The QnA method for problem solving
After so many conversations with clients it seems like a good idea to simply share the premise of the QnA problem solving methodology. Although the following is simply the premise not the complete methodology, I think you may find it useful and it may guide you at solving complex social problems through design. If you give it a try, I’d like to hear your comments, questions, perhaps even cases if you’re willing to share.
The premise:
Reality breaks down to a hierarchy of Questions and Answers. At the top of the hierarchy is the Fundamental Question and the corresponding Answer, defining the Whole. The Questions are hidden while the Answers are visible.
A major mistake is to assume that we must focus our attention on the Solution(s) to the Problem (or worse yet: on the Problem) since the Problem is not the Question and the Solution is not the Answer. The Problem is the (an) Answer to the (a) Question. We must focus our attention on the Question. Once defined, the Question –assisted by our Thinking- “selects” the Answer elevating our Awareness to the whole reality, away from partial reality, which is essentially the definition of Illusion.
At this stage not only do we see our original problem and a range of possible solutions in perspective, but we also see the way of repairing or transcending the existing system that necessitated the changes in the first place.
How to buy innovation
Quantity (how many times, for how many years) matters in mechanical activities, where routine is not so dangerous.
In areas that are fundamentally qualitative, including strategy and leadership, routine is dangerous and the significance of quantity is minimal.
It’s non-sense to assume that leadership qualities, synthetic (strategic) thinking, creativity emerge from years of practice.
These qualities bestow very particular style elements on the person and yes, these maybe somewhat refined with years of practice in some cases.
In the perception of the person who performs true qualitative activities each every occasion is completely unique and each and every approach is experienced as if it was done for the first time, in a high intensity creative tension.
This is where creativity and leadership come from and this is what ensures integration throughout the organization…
… and this is what gets killed when quality gets subordinated to quantity and the context for action becomes mechanical planning, talent management, resource management, marketing, branding and communications best practices, etc.
In such mechanical context all efforts geared towards creativity (e.g. off site strategy planning exercises, hiring guys who sell creativity, team building exercises, etc.) fail – either completely or partially.
Creativity, innovation and other qualitative factors must come from inside the organization; they can’t be enforced on it; it can’t be bought!
To put it differently: creativity and innovation is an organizational question and it by no means belongs to HR…or marketing or branding!!!
And now the tricky question:
Who handles innovation in your organization?
women on boards
This question comes up in my conversations more and more often. In this post I will focus only on one single aspect of this question because I think this aspect is somehow missed by most people:
Business does not provide context for proper qualitative differentialtion between men and women; this means that the gender “question” is irrelevant.
If anything, it eliminates qualitative differentiation! In other words: decision making in context of profit does not call for masculine OR feminine qualities! No man or woman is qualified since there is no qualitative factor present. Ironically, the drive for business leadership roles only strengthens the tendency of undifferentiation, all under the aegis of diversity.
The answers to what constitutes virile/masculine or feminine qualities are to be found entirely outside the business domain.
Acknowledging this, and introducing principles (masculine, feminine and others) into the organization thus enabling the emergence of organic hierarchies, where economics are subordinated to its appropriate level, calls for leadership in a higher (than business) sense.
Cost is not context
If cost is the context of your reality and you are not in finance, it means:
- you are in the wrong role: find somebody who will give you context
- your role is temporary; but as a turnaround specialist, you know this. Hopefully you were not hired specifically because there isn’t any context.
- you are in trouble; try to relax, and think about/remember what you want from your organization.
The organizational robot
“We have the strategy, now it’s time to think about implementation: we need to escalate it throughout the organization”.
“The markets changed: we must adjust/align the organization”.
“To survive we need to change our culture”.
Behind all these and tons of other typical statements there are hundreds of consulting companies who help you do just that.
It seems like management, ideas and the so called organization are in silos, in separate bubbles; they truly are! Organization is not the cause of anything: it’s a passive medium, suffering consequences at best.
This is precisely the proof that what management refers to as organization doesn’t exist: there is just a bunch of people going to the office.
What happened before somebody -due to some outside stimuli, as a jerk-reflex- made this realization, this reaction, this statement?
The organization was just “there”; not as a living entity aware of its environment and internal life, but as a dumb robot in a lab.
Implementing a new strategy, aligning to customers, changing the “culture”: nothing more than reprogramming the robot. Nothing will change! The organization will remain dumb, mechanical, reactive.
YOU MUST BRING YOUR ORGANIZATION TO LIFE!
Once you have a living organization, implementation, adjustment, change will be more organic, the organization will become more intelligent and you will find yourself at an increasing distance from the robots: from their point of view you are
- redefining markets
- redefining terms like strategy, innovation, leadership, culture, knowledge management, etc.
From your point of view you are simply operating from a different base, doing the right things, the right way for the right reasons, all in harmony.
70 things to think about – what matters now
An initiative from Seth Godin.
The small stuff
The big stuff is easy to recognize. When for example big money gets eradicated people take notice…after it’s already gone.
The big stuff, seemingly, just appears, out of nowhere; and then comes the shock. The bigger the stuff, the bigger the surprise. The recent financial crisis is an easy example for this.
Then comes the smart analysis that the big stuff was predictible. Smart analysis however is always too late, it’s always retrospective.
Once the big stuff is here, everything turns upside down: those who were considered to be heros turn out to be thiefs. Once things settle, they go back to be heros, and so on.
The small stuff is more significant. It happens in real time and it happens in small quantities: in small situations, with small people: so small, that it doesn’t get noticed. The other reason why it doesn’t get noticed of course is because those watching are small, too.
Small people have a weak character; their character lacks a centre. They are “morally flexible” to use the expression from John Cusak from one of those 80’s movies.
A weak character is always a sign of a weak intellect. A good example of the difference between (rational) smarts and intellect is precisely the opportunistic small men: people who cheat, lie and steal in the context of business without giving it a second thought: “it’s business” after all.
Perhaps to compensate for their small character, they are attracted to size/quantity. Naturally, since they lack the intellectual capacity to differentiate, they inevitably confuse bigness with greatness and this is reconfirmed by their “environment” which consists of peole operating under the same illusion.
Not realizing the significance of the small stuff and lacking an intellectual centre, they keep on adjusting their value systems according to situations; this becomes comical as they start making statements about their values or guiding principles, like honesty, integrity, fairness, transparency, etc.
It is precisely in small, everyday situations about small, everyday stuff when the disconnect between statements and actions becomes evident. Once such corruption comes to light the reaction that follows is critical: correction or manipulation.
It takes character to do the right thing in such small, everyday moments.
organic hierarchies
In most definitions of organic and mechanical/mechanistic organizations the role of hierarchies takes a center place.
Conventional definitions break down into two major categories:
- the context is business
- the context is historical
Conventional business definitions almost always miss the point entirely; they are simply unable to grasp the concept of organic organization. This should not come as a surprise, since the concept goes way beyond the boundaries of business.
Conventional historical definitions are very interesting, but not relevant here.
The point I briefly want to make is this:
Organic organization is in polar opposition to how business thinks about it.
It is based on hierarchies that are not based on functions and jobs, but the other way around: specialization (be it functions, jobs or other) is the result of (organic) hierarchical position.
Organic hierarchical positions are based on the function of vertical integration, as opposed to business where the foundation is specialization and integration is highly mechanical and unsuccessful.
Important note:
To turn business organizations into organic organizations is a logical impossibility.
It is however possible for business to enable the emergence of some organicity within an otherwise mechanical system.
When done successfully it MAY result in
- increased organizational creativity and innovation
- strengthened organizational identity
- the emergence of essential leadership
Innovation (to a larger degree), organizational identity and essential leadership (to a lesser degree) occupy top spots on the executive agenda; if we thoroughly think through the implications of these three factors, we see that triggering some organicity in business has tremendous importance.