I’m working on one of our teams to put together a programme that comes from a concept we’ve been working on. It started in the innovation space, and then gradually drifted accross to the diversity space because of our interest in that area. We then decided to work on it to see if we could develop the thought. We’ve come some distance, and have become stuck-ish.
Essentially it’s the following:
*Dominant business paradigm loves efficiency.
*Efficiency loves homogeneity.
*Dominant business paradigm loves homogeneity.
ENTER DIVERSITY (all over the planet)
*Diversity hampers efficiency.
*Diversity challenges dominant business paradigm.
*Dominant business paradigm develops and runs programmes to turn diversity into homogeneity.
And guess what it doesn’t work. So here’s what we say….
The world has changed (yes we say that a lot) and we now live in a diverse world that will continue to get more and more diverse. It’s not going away. Not now anyway. Business is being pushed (rightly so) by government to ensure a diverse workplace (all over the world), and business hasn’t found a working model to do this. Not yet anyway. To be honest, it’s not surprising because there just doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason for the people at the bottom of the food chain to get it together and go through the pain of finding an authentic way to live and work in a diverse world and business space. No wonder most people retreat into the comfort of their homogeneous homes and communities at night.
But what if we came at this from a different starting point. What if we stopped thinking that the result of a good diversity programme wasn’t going to be harmony and ultimately efficiency? I know that scares the pants off of most managers. But what if we simply gave in to the fact that diversity will always lead to something other than harmony. And what if we stopped fearing that the ‘something other’ wasn’t conflict, but creativity?
What if we stopped expecting efficiency from our people and left that part of the equation to the machines and processes we’ve put in place? What if we looked at our people and saw incredible amounts of creative potential that could possibly help the business processes and machines, who do the efficiency, become incredibly creative about their efficiency?
Well that’s about as far as we’ve gone. We’re not sure what’s missing, but we haven’t found a way to go forward with this yet. And I stress the YET!
Diversity as Enemy of Efficiency
Don’t know if these thoughts will help in finding a model, but …
“According to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle, chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized.� (Interesting Times – Terry Pratchett)
I think the problem of efficiency stems from power and how the dominant paradigm uses/understands the power it wields.
Enter the Panopticon (http://users.rcn.com/mackey/thesis/panopticon.html) – the medieval viewing tower employed in prisons to effect power such that no prisoner was out of sight at any time. Prisons are by nature unruly places – you have a plethora of individuals who want to act-out, rebuke and rebel against power. So what do you do, you introduce a mechanism that stamps out this desire. The Panopticon ensures that any prisoner at any time is in view of the powers-that-be i.e. with the guns (it also had one way glass, so the prisoners did not really know if someone was watching them – it was the fear of someone watching them that kept them in line). It is interesting that most prison rebellions have been successful through prisoners uniting to form a homogenous group to fight against the warders – using the prison’s best tool against them (For a must see movie on this point, see The Last Castle).
So the Panopticon ensured that a group of individuals were homogenised – stamping out all diversity. Why was diversity such a problem? Well, because the prison systems could not handle diversity – it could not handle the unique challenge of dishing out corrective measures tailored for each individual. And so corrective measures became punitive measures – at the expense of rehabilitation.
Is there any difference between the ways businesses are run and the use of the Panopticon in the prisons? The dominant business paradigm needs to be rehabilitated of this approach to efficiency. It seems that the power behind the stronghold of efficiency lies in its ease. Things become easier to control when they are efficient (or so we think). So we are still stuck in the command and control way of running a business.
I’m trained as a Therapist, specifically within the Narrative framework. One of the key features of a Narrative approach is a genuine curiosity i.e. in therapy you ask questions that you genuinely do not know the answers to. Much of (formal) Psychology trains therapists in the knowledge of human pathology i.e. it gives you the answers. I don’t like this approach. Why? Because it categorises humans according the pathologies we have studied and already know about – it leaves little room for individualism i.e. diversity.
So business leaders will need to develop a love for curiosity, and especially a love for it as it challenges our desire to know the answer and have things controlled. The belief is that should we have a diverse workplace, it will require exponentially higher amounts of management i.e. control. Is this true? Do we have any alternative stories that challenge this that we can use?
Is this a quick process, or a lengthy one? The cynicism in me says we’d never be able to change the mindsets that see diversity as a threat to business without a revolution (have our prisons changed?).
Will/do business leaders want to be challenged in this way?
Are prisons successful in rehabilitating?
Do we want to run our business like a prison, proverbially?
Hi Barrie,
I think the emphasis placed on efficiency by corporates is interesting – but not suprising. We are always looking for ways to “cut costs” – to do things fastest, better and most importantly cheaper. (Which seems like a natural progression to me …)
So the supposition is that diversity is the antithesis of efficiency. But as you so rightly say – diversity can lead to great creativity and the potential for increased revenue/earnings in the long run.
So I think the real question here is how do you “stream line” that creative process? How do you make creativity efficient? I know in some ways that seems like an oxymoron … but I believe that this is an achievable scenario that will bring benefits at many different levels within the organisation.
Barrie, as I think more about this topic I am seeing how ‘chaotic’ management and diversity converge, and often mean the same thing. In the 24 June FM, Jacko Maree – Standard Bank Chief – is quoted, “You want diversity and vibrancy, and you want different people to behave in different ways. You can’t get innovation if everyone comes out of the same box”.
This statement freaks me out … are these not just words that sound nice? In Std Bank, how is it possible that the levels of diversity Maree speaks of are achieved? Surely with the type of business he is in efficiency is his best friend – computer banking systems are notoriously un-diverse and incapable of handling it. Perhaps the diversityt he speaks of occurs on the board, but it sure does not happen on the customer level!
In light of the above commnet, maidenmole, let me drop this article into the mix that was sent to me once by Simone (see above and thanks) There’s an element of the diversity/efficiency/creativity debate happening here. Me thinks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDS’ Jeff Wacker: Interactive workplace scary — in a good way
POSTED:03 May 2005, SOURCE: Edmonton Journal
Gamers could rule the world when the Next Big Thing comes down the technology wires, according to futurist Jeff Wacker.
Wacker calls it autonomics, and it will have as huge an effect on our lives as the last Big Thing — the personal computer — the Texas author, lecturer and bison rancher told an audience at MacEwan College on Monday.
Autonomics is an intelligent, instinctive system that interacts with us rather than merely responding to our commands, the same as the body reacts when you start running by increasing the heartbeat and oxygen intake, Wacker said.
And interactive games are a great way to teach people how to manage this scary future, he said.
“Games are a good way to learn experiential modelling, and gaming is the model of how we will run our businesses in the future. Our businesses should all be run like games.”
Autonomics is already with us in some basic forms, especially in hospitals.
An electronic tag worn by surgeons is read by the “room,” so the lighting is automatically set to their preference, and their favourite music starts playing. The “room” will also respond to information or requests from the surgeon.
It will eventually make the desktop keyboard obsolete for the average worker, and on a broader scale will allow companies to be run by a mathematical computer model able to use real-time information to make instant decisions, Wacker said.
Workers will follow a pre-determined “optimal” way to do routine tasks, but will be able to devise better ways to do it as they work.
And if that sounds like a frightening world, it will be, Wacker said.
“It’s not all good, but it will happen. Economics are driving it to happen”
because technology is speeding up our world at such a fantastic rate that it’s difficult for humans to keep up, Wacker said.
Computer capabilities are doubling every 18 months, and the amount of information is doubling every 12 months. Yet human brains are limited in what they can handle at any one time, he said.
“We thought change was the only constant, but change itself is constantly changing. You can’t even figure out what’s going to happen, because it’s already happened.”
The solution is an extremely fluid business computer model, built for quick adaptation to changing markets and future trends, Wacker said.
“If I get a half- to one-per-cent edge on what’s going to happen, I’ll make a fortune in Las Vegas, and you can make a fortune in business.”
A key element will be to train people in certain tasks as they are doing them, rather than ahead of time, when they might forget some of the information, Wacker said.
“It’s like having a grandfather looking over your shoulder telling you how to carve wood.”
And the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” will be replaced by “if it ain’t broke, break it,” because we’ll have to change rapidly without waiting for something to break, he said.
Wacker and his colleagues at global IT giant EDS will have a book out in November on how autonomics can be accomplished. But he stressed the change won’t involve taking away people’s free will. They will be given guidance to do repetitive tasks, and be encouraged to think about a better way to do them.
And there will always be jobs that can’t be automated, such as a masseuse, he said.
“There will always be the need for human touch. We crave interaction, and we won’t allow technology to rob us of our basic humanities. Human beings will be a major part of the future, but it will be a unique part.”
Not everyone will be able to cope with the changes, and governments must play a major role in making sure they don’t get forgotten, Wacker said.
It’s not a new phenomenon, he said. The invention of the steam engine reaper put many farmhands out of work, but they were able to find jobs elsewhere.
But governments must start planning for it now.
[email protected]
——————————————————————————–
Publication Name: Edmonton Journal
Publication Date: 05/03/2005
Section/Page: /F1 / Front
Author: David Finlayson
Other Credit: The Edmonton Journal
Copyright: Copyright © 2005 Edmonton Journal Accession Number: EDJR000020050503e1530003u
Bring on the New World!
Sheesh, if I did not have type i.e. use a keyboard, I’d be a happy lad! I have debated this with friends … as technology improves, so does our efficiency, but why is that we strive for this? Why are we so spell-bound by the roll-out of new improved technologies – such as autonomics? Is it because we’re lazy and want more spare time? Hardly, if that was the case we’d have stoped improving and would all be in vegetative states.
Perhaps the off-shoot of the technlogical wave is that our rote actions/tasks will become automated, thus freeing us enough time to dwell in our natural ability as humans to be diverse … perhaps then we could be fully human (is this a destination, or journey?)
This thread had died down a little, but here’s some rejuvenation care of Ricardo Semler. In this extract Semler explores – with Semco in mind – how organisations become such beurocratic machines that stamp out innovation and (in my words) diversity:
Where did all these rules come from anyway?
They were, I suppose, an unhappy byproduct of corporate expansion. How does an industrial giant act as it grows? First, management concludes that a company cannot depend on individuals. After all, they have personalities and finite life spans. A corporation is supposed to be impersonal and eternal.
Next thing you kow, committees and task forces and working groups are spewing out procedures and regulations and stomping out individuality and spontaneity.
In their quest for law, order, stability and predicatability, corporations make rules for every conceivable contingency. Policy manuals are created with the idea that, if a company puts everything in writing, it will be more rational and objective. Standardising methods and conduct will guide new employees and ensure that the entire company has a single, cohesive image. And so it became accepted that large organisations could not function without hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of rules.
Sounds sesnible, right? And it works fine for an army or a prison system. But not I believe for a business. And certainly not for a business that wants people to think, innovate and act as human beigns wherever possible.
Okay, so we have large corporates with reems of rules. How do you effectively change this culture?