Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed – a review

This is the book that I wish I had written.

Indeed, I will even go so far as to say that some of its ideas can be found in my blog – albeit in this book they are set out far more clearly and with greater insight than I normally muster.

This is truly an excellent book, vital reading for anyone with an interest in knowledge management, organisational learning, lessons learned, organisational design, leadership development and much more.

Matthew Syed’s book looks at how we normally deal with failure (i.e. not well) and how this hinders our ability to learn, and therefore to improve.  He provides case-studies from healthcare, criminal justice, aviation, manufacturing and sport, to show how a different approach to ‘failure’ enables better performance.

Some of the key ideas include:

·        Cognitive dissonance – the discomfort we experience through our inability to cope with evidence that challenges our fundamental beliefs or assumptions, which leads to twisting facts to suit our preconceived conclusions;

·        Marginal gains – using many small improvements, both lateral (i.e. in different areas) and sequential (i.e. iterative) to produce a large improvement overall.  He uses the Team Sky approach under Sir David Brailsford, as well as Formula One teams like Mercedes, to make this point;

·        The ‘blame game’ – the toxic tendency to look for ‘fault’ in others when things go wrong – a noxious feature of what passes for political and media discourse in most Western countries; in examining this, Syed references Sidney Dekker’s excellent book, ‘Just Culture’, which I reviewed here;

·        ‘Growth’ (as opposed to ‘fixed’) mind-sets – the mature and confident outlook of those happy to fail and eager to learn in so doing.  Examples here include James Dyson and David Beckham.

Feedback that has not been sought but is offered anyway would include:

·        No mention of the former England rugby coach, Sir Clive Woodward’s approach of improving ‘100 things by 1%’ which is almost identical to that of Brailsford’s ‘marginal gains’ (and in fact preceded it);

·        Many of the case-studies and statistics from healthcare, criminal justice etc. are from the United States, with fewer data from the UK.  Not a major issue but, as a British reader of this book by a British author, this was notable; perhaps there is greater transparency there – if so, I would not be surprised;

·        No mention of Chris Argyris and his work on ‘organisational defensiveness’.  The book is full of sources and texts, many of which I will now seek out and read for myself.  I was just hoping to find Argyris’s famous ‘undiscussables’ and noted their absence;

·        Public life and the inter-action of the media and politicians were examined but I rather think both sides were let off far too easily, as were we, the readers and voters who permit and perpetuate what Syed calls our “blame-orientated…public culture”. 

It is in this final area (political discourse) that I think there remains much to reveal and discuss and perhaps I can do that in a book before someone else beats me to it!

Overall, this was a fascinating, thought-provoking and entertaining read and I strongly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in making things better – which should be all of us.

The 10 principles behind successful KM strategy implementation

I’ve just finished reading ‘Designing a Successful KM Strategy’ by Stephanie Barnes and Nick Milton.

I’ll review it in due course but for now, thought the 10 principles listed in Chapter 4 were worth listing here:

1.      KM implementation needs to be organisation-led; tied to organisation strategy and to specific organisation issues.
2.      KM needs to be delivered where the critical knowledge lies, and where the high value decisions are made.
3.      KM implementation needs to be treated as a behaviour change programme.
4.      The endgame will be to introduce a complete management framework for KM.
5.      The framework will need to be embedded into the organisation structures.
6.      The framework will need to include governance if it is to be sustainable.
7.      The framework is to be structured, rather than emergent.
8.      KM implementation should be a staged process, with regular decision points.
9.      KM implementation should contain a piloting stage.
10.   KM implementation should be run by an implementation team, reporting to a cross-organisational steering group.

I’ll look at these in more detail in my next post.

To discuss how to design and implement a KM strategy, please get in touch or visit the Knoco website.

Designing a Successful KM Strategy - Stephanie Barnes and Nick Milton

I just got my hands on a copy of this book by my colleagues, Stephanie Barnes and Nick Milton.

I'm whizzing through it (nearly done!) and hope to have a review up on this blog within the week.

The balance between researching an academic thesis and writing a 'Dummies' Guide' is a difficult one to strike. However, this book gets it just right in my view. I am impressed by how accessible it is, with valuable insights gained from many years of work at the KM coalface.

KM sometimes gets a bad name, not entirely unfairly. However, I particularly like the way this book explains why some KM interventions fail to generate their expected value and sets out how these shortcomings can be addressed.

The over-riding message I take away from this is that this isn't a game, and deserves time, effort and, crucially, judgement on where and how KM can help a business in its wider, commercial strategy.

More to follow when I'm done!

'Wilful Blindness' by Margaret Heffernan - a review

.
Where to start with this book?  It's brilliant.
Margaret Heffernan is a businesswoman, writer and academic whose book, ‘Wilful Blindness’ examines how individuals and organisations alike fail to see or acknowledge things that common sense or hindsight suggests should have been obvious.

In the field of Knowledge Management (KM), we often encounter issues that cause, or have been caused by, such poor vision.  Lessons capture workshop discussions usually reveal facts that were known to all but were never acknowledged at the time when to do so might have made a difference.  Furthermore, the reluctance or inability of some organisations to act upon such lessons can be partly explained by the ideas explored in this book.

Using examples from personal relationships, academic experiments, oil companies, the City, the military and healthcare, the book sets out many different ways in which we blind ourselves to what is happening:

·        Affinity and ‘love is blind’ – the book starts with us as individuals, exploring the concepts of ‘affinity’ and love blindness – whereby we usually end up in relationships similar to us and allow our feelings for partners, family or friends to obscure certain negative aspects of their lives (e.g. unpleasant traits or even health problems).

·        Ideology, convictions and cognitive dissonance – ideologies provide a framework within which we try to make sense of the world but when facts appear to contradict our interpretation, many of us will ignore them as inconvenient or will refuse to act in ways that go against our beliefs, because to do so would force us to admit such beliefs are flawed.

·        Tiredness and distractions – there is a limit to how many hours of work anyone can do before becoming tired.  Furthermore, chronic tiredness (i.e. the result of a lack of sleep over many days or weeks) can result not just in ‘blindness’ but hallucination.  The book also looks at the ‘myth of multi-tasking’ and sets out how we can actually only focus on a limited number of activities or information feeds at any one time.  Against such a backdrop, the case for well-rested aircrew and bans on mobile phone use whilst driving makes a lot of sense.

·        ‘Sticking one’s head in the sand’ – like the myth of the ostrich, we refuse to acknowledge information that, deep down, we know will require us to act.  As individuals we let debts accrue, ignoring the letters from the bank and loan companies.  We indulge in habits such as smoking, drinking and tanning despite the evidence of harm.  Within organisations, people often prefer the status quo to change and so remain silent, not wanting to ‘rock the boat’.

·        ‘Blind obedience’ – strict hierarchies enable effective execution of strategy but without feedback mechanisms or the ability for employees to exercise discretion, unintended consequences are common.  It’s not just military orders that result in unforeseen outcomes, poorly-designed business targets also lead to short-cuts, accidents and death.

·        Cultural conformity – cultures can be positive and enabling just as they can be negative and restrictive.  In the latter case, the unspoken, implied requirements to conform inhibit employees’ creativity, restrict free discussion between them and lead them towards tribalism and ‘groupthink’.  In such environments, anything approaching honesty is tantamount to career suicide.

·        By-standers – the book reveals that when passing someone having a heart attack in a busy street, most people will walk on by, each presuming that someone else will deal the situation.  However, when faced with such a situation on one’s own, most people will try to help.  Additionally, scrutiny actually reduces with every extra layer of oversight.  Again, this is partly explained by a reluctance to stand out, a fear of embarrassment and a presumption that others know better than oneself.  This chapter notably concludes with a chilling letter from a farmer, complaining of having to witness the brutal treatment of prisoners at the nearby Mauthausen concentration camp in World War Two Austria at which, he wrote,

“…inmates are being shot repeatedly; those badly struck live for yet some time, and so remain lying next to the dead for hours and even half a day long.  My property lies upon an elevation next to the Vienna Ditch and one is often an unwilling witness to such outrages.  I am anyway sickly and such a sight makes such a demand on my nerves that in the long run I cannot bear this.  I request that it be arranged that such inhuman deeds be discontinued, or else be done where one does not have to see it.”

·        Out of sight, out of mind – distanced leadership cannot lead; at least, not in the fullest sense of the word.  Remote leaders can be geographically removed from the bulk of their staff but also by structure and attitude.  Just as organisations can be structurally dysfunctional, so the behaviour of management filters out unwelcome truths, reducing yet further its chances of making well-informed decisions.

·        Cassandras and whistle-blowers – perhaps the most depressing chapter is devoted to those brave few that not only see what is happening around them but are prepared to tell others.  To begin with, they use the proper internal channels and find their concerns ignored, belittled or denied – some are sacked at even this point.  Then they resort to leaking information to the media, risking the wrath of their former employers and colleagues whose guilt leads them to attack the messenger.

Margaret Heffernan concludes by suggesting what organisations (businesses, notably) can do to “see better”.  Obviously, with so many ways in which we can hide the truth from ourselves and others, some significant effort is required so that those with the power to make decisions do so with all the facts before them.
We’ll look at these ideas in a future blog post.
For now, suffice to say that this is an excellent book for anyone interested in management, leadership, politics or those with a curiosity about why some things go wrong and how we can learn from them. 
My only slight criticism relates to a couple of minor assertions that appear to belie the author’s own political viewpoint instead of flowing from rational argument but then, as she is good enough to concede, we all have our own biases.
To discuss how your organisation learns, if at all, or to explore how KM can help it to avoid some of the issues discussed here, please visit for the Knoco website or contact me direct.

How can George Orwell help us learn about learning?

George Orwell was the famous author of ‘1984’, ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘The Road To Wigan Pier’.  One of his lesser known works is the essay, ‘Politics And The English Language’ which I shall now use to demonstrate the difference between adaptive and generative learning.

We have looked at these two ideas before.  To repeat, adaptive learning is what we do when we respond to a change in our environment.  We change, the environment does not.  Its outlook is short-term.

Generative learning is what we do when we develop a capability that will anticipate and respond to changes in our environment.  Its outlook is long-term.

Orwell’s essay includes 6 rules that aim to keep prose clear and concise.  Orwell hated verbosity and obfuscation because of the risk that such devices obscure the truth.  His 6 rules are:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.[1]

How do these help explain the difference between adaptive and generative learning?

Let’s imagine a company wants to improve the success rate of its pitches to clients and seeks my help.  An audit of their processes reveals a tendency to waffle, prevaricate, obscure and pad out their proposals, presentations and other communications.

I recommend the company employ me to edit, cut out, reduce and clarify all of the above.  I propose a fee based on the initial size of each document at 50 pence for each word that I remove.

Work begins and becomes a nice little earner for me.  The company is also happy because they notice a reduction in the response time it takes potential clients to review their documents and an increase in the number of successful bids.

This initiative is an example of adaptive learning.  We have addressed the problem of poorly worded proposals and, provided the value of the new business exceeds my fees, everyone is happy.

Some questions:

• Does this proposal help us to identify a root cause?
• If I dropped dead tomorrow or got bored of this work, would the company be able to maintain its current success rate?
• Has the company developed a capability that it lacked before my involvement?

No.

Now let’s look at how generative learning might address the same problem.

Following the audit (the one which identified a tendency to waffle, prevaricate, obscure and pad out their proposals, presentations and other communications), I propose:

• Market analysis for existing and abortive clients (i.e. what sort of proposals succeed in Asia, Africa, Scandinavia etc?  How do we adjust our style to meet their expectations?)
• Exploration of why proposals have been so verbose up until now (i.e. how does the Boss write?  Is there a culture of pretension in place? Do people feel the need to demonstrate overt intellect or education because their daily work provides no such opportunity?);
• All proposal-writing staff to read George Orwell’s essay;
• Design and delivery of a short training package to all proposal-writing staff to help them apply Orwell’s 6 rules where appropriate;
• Update of recruitment criteria for proposal-writing staff to ensure successful applicants can use various styles and understand clarity and conciseness.

If time is short, the initial adaptive response remains valid.  However, the company will only develop new capabilities if it examines root causes and understands its client base.
Those questions again:

• Does this proposal help us to identify a root cause?
• If I dropped dead tomorrow or got bored of this work, would the company be able to maintain its current success rate?
• Has the company developed a capability that it lacked before my involvement?

Yes.

So there we are - an explanation of the difference between adaptive and generative learning, thanks to George Orwell.

Read his essay!

For a conversation about learning, knowledge management or even George Orwell, please contact us direct or through the Knoco website.

 

---

[1] Taken from http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/; accessed 5 Feb 2013.

Exposure by Michael Woodford - a review

[Originally published on the Aspley Consultants website]

‘Exposure’ by Michael Woodford (former President and CEO of Olympus Corporation)is a fascinating account of his discovery of inappropriate accounting practices, his efforts to gain reassurance from his Board colleagues, his ultimate dismissal from the company and the ensuing scandal and collapse in Olympus’s share price.

As a study in defensive behaviour and a desire to inhibit learning it may be unsurpassed.

The first I heard of this affair was when Michael Woodford was interviewed on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, just 2 days after his being fired.  Since then I have followed the story and was pleased to read more of the detail in this (bizarrely, given its subject matter: accounting) exciting book.

I won’t give away too much, not least because some of the finer details of the special purpose vehicles, goodwill payments and advisory fees might have passed me by. However, there is much content here that provides ammunition to those of us that believe honesty, leadership and an avoidance of defensive behaviour are essential if we are to (a) know ‘what happened’ and (b) learn from it.

Woodford has much to say on Japanese business culture, for good or bad.  However, readers from all backgrounds will recognise behaviour they have experienced (or displayed) that is designed to hide the truth and maintain a false impression, thereby preventing others from learning.

I give this book 7/10.  I’d have been a bit more generous but for a little bit of padding here and there, resulting in it lagging a bit.  A good read, nonetheless.

Just Culture by Sidney Dekker - a review

[Originally published on the Aspley Consultants website]


This is an excellent book for anyone with an interest in safety, organisational learning or even justice and philosophy.  Dekker’s book explores the tension between enabling an environment that encourages people to come forward with safety concerns and maintaining a degree of accountability so that wilful negligence is punished.  Media demands that “something must be done” following major accidents all too often seek to punish people that were simply doing their job to the best of their abilities.  Dekker shows how hindsight can be very unhelpful, especially when wielded by a zealous journalist, ambitious prosecutor or even an apathetic juror.

Through examples from healthcare, civil aviation and defence, Dekker demonstrates what happens after charging employees with murder, manslaughter, gross negligence when, if a ‘just culture’ had prevailed, the accidents or incidents in question might have been viewed as learning opportunities rather than crimes.  Unintended consequences include colleagues clamming up, with no-one willing to admit to mistakes and work practices becoming increasingly defensive, occasionally increasing the risk to patients, passengers and the general public.

Dekker argues that the absence of a just culture damages morale and people’s commitment to their colleagues and employer; job satisfaction is reduced, as is the likelihood that people will step outside their formal roles, thereby reducing the flexibility that so many organisations need.  Finally, the lack of a just culture causes (and is partially caused by) an erosion of trust between people that should see one another as colleagues.

This book contains ideas that make uncomfortable reading for those of us that like to believe in personal responsibility; it also makes clear that there is no such thing as an objective truth.  There are only multiple perspectives, the combination of which is the best way to arrive at an account of ‘what happened’ that is as fair and accurate as possible.

Finally, Dekker explores the concept of blame and suggests that we blame one another for actions that are errors because of an unwillingness to admit to a lack of control.  The modern world is complicated, fast-paced, inter-connected and prone to unpredictable events.  Conceding, as individuals and organisations, that we actually have far less control than we claim, is too frightening for most of us, hence this fiction that all accidents can be prevented.
Strong stuff.

I don’t necessarily agree with all of these arguments but I recommend anyone with even a passing interest in these ideas to read this book.

The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook - a review

[Originally published on the Aspley Consultants website]

A couple of months ago, I read “The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook” and heartily recommend it to anyone seeking skills and knowledge to help organisations learn about themselves and the world around them.

It is not a quick read, nor is it intended to be.  However, it is a very user-friendly aid that should be kept close to hand for quick reference.

Each chapter in the main section of the book examines a learning discipline (i.e. Systems Thinking, Personal Mastery, Shared Vision, Mental Models and Team Learning) and contains exercises, reading recommendations and case-studies that combine to place Peter Senge’s original, “The Fifth Discipline” in a wider and more practical context.

The book finishes with more case studies and examples of how emerging technologies (e.g. modelling and simulation) can help organisations un-tap their learning potential.  However, it is in these sections that the book is really showing its age and could do with a significant update.  The absence of any mention of the internet, emails or any form of online collaboration is unfortunate, to say the least.

Nevertheless, I would encourage practitioners and others keen on developing a learning culture to acquire this book and take from it as much as they can.