy. And, another really funny thing: They can reproduce whole systems of hamster wheels once they have started to fly upwards.

Translated into real-world, business language: The Flying Hamster-Wheel is a very widespread phenomenon in many organizations where a way of working that does not produce real solutions and no value for the customer, but a lot of ‘done tasks’, makes eager, busy people look like very dynamic and successful, loyal employees. And these employees are promoted, to become managers – the hamster-wheel starts to fly upwards – and these managers make sure, the rest learns to follow the same way of working (however, of course not everybody will fly in that game, only those who are the fastest turning hamster wheels). These are the key characteristics and ‘results’ of the Flying Hamster-Wheel.

Last but not least, the very best about the Flying Hamster-Wheel is: This game is not just for fun or virtual: At the end you can buy cars, houses and yachts with it, yes, you even can gain considerable popularity with it (to be more correct in terms: public visibility) – provided, of course, that you become a master in following the rules…
So, how does that work? The Flying Hamster-Wheel is a game. A game has rules, here they are – read carefully and follow eagerly and you will see how beautifully this works:

1. Rule No. 1: Make always sure that your list of tasks is the longest and the fastest to close tasks as ‘done’ and the fastest to add new tasks. (Most important expert recommendation in the game: Do not think too much, do not ask difficult questions, do not listen too much to people who do the work – that is time that you don’t have if you want to follow rule No. 1. Recommendation No. 2: ‘No time’ is an argument that always works if people ask you to do something that is not compatible with rule No. 1)

2. The goal is always to quickly execute every task given by your manager – no matter if in reality we would rather need to solve a complex problem, need to gain agreement or need to develop people or build new organizational capability.

3. You must not ask questions about if the task makes sense or about what is the purpose or how that is related to customer needs and customer value. At least, not too much (do not ask real good and tough questions).

4. Do not look left or right what others are doing and how your activity might affect them (except for the case that you need them to work for your tasks)

5. Do not bother around with proper logic and with getting real data and quantification. That’s simply too much time and not quick enough (also complicated and difficult to understand for many).

6. To replace missing logic and data, give your opinions and common-places. Or pull something halfway similar and plausible out of your subjective experience. Or refer to the high importance, urgency and the attention of senior management.

7. Do not ask what has happened, or how much, or where and when (also called ‘evidence’) – instead, be creative with what you guess might be good ideas of ‘solutions’. In general, be generous with fast conclusions.

8. Replace all unknowns with your opinions, assumptions and conclusions.

9. Never document your assumptions and data-base in decision proposals.

10. A solution is best if it is an action that can be taken short term, within you area or direct influence, must not cost too much and – see next rule

11. The management system must not be questioned or changed. If, by violation of this rule, somebody brings this up: They need complete and perfect evidence that the management system is wrong, but you and your managers do not need any (objective, quantifiable, real) evidence that the management system works

12. Accept that solutions and analysis must be simple and fast. Nothing is complicated in business, thus, your action and your solutions should be simple, too. Otherwise you are the one who causes the problem with the problem. And by the way, how do you want to follow rule No. 1, if you don’t stick to simple things?

13. Accept all excuses that are driven by the motivation to maintain comfort zones or power fiefdoms

14. Accept all excuses that come up to avoid being consequent with logic, research/investigation and about why we can’t do the necessary work needed to get data, understand other viewpoints and in order to understand the whole system. Accept all excuses that are rooted in the inability or missing will to look into new, modern approaches to solve problems.

15. If you feel, that the excuses of employees and mid-managers are not acceptable, blame the people for what the problem is and refer to their responsibility, commitment, motivation and to fast execution needed.

16. Demonstrate quick, straight-forward and strictly executed action plans. Do not change the plan if reality shows contradicting evidence – you do not have time to redo things or to look back.

17. Do not listen to people with different views. They are just the ignoramuses who impede your great solutions that would be needed.

18. Make sure your first results come up within the same month. Make sure your recommendations can be executed and finished within a maximum of two months. (And of course, if you want to become a real master: The shorter, the better – see rule No. 1).

19. Do not bother about how you measure if your solutions work. Implementation is success.

20. If you hit granite and nothing moves or things dissolve in missing responsibilities and missing collaboration, either refer to rule number one or to rule number 15 and 13. Then simply drop it from your list and do not talk about it anymore.

21. As soon as you have a made recommendation and you have the decision from your management: Make sure, your solutions become known as great success and considerable cost savings (if applicable, if not, you will easily find some benefits by turning into positive what does not work today). It does not matter that the real benefits and cost savings cannot be known yet.

22. Make sure that the cancellation of your solutions later is not reviewed, not published, not communicated. Or make it look as if this makes sense as part of another great, new solution that you just have invented (see rule No. 12: keep it simple ).

23. If people dare to surface problems and issues that have to do with anything that you have to do with, quickly refer to, either: The good things that work. Or: That life is not perfect. Or: That we need to concentrate on the things that move forward, in order to move forward.

24. Make sure your success and busy activity is valued (rate yourself and your activity with extraordinary/clearly exceeding expectations; do not bother about any doubts and self-criticism; if criticism, questions and doubts come from your manager, always quickly and firmly refer to the long list of done tasks and busy time that you got by always following rule No. 1)

25. How you name people who are asking for evidence, for logic and who point to all the unknowns or to the need of a holistic consideration of the business: Either ‘academic’ or ‘theoretic’ or ‘overanalysing’, ‘interesting ideas, but unfortunately not possible in our business/our area’ or ‘strong analytical skills but weak in drive for success’. Or simply refer to the fact that life is not a perfect place and full of constraints and the need to move forward.

26. Trust in these rules and do not question what this does in the long run to the business, the customer and the others (who do not know how to play this game). The purpose is rule No. 1. Enjoy your flight. There will always be enough people on the ground who manage to even make ground-hamster-wheels move forward by some centimeters

27. If somebody comes with new approaches that you do not understand or that are incompatible with rules 1 to 26, refer to the fact that you made a career with your rules and that thus, obviously, your rules are the better ones. Your rules are the real truth if it comes to talk about practice and outcomes.

28. Don’t worry: In average it takes about 40 years for a great new startup to grow big and complicated and to go bankrupt within one year by application of these rules.

29. Do worry: Are you in the last year of the 40 years? Then it is time to look for a new employer, where more people with your good competencies can be found than in your current company. Refer to rule No 1 and, in case needed, to No. 27 to market your skills.

30. Do not surface any important issues or problems that you notice. Other people will raise them if they are really important and if they really should need attention.

31. Do not move if question comes to what you can do to help others complete their tasks or to take responsibility for a difficult, risky leadership task to work on some old, deeply rooted problems with work and management culture. Just wait, it will go away. Remember: These are not tasks on your list, but somebody else’s.

32. Remove your mirror from the bathroom-wall. Or do not look too closely at the guy who looks back at you every morning.

33. Questions about this list of rules? Please remember rules No. 3 and 5

As you can see, this is a fairly long list of things that you need to do – not just by hazard this roughly corresponds to the average, typical length of a task-list of urgent tasks of a person who successfully practices the ‘Flying Hamster-Wheel’.

As you can easily understand, this will keep you quite busy – but don’t worry, just stay calm, trust the rules and carry on. You will see that many of them are surprisingly easy and quick to follow and this will help you to avoid a lot of difficult, cumbersome detail and investigation work and, above all, a lot of brain-strain-creating reflections.

These rules are a very good protection against depressing self-doubts, they help to avoid self-critical reviews of your own approaches and painful, time-costly phases where you need time to let your brain settle and work out all the found evidence and to figure out what all the unknowns and open questions and complicated systemic considerations would suggest as a next, effective and meaningful step or next question to ask.

Also, by sticking to these rules, you make sure that you will not waste your precious time to develop others – these rules help to focus on your own outcomes, their number and speed and their visibility – well known key factors for your personal success and career. Also, always remember how much all these rules help you to be the best in following rule No. 1.
We wish you a lot of fun and as much busy activity as possible and a great vertical flight in your Flying Business-Hamster-Wheel.

P.S.: Please consider if you want to donate some Euros to the author of these lines. Certainly, your manager will understand that this should be an important task on your list, because the creation of this very valuable list of success rules for the Flying Hamster-Wheel will make you the perfect, faster-turning task-executor. You will be a dream-employee for every manager who knows to play this game. Again, remember rule No. 1 and do not think about it for too long. Just do it.

I am running trough the long floors of the big main building of our global company headquarter. The building where the power, the core competencies and the best knowledge of our business is at home. The building where this great success-story has been lived in the last 15 years. I have come here from my subsidiary office location to meet some people live. And I am now running from one meeting to the next, from one contact to the next and I ask myself: „Why didn’t you do it on the phone? Why didn’t you look more carefully how far the meeting locations are away from each other, and in which building they are? Now I am running…and still can’t be in time.“ The simple excuse: The problem is not the live meetings. The problem is that they postponed it several times and my original setup with enough walking time in-between was destroyed. The better, more relevant answer: I didn’t do it on telephone by intention. Because I wanted to be able to see their faces, when I ask my questions. I wanted to see, if they react with incomprehension, if they are puzzled, embarrassed or rather open and interested.

Was that really necessary? Worth the running around?
50 steps and a minute further down the floor my anger replaces that question with a more valid, more important question: „Why the hell at all do I have to run around between a total of meanwhile 8 different contacts to get answers to a relatively simple question? A question that already the first two contacts, one of them is my own manager, should have been able to answer. Directly, immediately. For the sake of the problem analysis that they gave to me as a task.“
The question is about what damage resulted from the fact that we slightly missed a certain KPI once in the last period. The question was asked because it was said that this caused problems and losses and I am now trying to get more data and some specific cases about this damage. In order to find causes and effective solutions to make sure we won’t do such damage again.
As they were not able to answer that question (that after all, this question tries to capture, what the problem really is, that I shall work on), I had talked to the boss of my manager, which had assured that this was indeed a very important KPI and that we get a lot of trouble if we do not meet it. And he gave me two names that could tell me a lot of stories and cases that would illustrate, why this was so important and how that was doing damage.
He was contact number 3. Meanwhile I am running to talk to contact number 6 and 7 – and number 8, out of my private network, waits for me in the neighbor building, then afterwards. Contact number 4 and 5 had first accepted my meeting requests, then redirected me to contacts No. 6 and 7. Note: They first had accepted and only when the date approached, 3 hours before the time, they had changed their mind and suddenly found out that somebody else would be better to talk to me. Why do I get the impression, that they simply prioritized this down as they saw the meeting time approach? And I thought, I was working on a really important KPI and a really urging problem…?

Oh my dear, why didn’t I do it on phone…? Because it seems to be a delicate, difficult, sensitive question – that’s all I found out so far – besides the fact that my own business (another 7 contacts, however inside our area and in the hierarchy downwards) does not see this KPI as decisive for their business decisions. So I am running to find somebody, who can confirm the statement that this KPI influences decisions and results of my company. There must be somebody who can explain how that goes with the decisions and lost opportunities…and which these were, specifically (also called: facts). Funny enough, contact number 5 is sitting in the very same cubicle as contact number 2 – right in face across the desk. That feels like a strange, embarrassing situation (ask yourself if it was embarrassing for me or for them) and seems to me like a bad omen – and indeed, while I talk to that friendly, experienced and competent man I discover that he can’t answer my question neither. But at least, also he can confirm that the KPI of course is very important for the company and that missing the KPI can create a lot of trouble, effort and damage of this and that kind. However, he can’t give me one single real, fact based case, neither.

But, for heaven’s sake, I thought, can that be true? He can not really tell me what has happened because we missed it once, by some half percents. He and his colleague are working all day to make sure we meet that KPI as a unit and finally, I thought, above all as a whole company– but both can’t give me any concrete, real life case that really has happened as as consequence of missing the KPI. All I get are stories about stories of what absolutely can happen and is a risk. Finally, I am leaving the meeting with his promise to get another contact from him – and off I go running through the long floors to meet contact number 7.
And while I am running and blaming myself for my tight meeting arrangement, the word ‘Kafkaesk’ raises to my mind for the first time. Wasn’t it just like this in Kafka’s novel, ‘The Trial’? Somebody being brought from one official person to the next, walking through long floors, stairs up and down – without understanding the purpose and connection to real life? Or was that rather the typical old experience in government administration offices: ‘No this is not our area of responsibility, please go to room Number 138’ – maybe I am mixing up things. Anyways, both would not be a good way of working for my company.

Contact number 7 listens with interest to my question and background about why I am here, and, remarkably enough, she is the first one who confirms and agrees that my question is important to be answered, considering the type of problem that we want to analyze. In the next minute I discover, why that might be (before, nobody understood why I ask that question, really): Unfortunately she is just a tool-developer for the processes that my question is about – but she does not have insights and expertise about why and how her colleagues are doing their job with this process and the KPI and why really it is so crucial for our company.
Now I am definitively convinced to be in a chapter of Kafka’s novel (wondering:”What did I do why they are doing this to me?”). Why the hell did the contact named by the boss of my manager send me to another contact that can’t even say anything about what I need to know – because she is doing a different job? My question had been well explained, live on phone.

After all, she is very sorry, but can’t really help. But isn’t it remarkable that she is the only one so far who confirms that it is logic to raise my question? What does that mean? Either she is free of bias, unlike the others, and does not need to defend a status quo of an established way of work against all good questions and logic – or we are both ignorants who just do not understand what this is all about. However, if we are really just missing special knowledge – why are 6 other contacts not able or not willing to explain with a real life case what this is all about?

Contact number 8, my private connection who had been doing that kind of job some years ago – gives me a basic lesson of what the whole KPI is about in general (in general!) and why it is important, in general. And what damage and efforts and risks it can generate, in general and in principle, and if we have many of these KPI deviations in many units. His basic lesson teaches me two things:
1) 70% of what he tells me was already understood, despite the fact that I am not a subject matter expert. I had imagined that there must be something complicated, difficult to understand in this area of expertise. But, no, this is quite straight and simple, a bit like I had thought for myself based on what I knew so far. I can think in logic and across several steps of cause and effect, that was all what was needed to understand enough.
2) He is the only one who has a halfway acceptable reason why he is not able to answer my question with facts and real cases about the damage caused: It is years ago that he has been working in the area where these KPI are being controlled and where he was part of the consequent decision and reporting processes. All the other contacts are right now today in the middle of all of that, with responsibility and up to date knowledge of daily business…
3) We have a problem with not one unit such as mine missing the KPI, but with the fact that either a large number of units or some few with much bigger weight than us are missing it at the same time. That was already said by contact number 2 some time ago – however without specifying any details about numbers and units – for reasons of sensitivity and confidentiality, as he said.
4) His ‘lesson’ and general explanations already help me to think a good step better about how, when and why the KPI might be important – or not.
Thus I now wonder why I did not at least get these insights from a not small number of 7 official contacts, before? And why do I get so much incomprehension for this question that none of them even is able to let me get a basic lesson? Probably my way of talking and asking plays a role. Admitted, it certainly does. However, what does it tell us that I must be very very skilled in talking to people and asking my question to get facts and knowledge out of one of 7 contacts? Shouldn’t that be rather quite plain and easy? And that still I only have general explanations and not one single real fact, so far? Considering that not I, but contacts number 1 and 2 said that this was a real problem and important and influencing decision taking and creating losses to our company?

It tells me that either I am really part of a Kafka-like story, where I am guilty of something that nobody can explain to me. Or that we all are simply chasing a ghost, and not a real problem. Or there is a real problem, but they are pointing to it in the wrong direction.
They are very busy and eager to fulfill their task in their little box of defined tasks. Everybody is relying on the next box that this somehow all together makes sense at the end. And that it is effective and efficient. Everybody trusts (=assumes) that the big bosses all up there in the hierarchy – or the big wisdom of management status quo – know the purpose of their tasks. They are showing-off with allures so important and serious and adult. But in reality they are just little wheels that are working fine and who do not have the job to ask for how the whole really works. And now I am the uncomfortably solid grain of sand that disturbs the whole works of wheels with my ‘stupid’ question about the purpose and about facts.

As if I was the problem here – I am astonished, even shocked that they are really quite unaware of the purpose of their own tasks, or at least that they do not see how foggy their stories about the purpose and the needs are. I am astonished and shocked that they are so free of any data and real cases of what has happened because one unit has missed a KPI. I always thought that this kind of blind and data-free task execution would be a black-and-white exaggeration, a management-book-story and fictive showcase. I thought the works of wheels was a drastic metaphor to make people see. A fiction in an old black and white film by Charly Chaplin. I thought I would never find it so well and clearly represented in reality. But here it is, in reality, just as meaningless as in Chaplin’s film. I don’t know what to say any more.

And it even is worse: They are not just blindly executing their tasks. They are even making other people more busy because they define the (one time) failure of not always perfectly executing their tasks as a problem (statisticians call it either ‘not enough data to conclude anything’ or ‘natural variation’). A problem important enough to have priority and to be worked on with many hours of very eager and busy detail ‘data’ analysis work. We are doing this, while we still don’t know if there is any real problem (a case, facts) with the missed KPI. However, what I can now definitely say after my run through the floors and the 8 contacts is, that THIS ignorance of purpose and lack of connection to business reality (= facts) and/or the inability to explain what is meant, is a serious problem and risk for my company. I found evidence as long and high as 8 contacts and hundreds of walking steps and so many precious minutes in meetings.

What a waste of time.

But at least, my health has benefited on that day – because I had to run about 2 kilometers through floors and a total of 8 stories of stairs upwards. Well, if that is fine for my company… so it shall be fine for me. However, maybe next time we do it with a jogging-outfit and somewhere outside in the sun, please? And who takes then care of keeping my company successful and my job safe and all of us prosperous and proud? The task executors in the Kafka-Chaplin house of boxes and wheels are not doing it.

Why the hell should it be good weekend fun and passionating, good time to read a blog about changing organizations and the way how we lead them? Management theory is something for business people only, right? This here is interesting, of course, for people who try to change and improve the world, especially who want to change organizations to achieve that. But it can not be a passionate thing for everybody who is just looking for some fun and enlightenment around ‘pooping in Iceland’ or ‘my neighbour has an axe’ or about the newest news of his favorite glamour star. However, in a survey in Great Britain, more than 60 percent of the people answered, that if they could, they would exchange their manager tomorrow, right away. Might it be, that this blog theme is right in the middle of our lives, but we just don’t want to see it, because it is too frustrating and too complicated?

Yes, of course it is. I think, many of us have ended up in believing that this (changing how we are being managed) will, unfortunately, not be possible. We say, conscicously or unconsciously “It is like it is and can not be different, can not be changed. Let’s look at the more promising sides of life.” Many of us have resigned into the status-quo without knowing it, concentrating on the really important part of life, the fun part in their spare time. Where the manager and the company, where the work has no influence. At least not a direct influence.

But let’s be realistic, even if we don’t like that thought: Our job, our experience with it, that influences the rest of our life much more than we like to admit, or if we admit it, more than we would like to. So we stand there and live with it, as it is. Some complain, some are just unhappy, but stay calm and carry on. Others are successful in diverting themselves with all these nice things that make life rich: Soccer, dancing, opera, glamour magazines, shopping, disco, books, films, knitting and painting, beach and pool and biking and skiing and hiking and hanging around with friends for no reasonable sense at all but for pure subjective fun and being a human being as only a child can be.

Only a child, yes, unfortunately can be it the whole day, the whole week (well at least nearly, always when parents do not ask for some kind of educationally necessary bending of their natural energy and dynamic, unreflected, unreasonable drive of life). Unfortunately, adults can not, because they must feed their private life and passions and basic needs themselves – with a job. However, unfortunately, or more correct: fortunately, I must add, there are other needs that we need, no, that we feel as soon as they are not fulfilled: Self-fulfillment, for example. Recognition, and, why not, having fun and a a good time. Or simply to have time and occasion to enjoy beauty. (I get it both, right now, writing this, by the way. And because I do it just for fun, today: If you want a more properly thought through list and systematic of human needs and motivations, please read Abraham Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of needs – a theory of human motivation’ – I mean: Read it! Do not just watch a picture of a hierarchy of needs as a short cut to motivational theory wisdom – it might cut your possibility of benefiting from his insights, significantly).

Imagine that you go to an after-work-party and you do a survey today. If you asked the people there “what are you celebrating?”, I bet that you get between 60 and 80 percent responding “I celebrate that I am now finally free to enjoy life, after work (which is something that is not made to and not able to let me enjoy life)”. And only 20 percent would answer: “I celebrate that I had such a good day at work, it gives me so much energy and inspiration, deep satisfaction and pride, strength and ideas.”

So here is the short and rational answer, the naked truth to the question, why this here should be interesting (and inspiring fun) for more than a small, specialized minority of change-experts and management trainers:  

Because that is where you spend so much time of your life – where you waste so much of your lifetime in old-fashioned organizational designs and work conditions. 

But I could also phrase it in a different way: Because this is for the real dreamers. For the dreamers that see a reality where 80% at the after-work party will answer: “I am celebrating a good workday and a fulfilled life where I know the purpose of what I do the whole day, where that purpose very well matches my personal purpose and individuality and where I am not inclined to kick the cat out of my deep frustrations and desperation, when I turn back home” *

Dreamers create the world of tomorrow, because it all starts in your mind and with your very human instincts. Inspiration is one of the most powerful weapons that humanity has ever used. Theory leads the way to successful practice. And diversity, talent and passion can carry dreams to become reality. That is another reason why this is not just interesting for the growing group of ‘organizational change experts’ who see the huge opportunities in going a better way. Because you might be the one who has the talent, the passion, the fun-hobby, that will offer the king’s way to change the world under whose influence we spend most of our lifetime: Organizations and management. You might be able to offer the access that inspires others to stop assuming that it is either not important or something that will never change, anyways. You might be the leader by hazard to start a revolution.

I want to demonstrate how that works: This blog entry is inspired by a podcast on ‘point of inquiry’ – a podcast that fosters the use of scientific and critical thinking and that is quite cool in demystifying nonsense and in highlighting people and approaches that are standing for the use of scientific thinking and rationality (of course this is not the official definition of what they are or doing, just my personal perception of what they achieve). In that blog you listen for more than 30 mins to a man who talks about hip hop as a means to bring scientific thinking to school kids (who are basically not at all concerned about scientific thinking, to stay within the good tradition of understatement). I listened to this interview and thought: That man can talk so fast (he probably practiced rap a lot) – a hard time to listen on one hand for a non-English-native, but what he talks about is important and inspiring and of great value. He just tells us that he practices an approach to bring scientific thinking to youngsters by using hip hop – two things that we well-educated, adult people from the last century would not bring together usually, easily (the one is for fun and distraction, the other is for serious research to heal the world and create progress – a bit like that, we would see it). For example, he suggests to sing scientific theory in hip hop form, to let youngsters access that. Probably I have not understood all the detail and depth of his philosophy, art and methods – but that does not matter for what I want to pull out of it: What he tells us is that the separation of science and daily life is just a synthetic, constructed and limiting barrier that we have made up in our minds. It is not natural law or necessity or logic constraint or the only and good way to see the world. If you remove that thought and practiced separation, you gain back possibilities that you have lost long ago, that our societies and organizations have lost long ago. The separation of fun and serious efforts for progress, the separation of being a human being and working seriously, the separation of being at work and being at home or with friends or at an after work party or in the activity and interest that we like most, the belief that it is about producing perfect and right results before showing them to anybody else – all that belongs to the same category of limiting mind barriers. It either limits our feeling for what is wrong and not serving the purpose of human life and what it does to us (work is work and free time is free time and they do not influence each other – if we go long enough with that story, we end up to think that we can only escape wrong conditions at work by lying to ourselves that this would not influence our whole life) or it limits our possibilities to bring good things to people who need and merit it (miss to use hip hop fun to teach scientific thinking at school; changing leadership behaviour without talking about life and purpose and real value and their families and their precious lifetime, pride and personal integrity) or it simply cuts away this important, rich resource of imagination, of playing around and of just being crazy with new ideas that are breaking out of old, limiting frames.

Apropos playing: Playing is the way how our children explore the world and learn to use its possibilities and to respect its natural limits (at least some of them). Playing is a king’s way of learning. Science calls this form of learning ‘experimenting’ and ‘formulating hypothesis’ and ‘observing what happens’ and ‘coming up with creative new ways’ and has added some very adult and very rational and systematic practices to make playing something that can produce ‘controllable’ results – that means results that are objective and can be followed-after objectively, reliably. I don’t know what your work experience is, but I have seen many occasions, where ‘playing around’, ‘getting distracted’ and ‘collecting crazy ideas’ have lead or would have lead to faster and better result for complex tasks, difficult challenges or innovative new products – see the example of a completely unexpected and successful new approach in education, called ‘hip hop for science education’. I have not researched that, but I think that man has just – for whatever reasons – followed what he liked most in life, what gave him a good feeling (good value) for his life and efforts (it is an effort and exercise and a certain discipline to become a good rapper, for example – just try it, I wish good fun in failing to talk as fast as the best rappers do!). He just did what he liked and was good at and was so close to life and what makes life valuable that he one day discovered that this is a great way to bring to young people what allows progress and opens possibilities and new futures to them: Science and experimentation and learning by leaving the best-practiced, majority paths. Unfortunately, there are so many managers and organizations that seem to seriously believe that you can create innovation, progress and outstanding success (value for your customers) by doing always more and a bit more optimized of what is already there as known practice – what a strange, contradictory belief, isn’t it, after all?   

Wouldn’t it be great to have as much fun being there at work (sorry within a meaningful, productive activity) the whole day, the whole week, the whole year, just as youngsters are doing it while listening and dancing to hip hop and rap music? While playing around with various ways of producing a product to find out what works best? Wouldn’t it be great to play around with the best of your talents, inspirations and passions at work to let others fully benefit from it to allow them to unfold what they are good at doing – for example in being orderly and precise and eager to perfectly execute what we know as best so far? I even put one on top of all that: Wouldn’t if be great if you could just walk home in the middle of the day and do what interests you most just today, just in that hour – to refresh your mind and soul and to satisfy your very human need of exploring things that you find interesting and fun? As soon as your work bores you or as soon as you are stuck with what you need to do – or when you are just so tired and exhausted of being an overloaded physician in a hospital that you have not any patience left for your patients any more?

Oh my god, where would the world end up if we all did that? Injured people coming to hospitals where no doctor is available – they are sitting at home instead, drinking wine and tea and coffee or taking a nice little nap in the middle of the afternoon?

Sure, some discipline and organization and responsibility is needed to have a good life for all and to be able to deal effectively with the less fun sides of life that we can not ignore for the sake of our own well being – but on the other hand, how can you know that it would be like that, if we have never tried? And who can prove to me that how we do it today is really better in fulfilling the purpose, in giving to patients what they need and what is good for them? I know it is not working out well in many countries currently – happy to listen to your stories and facts to learn the contrary 🙂

How much discipline do we need if work and getting results feels just like playing and doing what we like doing most? Did you know that little children loose fun and motivation to draw pictures as soon as they are offered money to do it? The reward does not make it better…or more performant, or more effective – one of the myths that are leading to the disorientation of today’s management practices. 

This was the dreamer speaking. The dreamer that knows that much of this, very much of this is possible and good for us – I have enough evidence and theory that supports it. Science has much better evidence than I think I have (go and research topics like motivation, reward, bonus, impact of individual performance versus organizational performance, stakeholder interest versus share holder interest, you will find many well-spread, but wrong assumptions) – it just leads us back to what really counts for a human being in life.

Now this is just a blog, not a scientific article and not even a well developed hip hop rhyme with a melody that was composed over many days of work. However, it might be one of those melodies that were played and written down during a lucky and relaxed fun-evening with friends, one that was just well inspired, one that catches our hearts. This was written within an hour, based on what I have got to know and to experience and based on what inspires me (and based on what others have found out in passionate work of science). Usually I would keep it for a draft for two days, three days, one week of re-reading and revisions, because I am aware of how much I throw up in it and how few of the available evidence and fact I list in it. However, I want to practice what I preach: This is just a blog, it should be a lot of fun first, to free our spirits (for me at least!) and: This is a big piece of playing around to see what I get from it.

Let’s see what I get from you – maybe your talent to carry this even further?

By the way, today, on a Friday at work, when my work bored me and gave me such big challenges that my brain and soul just pushed me so much to turn away from it for a while, I turned away and started to read about the battle of Austerlitz. One of Napoleon’s biggest triumphs and performances. I am working in a company where this is possible, it was a day where it was possible, I am in a job that gives me a lot of freedom, and I respect my company and my manager for all the trust. This is like that, because this company has always said it counts a lot on more modern views of work and on the talents of their employees. I still can do it, here and there, but many feel they can’t any more, because the culture, the style of management has changed a lot – unfortunately. I can see a lot of evidence that this is causing a certain, slight and creeping decline in (company and individual) performance and a striking occurrence of demotivation and loss of passion and talent-use. The hone-hour-journey to Austerlitz after Lunch was very beneficial for my company. You will see why in my next blog.  

The hip-hop-education story: You find it here: http://pointofinquiry.libsyn.com/rss – just search for the podcast titled: “

Chris Emdin – Hip Hop Archivist and Professor at Teachers College, Columbia University“

<

p>* The story with the cat-kicking at home after work is a nice metaphor that I borrowed from one of the great training sessions of my dear friend Stephen Parry. Of course he would never kick his cat if he had one, no need to even feel tempted, just because he already lives and makes possible what I describe as a ‘future dream’ here – get inspired by his leadership and approach to changing organizations: www.lloydparry.com – a must for the exclusive group of change experts and managers who want to work with the best available and most advanced approaches to bring real progress to organizations – and inspiring for everybody to see how close management theory and a purposeful life are in reality. 

Each person has a so called trigger point. The trigger point is the thing, that somebody says to you (I do not mean an insult, of course) and that makes you upset very fast – usually faster than you would like to. This week, my trigger point was pushed by the statement “I struggle to understand what you mean with inventions in business? – I would say that all changes in the way how we do business that came up during the last 100 years have in reality been enhancements of what existed already.”

Why that hit my trigger point so easily is also the way how it was said: Not like a question, not like a thesis, not with any doubt in the voice – it was stated as if that was the core of life wisdom, as if it was a fact. When I think about it now, funny enough, he might be absolutely right in a particular sense, without knowing it and without understanding it himself: What the majority of (traditionally thinking) management (including himself) is doing today is nothing else than an enhanced application of the same old mass production thinking and organizational design principles that have been invented 100 years ago – unfortunately, because there are much better options today and we see nice cases where new principles work better. So, he might have simply made a very true statement about his own world of thinking and acting. Tragically enough, the company where we both are working has become successful just by starting off with a good bunch of such new and different, non-traditional principles. How far has my company come in a decline of culture and leader-spirit to let such a statement be part of a serious discussion in management?

The point of the discussion where this statement came up was the question if our organization should be an can be in a role to enable or even drive the invention of new ways of how our customers are operating and managing their business. Or if it is only a unit to pick up technological inventions and to make them operable for the customer business. The discussion was not if management and business invention exists – because there is a pile of evidence and examples that invention of course happens in management and business. Not in the traditional management that still goes with the 100 years old mass production thinking – but in many other corners with people who are able to rethink and to question their own assumptions.

I belong to those who fight and work for change and innovation of management in our company – that’s why such as statement hits my trigger. It comes out of an attitude that new management principles and new concepts of how to lead and operate a business can not work and do only exist in theory and ideas, but not in practice. That attitude might be driven by an unconscious fear of change, of loosing the currently practiced form of control over a difficult, tough business – maybe going hand in hand with the big resigning assumption, that our type of business can not be other than tough and difficult. But it is certainly also based on a lack of knowledge of basic concepts and theory about management and organizational design (and of course, it is very hard to get these people into trainings where they could get such basic knowledge – they have ‘more important things to do’ and prefer to waste their time being busy with traditional management).

Why that statement makes me so upset, too, is the fact that because of people with such an attitude and distorted perception of reality, indeed frequently we are not able to bring such new concepts to life in our company – concepts that are already reality elsewhere. He is one of the ‘practitioners’ in management who define ‘practice’ as the part of existing reality that they personally are living and that does not include ideas or practices or theory that they do not know or do not understand. I thus sit in that meeting in such a discussion, hear that statement and all my knowledge and instincts push me to reply with a loud ‘No, that can not be true’ reaction.

And again I become aware of how change- and innovation-resistant some of our own managers are. While they are pretending to be the ones who are driving and keeping up and successful this business, in reality they are just about to ride it to death. They are complaining about how much customers demand from them and that it would be an impossible claim that they do ‘more with less’ (please! Come back to what economic activity means, wake up, this is what you call ‘productivity-gains’- everybody wants it, because it either saves effort and time or brings more wealth!) – and in reality they are the ballast that holds their company back from moving into the future. By saying that there is nothing new beyond what they know and do today, by simply going on to do what they have always done, by going on to think what they have always thought, they produce the evidence to support their own thesis: There is nothing new and better that can work in their area of influence. An expensive and tragic self-fulfilling prophecy.

For myself, I choose a better way: I look at the evidence that humanity has delivered with progress of all kind: Invention is the core result of the two most important natural human talents: Imagination and learning from reality by doing things differently.
Unfortunately, for the moment, there is a lot of ballast and debris to move out of the way if I want to walk it in my company: I see the gentlemen sit there, denying that better options exist, laughing at these ‘funny new concepts’ while they have admitted 10 minutes before, that they did not even understand them. And I see the others, the better educated, the smarter guys, who know it better, who feel the pretence – but they just do not speak up enough to get rid of these opinions. Opinions that do not help anybody to create a better future or to stay successful in an environment where the competition does not go with the assumption that invention does not exist in management.

After the day, I noticed that driven by my trigger point, for my part I have probably spoken up too much again to leave the impression of a doubtfree, knowing man who has the wisdom about management. Because giving the impression of having the truth without saying much is still weighting more in discussions in my company than argumentation, good theory and evidence. To leave such an impression, I just should have pretended that my view is clearly the important truth – with a few words only out of a deep bariton, not giving any sign of doubt that openness for different views and new ideas might be worth the effort. But you know what: I don’t really believe that last sentence that I have just written here. There are too many smart people who might not always say much, but who listen and recognize good arguments and who appreciate a drive for liberating new possibilities. I just wonder, when they will finally be as fed up by such talking as I am today. What are they waiting for?

The new year – everybody celebrates the end of the old and the beginning of the new year today. It is the day where many of us start new hopes and new aspirations, but it is also the day where the old year definitively is over. Time to look back, time to admit with humility that some things definitively have not happened in that old year – and it is the very last chance for some quite banal daily life things that are tied to the final deadline of December 31, 2013.

I am not a good administrator of gift-vouchers, so the year-end is a potential threat for me: Oh, that voucher that I have been offered last Christmas, in what drawer have I put it.. and how long was that valid, by the way…? To my surprise I then discover that there are vouchers who are valid for one year only and that they even have a deadline long before December 31 – because the day of their purchase was earlier. The voucher from a big arts photography gallery is one of these.

Short conversation on the evening of December 28: “No, is that voucher deadline already passed? That would be bad….Do you think they will still accept it after December 10?” – “Well, I would say if not, then they are not really interested in their customers… that should not be a problem two or three weeks after the deadline. At least I would not treat my customers like that: Either you come in time or you loose your money – and thank you by the way for your generous gift, Mr. Customer. Happy to see you again next year.”

Besides that speculation and hoping, of course, driven by my bad conscience of not taking care well of my gift vouchers, I start to wonder why I did not use that voucher during the whole year, before. And I find that this time it was even with best intention and reasons: I wanted to wait until we had moved to a new appartment and then choose a picture that would fit into our new home. And I simply also did not imagine that there are vouchers of such higher value that have only one year validity.

We finally moved in November and the weeks after moving had been very busy – of course. And then next Christmas had to be prepared already. Now, suddenly the year is over and on December 28, I look at the voucher again to find that one-year deadline until December 10. I find myself being pushed to go and buy a picture quickly now – on the other hand, certainly they will not be that strict and inflexible… I start watching their pictures online, to choose one, to think about what format at what price I would like to afford one – only a small one for the 80 Euros voucher, or better a larger one for about 300 Euros? But then, even worse, two days later I hear that I should rather go now on December 31 – to seize the last opportunity, for the case that they won’t accept it any more next year. So we go there, to have a look and to check how flexible they are with the voucher. Choosing one quickly, however is not what I like, and certainly not now, today, and after a short time in that gallery shop I feel stressed and pushed – and I decide to first ask if they would still accept the voucher and if yes, how long – because after all, what I expect is that they certainly will not be so strict with one-year-voucher-deadlines.

“Yes, ok, as a courtesy and exception we would still accept it today, despite it being more than two weeks over the deadline.” – “Ah, that’s great. So I could still come back and use it later this week, too, in the new year…?” – “Ah, no I am afraid, if you still want to use it, it should be at least still in the old year”. “How long will the shop be open today?” (it is 11:50 am). “Until 1 pm”. So, definitively they take their deadline serious and put me in a situation of ‘last chance’ and ‘now or never’. After some minutes of increased stress and dissatisfaction about that situation, I turned back to the nice sales-woman and asked her: “Tell me, you would seriously just take the money and let the voucher turn invalid….seriously? Without me having purchased any picture?”. “I am really sorry, Sir, but after all, you had a full year time to use it..and the deadline is written on it.”

Seen from her business-perspective, I had a fair chance to make the promised voucher business deal with them. Of course, I understood that, seen from a business perspective. However, unfortunately,  to make a business deal was not my purpose as a customer for that gift – I wanted to find the right piece of art for me and my new appartment.

How did that little story of the collision of my voucher-weakness and their voucher-deadline-policy end? I purchased a picture in small format within the next 5 minutes, to save the money. And I was not even dissatisfied with the picture. It is nice, it is ok – but it is not the well chosen, great piece of art for my new home. And I was certainly dissatisfied with the gallery and with their voucher policy. And they certainly missed the chance that I would have bought a much bigger format, adding the multiple value of the voucher out of my own money, for a much higher purchase price. And it was a stressy experience for me. Thus the whole nice idea of making customers enjoy good art was just smashed within 10 minutes. What should have been a nice gift to let me choose a picture that I like and that I would highly appreciate in a nice corner of my home, has become a story of being forced to choose something quickly to not loose money.

While we walked home with the new picture I wondered what the company philosophy and the declared purpose of that gallery was, if they found it normal and acceptable that a customer would simply loose his money when a voucher deadline of one short year was over. I had thought that they were selling art – and not bets…But they seriously found it all ok and normal to tell us that either we buy now or they would just keep our money (and between the lines, why should they even really care about it: This is your problem Mr. Customer). Think about it: We already borrowed that money interest-free for a whole year to them and they would now just keep it all without any picture purchased or new voucher issued. Good deal for them, certainly. But is that their goal…? Should it be.a goal for an enterprise to just make money, no matter how..?

At their place I would define and live a better purpose. A purpose that makes customers love them. For example: “We make our customers find and enjoy great photography artworks for their homes”. And I would make this the guiding principle of all decisions and policies towards employees, partners and customers. Following that purpose they would have allowed me to use the voucher also later in the new year – to make sure I can choose my picture as I like, and to make sure I get one that I really like. Declaring a voucher invalid in the new year would then simply mean no art at that customer’s home and that they miss their purpose of making customers enjoy art at home.

But I have now evidence that in case of doubt, something else is more important than me (the customer) and what I need and like around art-photography. My money seems to be a good enough goal for them and only customers who choose a picture for their already spent money within one year are good enough for them. But so many companies have that goal. They all want my money. Thus, what makes this gallery special to make me spend my money just there? There is another photography gallery twohundred meters further down the road. And the internet is full of artworks that wants to be sold.

By the way, now that I have that nice art photography at home I enjoy it – and I feel that I should get more and larger ones. But I also regret that I did not immediately buy a larger format (what would have needed more time to choose it for the right spot in the appartment and to be sure the expense will be worth it for me). Normal reaction would be to turn back to that gallery again, next week. However, as they did not really show big interest in me as a long term customer and as obviously they do not understand how to help me find the right photographies (give me time, when I need it!) I will first have a look at the other galleries now. But certainly I will not give my money to anybody where I see that at the end they are even happy to have my money when I do not have a picture in exchange.

Year end is time of very last chances. Last chance for some vouchers – and some vouchers turn out to be the last chance for a shop to keep their customer for the next years.

Being overrun by the big machine.

Sometimes it feels like being overrun by the big machine, by the big tank that moves forward in its direction without anything that can stop it. And I was the poor guy who believed he could redirect it. Now I am in the middle of its wheels and mechanisms, feeling all the forces that push and squeeze me and that make me a bit scared. I am the one who is being redirected and thoughts come up: Should I change my mind about what I am trying to do?

Working in a big organization can make us feel like being a tiny wheel many times – just as Charly Chaplin illustrates it with his ‘wheelspinning’ worker in the film “Modern Times”. If we don’t get that feeling at all, we are either in a really great organization or it is that we are just too much part of it already – we are the wheel that turns nicely and we do not find anything wrong about that.We get what we expect from our work in it, or we just have already accepted that this is all we can get. In the latter case we just might have adapted our world view to the way how the organization runs, how it functions, how it defines how the world can be: How human beings need to behave and collaborate and what goals have priority. But is this the learning that we need? And is it the learning that the organization really needs to be succesful?

I am writing under the impression of a conversation with my manager, two days ago. A conversation as good-willing and open as it can be, with as much sympathy and respect for each other as one would wish and expect it in a modern company. Sounds like a nice chat right before Christmas, like a good experience. Rather easy. But it was not. It felt quite challenging. Challenging in a good way and in a bad way at the same time. It was about a very complex topic in work and about how I will continue to analyse it. The good part of challenge were feedback and comments related to my very individual tendencies of approaching that work: Strengths, predispositions and weaknesses that I sometimes let drive the direction into detours and that make me avoid things that I should not avoid, perhaps. Not comfortable to be confronted with it, not easy to admit and rethink. But basically it is a good challenge to be confronted with it. The bad part of challenge was how the conversation felt emotionally and how it was lead: It felt like a big push. Like ‘Let’s move on faster’. Like: ‘Don’t waste your time there, I know better that this is in vain.’ It felt a bit like: ‘We wanted you to analyse in this certain way and we expect you to fix what we assumed was the problem’. And I wondered why now that sort of time-pressure and impatience was coming up while they had told me that there was no short term expectation and no deadlines related to it. So I felt like my wheel being pushed with force into a direction where my wheel would not turn before having investigated and understood other turns first.The issue is complex, the task is to understand what wheels are turning together, first.It will not be solved by turning the wheels how they turn now – because that current way of functioning does not create the wished output. However, I was not really surprised by the style of conversation and that this direct leading and influencing took place. That is how we work and lead and try to develop people, today. Asking open questions in a spirit of respecting 100% ownership and with the knowledge what questions help the other think about the best analysis approach: Directing the conversation to the known facts and the unknown, the gaps – that is not yet part of the common, standard leadership competency in my organization.That would have been as difficult contentwise as it was now. But it would have felt much better and let thoughts move to the really important questions – instead of discussion two opinions about the best next steps.

The way how we lead conversations and how we expect that tasks and problems are being approached are one example for the forces that make an organization work in a certain way or in another way. Conversations are situations where often we can clearly feel the push into a certain direction of ‘wheel-turn’ very well. Especially if we talk to people where we feel a dependency of some kind: Here it was my framing of the formal powers (and its effects) that a manager has by his position. In another conversation it might be the fact that we need something from others.In bothe examples we will notice that some things go easily, without real disagreement and trouble and that there are other things that create reluctance, non-understanding or resistance. In the first case my wheel grabs into another as they are currently designed as a part of the whole organizational logic of roles, task separations, power-constellations, goals, priorities and ways of execution.In the second case we see the need to establish a new or different way of being a wheel and turning something. Then we find ourselves in the middle of a difficult debate.And in these debates it is where change starts.

The good news always is: Organizations are no tanks made of steel. They are complex setups of human collaboration, made of ideas.Sure, they are machines that produce outputs and cultures in which we live an emotional, subjective work life while we deal with the objective reality of actions and facts that they create around us. But they are not made of steel plates, wheels and screws. They are made of ideas, choices and actions.They are not tons of solid weight and solid, physical limitations. They are as soft and flexible as human beings can be (if they want to). They can be changed basically by any human being. It is not flesh against steel. It is ideas and choices against ideas and choices. As everybody plays with exactly the substance that makes organizations, sometimes it only needs little to influence or transform it. And there is even more good news. Once we manage to see clearer what drives and constitutes our organization and how its complex dynamics works, we can even find the spots where we can develop strong influence and where we start to change their logic and setup. Human beings and ideas have made an organization be what it is today and human beings and ideas make it do what it does every day. They can change it as well, at any time and at nearly any place inside or outside it.To add a realistic comment: Human beings in nearly any organization are even doing it already every day. Without human beings who change and influence their organization a little bit every day, most of them would disappear quite quickly due to a lack of adaptation to their feeding environment (called ‘customers’).

I felt like being turned over and squeezed by the big machine. However, I bet that this big wheel in it called ‘my manager’ felt a bit the same way, too. And he has not left the debate unchanged – as well as I did not. As one of my best friends once said: “The change starts in the debate”