Two Cents: Organizational Entropy & Information Abuse
Square Peg, Meet Round Hole
Jay Feinberg ’s comment inspiring Jim Benson’s post , Organizational Entropy & Information Abuse led to me comment on the post. Then I realized I was just warming up. With the exception of the quote from Tao of Pooh, all other quotes come from my comment to Jim’s post.
Information is neither good nor bad. The application of, and decisions made based on information is where the normative judgments should be made.
Information, for purposes of this discussion, is any given set of objective facts which are (1) defensible; (2) actionable.
People’s ability to apply information and make high-judgment decisions differentiate them from others, tactically and strategically. For example, a management consultant may be tasked with determining a go-to market plan for a frozen food product. Given a binder full of information, the consultant’s perspective and experiences will lead her to ask questions for clarification, influence her approach to the project and color her recommendations.
However, client motivations and desires can color the consultant’s recommendations. If success is defined in terms of a predetermined outcome of said study, the consultant has a greater incentive to cherry pick information that corroborates the desired outcome. Consultant and client may collude to paint the desired picture even though reality has not shifted.
You’d be surprised how many people violate this simple principle every day of their lives and try to fit square pegs into round holes, ignoring the clear reality that Things Are As They Are. — Tao of Pooh
Well let’s assume that square pegs are hanging out with square holes. Do they align to achieve a shared vision?
Dee Hock’s point: “When organizations lose shared purpose and principles – their sense of community – they are already in process of decay and dissolution…” assumes that shared purpose & principles once existed and then fell by the wayside.
The interesting question is How can we prevent the loss of shared purpose and principles? I had other, auxiliary questions as well:
What about organizations that don’t share with employees what the vision? What about organizations that aren’t willing to own who they truly are and position themselves accordingly? Isn’t that one way you end up with scared/insecure employees?
We’ve previously explored the issue of scared/clueless employees who start out clueless and ready to work. Without reward for initiative or information to make on strategy decisions, the employee’s best hope is to excel at tasks assigned - judgment is removed from the scenario. (for more, see Amalgamated Suckup Dot Com from Jim Benson and An Bui) In a situation without communication of vision or mission, the employee’s ability to use good judgment approaches zero.
When there’s no clear message around (1) what the company is; (2) what the company stands for; (3) which company values are non-negotiable stances; evaluating courses of action as on-strategy or off-strategy becomes a random walk.
People come, bringing fresh ideas into an org. People go, opening up space for others to introduce their ideas. If the organization cannot communicate shared purpose for its employees to align with, churn will inevitably result. If people cannot relate to organizations, they will become disengaged. With this churn comes waste: loss of institutional knowledge, increased training and increased management. The erosion of communicating shared purpose can happen slowly over time, much like the erosion of a shoreline.
Great companies such as Nordstrom, 3M and Zappos are VERY clear about who they are. They do not (and cannot) try to be everything to everyone. (for more, read From Good to Great by Jim Collins)
Misinformation/information hoarding leads to suboptimal decision making by those with less information. Trust people to think & empower them to use their judgment after understanding the risks. Otherwise, a paternalistic culture with wasted human resources can become a reality.
I believe people want to think and add value. However, if systemic barriers and lack of communication create cultures where thinking has a much greater downside, where are people’s incentive to think? Actionable feedback and thoughtful integration of learnings from past and current projects can create a virtuous cycle of thinking employees.
Don’t shoot first and ask questions later - consider asking questions throughout the process
December 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
When we talk about communication, we talk about everything that people do. So, tangents are delicious.
Your bit about the consultant’s dilemma doesn’t stop there. Quite often consultants are hired to be a rubber stamp on assumptions and are fired if they fail to parrot back their client’s assumptions.
I have had reports handed back to me with the statement, “This is not what we were looking for. We need to prove x.” But “x” was inherently wrong.
In other cases, the consultant is part of a very large process to reach a conclusion. Often the consultant is a guide on the process, but doesn’t actually control it. In the end, the consultant must put their name on a report that they had little control in generating.
In both these instances, the information provided by the consultant and tied to the consultant is not necessary from that consultant.
So, yes, sometimes we are put in a position where our livelihood requires that we participate in the spread of information we are not entirely comfortable with.
December 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Thanks for the comment & good points, Jim. Definitely worth more thought.
December 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
In my 20+ year experience in large and small companies there’s no doubt about it — communication takes work. And communication in large organizations requires repetition. Hmmm … that sounds fairly top down doesn’t it. Nonetheless even in a small family communication is work. That said, asking questions and listening seem like good tactics.
Regarding consulting: very often it’s easy for consultants to be co-opted by the client’s culture. Most of that is tacit anyway. My experience has been that I’ve put my name on reports that I had a good deal of control over only to see them ignored or end us as a footnote to another report. Jim’s comment is a good reminder of the consultant’s dilemma. In the end I’m just a hired hand.
Given all these well-known existing forces of the status-quo, what can organizations do, day-to-day, to keep themselves open to change and talking?
December 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Bill, Thank you for leaving such a thought provoking comment.
I agree that communication is work - however, I believe that open lines of communication, honesty and trust can create a self-enforcing culture, one in which the benefits of open communication are worth the work needed.
To remain open to change and talking, organizations should do what makes the most sense. To be clear, I’m not advocating change for change’s sake. I’m advocating encouraging a culture of collaborative information sharing towards a common goal.
Perhaps you, Jim and I should get together and talk, because the question in your comment is ripe for discussion.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:25 am
[...] communication so that employees can make high judgment decisions (see Two Cents: Organizational Entropy & Information Abuse, Case Study: Amalgamated Suckup Dot [...]