Communication

What To Do When Change Requires a New Operating System

Change Can be Overwhelming

Have you ever faced the challenge of leading or championing a change that felt overwhelming? Where the gap between what life is like today and what you envision is so wide and vast that you are not sure where to start?

If you’ve spent any time around technology companies (and most businesses today are in the technology business*), you will most likely hear something about being more adaptable and agile in the way technology is developed, the way teams are led, and the way individuals are provided growth and development opportunities. In some companies, doing things in an agile manner – that places the customer first, delivers value every time, values collaboration, and makes feedback an integral part of pivots and adaption as a way of life – is not something they need to transform or become. They “get it.” Leaders support it. Teams execute on it and are rewarded for it.

But for some organizations, the road to being more agile is a bit more challenging because it fundamentally requires a different operating system.

Three Organizational Operating Systems

In his theory of Structural Dynamics, David Kantor identifies three types of operating systems that emerge in any human social system where information is being transferred. They are Open, Closed and Random. Think of these like the operating system on your computer: they are the norms, rules, and beliefs that shape and govern behavior within a system.

Here is a quick overview of each of the three systems:

Open System is oriented toward the collective. A belief here might be “hearing every voice is valuable and people will support what they help to create.” Leadership manages towards what’s best for the system, rather than what’s best for the individual. It’s okay to offer dissenting views and to speak candidly, even to those with power. Authority and power are shared.

Random System is the place of innovation, autonomy and freedom. Random systems can create, invent and make decisions in varying ways and at varying levels. A belief here might be “allowing autonomy for choices and decisions reveals new solutions that we never knew possible.” The focus in the random system is more on individuals, while authority and power are shared.

Closed System is the place of order and rules as well as predictability and efficiency. A belief here might be “order, roles and responsibilities – and a clear process for making decisions – are required to get things done.” The focus in the closed system is on the leader. You may see deference to power for decisions.

Why You Need a Balanced System

One system is not better than another. Like anything, each system has its advantages and its dark side (when overused). The overuse of an open system could lead to a lack of clear decision-making or fatigue of group process. Overuse of random system can feel chaotic and exhausting or cause innovation burnout. Overuse of a closed system can shut down new ideas and input that may be valuable.

While agile values align more with the beliefs in an open system, it does not mean that there is no room for both closed and random inside an agile organization. In fact, it is quite the opposite: organizations need a balance of all three systems. The balance may look different in each, but where organizations get into trouble is when there is a value judgment placed on one system over the other two.

For example, a startup company that operates 90% in a random system can have great success initially. But as the organization grows, there will be a need for some aspects of a closed system. An example may be putting some definition or structure around roles and responsibilities to provide guidance and help people make decisions. Putting a process in place is a closed system thing to do, but doing it in a way that informs decisions, rather than becoming a checklist, honors the random system preferences.

Another example would be a large organization that has existed for many years with much success in a closed system. The system is designed to support and reward authority; clear and structured decision-making; and defined rules and processes. But what happens when the external environment changes around that company and they need to be able to adapt more to customer needs? Their journey to becoming more agile will look and feel very different. They will need to address loosening their grip on formal processes. They may really struggle with a transformation to agile, as the agile values and principles are more similar to an open system.

Organizations can get themselves into trouble when they operate predominantly within one system. When closed is predominant, there is a value judgment placed on open and random as not being worthwhile. It is assumed that non-closed systems will not get results. This leads to overuse of one system.

Think of each system like knobs on equalizer: you need a mix of all three, depending on the situation. In the examples above, the goal is not to completely turn off one and turn up another. Instead, the goal is to balance the levels so that each system is heard.

In this way, you can create conversations where people in the organization can identify when the system is not serving them any longer and start from there.

Navigating Change Through The Operating System Lens

So what’s next? How do you work with change when the change you are proposing is different from the system that is in place?

A key tenet of the field of organization development is to “meet them where they are,” regardless of the system they are working in. Here are some ways to do just that:

Start by identifying your current system. How would you characterize it? How can you work with it?

Ask key questions. What aspect of your current system is not working for you right now? Where does it create challenges? In what ways is the operating system not serving the organization?

Help the organization see that the change they are asking for is different from the current system. How might this influence decisions to pursue change?

Find ways to honor the current operating system while incorporating aspects of another system. What can be preserved from the current system to show that not everything needs to change?

Help individual leaders expand their tolerance for different systems. How can they look at things differently without requiring a whole lot of initial change?

———–

*If you lead a company today, chances are you lead a technology business. Last February, the Wall Street Journal renamed its Marketplace section to Business and Technology. It’s a pretty accurate reflection of how influential and important technology is to business today.

Collaborative Leadership: It’s What’s Up Front that Counts

Collaboration and Leadership

I’ve been fortunate to spend a lot of time lately, pondering and poking at the concept of collaborative leadership. It’s a notion I’ve been drawn to for a long time, because I believe that people will support what they help to create (collaboration), and support is one of the things a leader needs to be effective.

The biggest challenge is this: collaboration and leadership are sometimes at odds with one another, and leaders aren’t always sure what to do with that tension.

Collaboration, on the one hand, is about getting into the mud and playing together. It’s about bringing out the best in all contributors, so that new ideas can emerge from the place where many minds are conversing, converging, diverging, and then converging again.

Leadership, on the other hand, is about, well, leading. Sometimes that means making a tough decision, or choosing among several good ideas. And it’s tough, really tough, to go from collaborating with a team to leading them. In collaboration, there’s an equality that doesn’t always carry over to the place where leadership needs to kick in.

In working with leaders, I’ve come across several common beliefs about collaborative leadership – some true, some false. Let’s take a closer look at seven of those beliefs.

Belief #1: Collaborating Means Giving Up Control

False

Collaborating is about getting people engaged in the exploratory process that creating something new requires. It doesn’t preclude the leader from maintaining control, as long as that’s clear from the start. A lot of heartache can be prevented with a few explicit statements. Here’s an example:

“I’d like to hear your ideas on this, which will help me make a more informed decision.”

Notice there was no negotiating about who would make the final decision in that statement. In collaboration, everyone knows that they are contributors, not decision makers.

Belief #2: Collaborating Means Everyone Must Agree

False

Reaching full agreement in any group of humans is a heavy lift. No two brains are alike, and so we each bring our own hardwiring (based on our unique combination of experiences) to any collaboration. No two people on a team will see a challenge or an idea the same way – and that’s the beauty of teams!

Leaders don’t need to spend a lot of time making sure that everyone is in agreement before moving forward. Establishing early on that a consensus will be reached when everyone can live with a choice, whether they love it or not, will allow for faster, cleaner decision making.

Belief #3: Collaboration is Time-Consuming

True

Collaboration IS time-consuming, but remember that people will support what they help to create. Think about how much more time it takes to move forward when there is no support from the team. Collaborating is an investment in time that it will pay off in the long run, when everyone can live with the conclusion, and time doesn’t need to be spent restating, reselling, or revisiting a decision that was made following a good collaborative process.

Belief #4: Collaborating Means Telling People What the Leader is Thinking, Then Helping Them Understand and Align to That Thinking

True

Collaborating isn’t really about telling, offering statements of fact, and seeking alignment to those facts. It’s more about asking questions: probing, prodding, and exploring together to tease out new ideas, potential obstacles, and building on one another’s creativity.

A leader who asks “what’s the biggest flaw in this logic?” creates a safe space for disagreement and a team that owns accountability for identifying risks, up front, where they can be dealt with.

Belief #5: Collaborating With a Few Smart People is Better Than Collaborating With a Group That Has Different Levels of Understanding of the Issue

Maybe

Remember the old story about the pizza delivery guy? He arrived at a midnight product development session to find the team deadlocked. Asked for his opinion from the frustrated team, he offered his outside perspective. He knew nothing about the endless debates the product development team had been circling around, but he was a potential consumer of the product. His uninformed input broke through the deadlock and had everyone cheering, patting him on the back, and offering to buy him a beer!

An outside perspective can be a great thing because our brain’s thirst for status can keep us from asking the questions that might be perceived as uninformed. Non-experts can bystand the issue and ask those questions, without having them be perceived as “dumb” questions.

Belief #6: Collaborative Leadership is a Process That Leads People to the Same Conclusion, Through a Series of Iterative Conversations

False

Collaborative leadership is a balance. The collaborative leader knows when to push for collaboration and when to lead. It takes practice. It takes skill in questioning, listening, and bystanding. It takes faith that people have meaningful contributions to make. It takes a willingness to be vulnerable.

It isn’t likely that the collaborative leader who knows all the answers is being very collaborative. Questions like “Don’t you think…?” and “Shouldn’t we just…?” aren’t going to elicit much input. In fact, they’ll probably lead you to your predetermined conclusion. While you might think you’ve collaborated, your team will know better. If you know the answers, don’t pretend to seek collaboration. You’ll damage trust and make future collaborations far more difficult.

Belief #7: Collaboration is Almost Always the Best Approach

False

Collaboration IS the best approach for exploring options that need exploring. Informing the team of a decision handed down from above isn’t collaborative, no matter what color glitter you roll it in. Be clear about the need for collaboration, and be even more clear about what you mean when you ask for it.

Therefore, collaborative leadership is also possible, even preferable, for those situations where buy-in is important. In fact, buy-in is most easily created through collaboration. Include planning, know your intention, know your desired outcome, and communicate all of this up front – even if it all seems obvious to you.

Your Turn

Which of these common beliefs do you agree or disagree with? Share your effective leadership insights with us in the comments.

Who is a Leader of Collaboration?

The Value of Collaboration for Leaders

Last week, I had the honor of sitting in a room with 22 leaders who inspired me.

These leaders have taken on a challenge few of us would be willing to attempt: increasing collaboration in an organization that does not reward it.

The fact is, many organizations have structures and systems that value the right answers over collaboration. But in an age of increasing business and market complexity, agile and lean management practices, and flatter organizational structures, collaboration is essential.

While I’m quite certain that no one leader in that organization would disagree with the values of collaboration, many don’t realize that, because their systems don’t reward it, it’s currently not safe to practice it.

What Does It Take To Be a Leader of Collaboration?

Here are some of the traits I observed while sitting with this remarkable group of leaders:

Collaboration Takes Courage

Courage to acknowledge the fear of trying to lead this work. Courage to step out and create their own vision for what this could be. Courage to be closer to their hopeful vision rather than letting the fear win out.

Collaboration Takes Vision

They had vision! Vision for the kind of leaders they wanted to be and the impact they wanted to have on others. Wow was it powerful!

Collaboration Takes Humility

Leaders of collaboration have powerful questions, not powerful answers. They let go of needing to lead from the front and find power in leading from behind. It comes from a belief that others are capable of creating their own solutions. If we take up too much space in the room we don’t leave room for others.

Collaboration Takes Humanness

They were human! This was tough work! They were wrestling with the challenge of what Peter Senge calls ‘creative tension’ – the gap between our vision and current reality. Importantly, they acknowledged it! That’s half the battle right there.

Collaborative Leadership

They built their own colleague network to support this journey. It will be tough and they will need each other to help pave the way.

Aren’t you excited for them? I know I am!

Where are you at in your journey of leading collaboration?

Leadership Lessons To Remember

Remember:

Leaders exist at ALL levels.
Leaders are made not born.
Leaders create the weather and create new value from difference.