Compromised insiders

"Be careful of asking passengers and crew of the Titanic about the risk of the Titanic. They're on the ship, that tells you everything you need to know. If you paid for it or you're making a living from it, you're probably not going to have an objective risk view."

Paul Portesi

Compromised insiders - with assumptions and beliefs that form the status quo - are the biggest barrier to systems change. 

I work as a thinking partner and advisor with mid sized, value oriented companies going through significant change. I help you to build new capability and mindsets through shifting your approach to organisational development.

Comments

Post a Comment

Please let me know your thoughts on this...

Popular posts from this blog

Why organisations resist thinking of themselves as connected 'systems'

“In a world of separation and domination, systems thinking is subversive.” Dr Elizabeth Sawin The key to improving the work of organisations - and the contributions of the people in them - is to look at them as connected 'systems'. (Put another way, because improving the performance of individual silos won’t make the overall performance of the organisation any better). However nobody seems to want to do this. So, who’s resisting systems thinking? Executives don’t want it because means questioning the current mindset and behaviours that have brought them status and ‘results’ Individual managers don’t want it because they assume it threatens their control over their local silos L&D / HR don’t want it because their remit does not extent to the organisation, as its still rooted in the ‘performance’ of individuals (and occasionally, specific teams). And employees don't want it because they often don’t care / need to care about the overall organisation.
Read more

Breaking the familiar cycle of the way that Learning and Development teams operate in corporate organisations

There is a familiar cycle for the way that many L&D teams operate in corporate organisations. The common recipe includes: 1. The organisation hasn't defined the role and priority of 'learning'; (i.e. to accelerate change, move the work culture, improve individual and team performance, enable the business strategy) 2. The L&D team (who are unable to influence the'Why?') get stuck as reactive training order takers 3. Ideas get watered down through rounds of 'pleasing the teacher' meetings resulting in 'Learning programs' and 'Learning solutions'; (interchangeable words for ease of political passage) 4. 'Learning programs' are a drain on time / costs / interest for everyone; (especially for 'busy people' on the 'front line' doing the 'real work') 5. Measurement of benefits from 'Learning programs' is difficult / negligible / hard to keep people's attention on 6. As the work performance i...
Read more

No one in corporate 'L&D' wants to create LESS 'L&D'

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.' Maslow The Shirky Principle  prevents corporate 'Learning and Development' teams (note the how this team title reinforces what's coming...) from looking beyond a 'learning' 'solution'. In the complex organisational systems in which the 'L&D' team work, there are a host of influences and factors that could be reviewed, considered and challenged first: Are performance expectations clearly defined? Are performance expectations fully understood? (Are the barriers to achieving the agreed performance expectations understood and accounted for?) Is there a routine of regular and insightful feedback provided to support people to achieve the agreed performance standards? Can people easily access information, data, resources and guidance needed to achieve and maintain the agreed performance standards? Are performance and processes - and supp...
Read more