In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about human nature and the meaning of “the human journey” and this information challenges the institutions that we have created based on many of these assumptions – our educational institutions, our business practices and our Governing Institutions. So could our new coalition Government with its brief beyond traditional Party Dogma be a seed for the start of such a revolution in our thinking?
On 05.17.10, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about [...]
On 05.17.10, In Creating Creation Companies, Creativity, Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
I have blogged many times about the “iatrogenic” effects from paying big bonuses. Like when “Bonus Culture” inhibits creativity in the organisation and the observation that rewards sabotage people’s intrinsic motivation and sabotage good customer service. The idea of using rewards to drive/modify behaviour comes from the Old Psychology models. To get to understand the [...]
I have blogged many times about the “iatrogenic” effects from paying big bonuses. Like when “Bonus Culture” inhibits creativity in the organisation and the observation that rewards sabotage people’s intrinsic motivation and sabotage good customer service. The idea of using rewards to drive/modify behaviour comes from the Old Psychology models. To get to understand the nature of intrinsic human motivation we need to look to New Psychology models.
Well the RSA have just produced this video summary in their Animate series from Dan Pink which summarises some of the other problems about paying bonuses, including a study at M.I.T. sponsored apparently by the USA Federal Reserve Bank.
On 05.03.10, In Know-What/Why, by Barry Mapp
I have blogged quite a lot about the problems of the “bonus culture” particularly where very large bonuses are concerned. There was
How Rewards Sabotage Creativity and
Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract? and
Bonus Culture – proud to win a cabbage not the cash?
And have you heard the latest spin on this from the [...]
I have blogged quite a lot about the problems of the “bonus culture” particularly where very large bonuses are concerned. There was
How Rewards Sabotage Creativity and
Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract? and
Bonus Culture – proud to win a cabbage not the cash?
And have you heard the latest spin on this from the Royal Bank of Scotland? (as reported by Graham Jones)
Graham says
The boss of RBS has scored a Gordon Brown-like “own goal”. The bank’s Chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, has admitted that city bankers are paid too much – “astonishingly high”, is what he said their salaries were. He went on to say, however, that if you don’t pay these big salaries, then people leave. Indeed, said Sir Philip, many of the “top people” have already left RBS. That was before he went on to explain that the bank had achieved much better results than expected. Sorry, run that past me again? The “top people” have left – and the bank has improved. Er…sounds to me like you should let more of them leave, Sir Philip…!
which is more or less what I have been saying for sometime!
and Graham goes on to say:
But why is it that everyone in the banking industry – and the Government – falls for the line “we have to pay people high salaries in order to keep them”?
If you want to read more on this then go to Graham’s blog here
On 05.03.10, In Know-What/Why, by Barry Mapp
I have blogged quite a lot about the problems of the “bonus culture” particularly where very large bonuses are concerned. There was
How Rewards Sabotage Creativity and
Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract? and
Bonus Culture – proud to win a cabbage not the cash?
And have you heard the latest spin on this from the [...]
I have blogged quite a lot about the problems of the “bonus culture” particularly where very large bonuses are concerned. There was
How Rewards Sabotage Creativity and
Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract? and
Bonus Culture – proud to win a cabbage not the cash?
And have you heard the latest spin on this from the Royal Bank of Scotland? (as reported by Graham Jones)
Graham says
The boss of RBS has scored a Gordon Brown-like “own goal”. The bank’s Chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, has admitted that city bankers are paid too much – “astonishingly high”, is what he said their salaries were. He went on to say, however, that if you don’t pay these big salaries, then people leave. Indeed, said Sir Philip, many of the “top people” have already left RBS. That was before he went on to explain that the bank had achieved much better results than expected. Sorry, run that past me again? The “top people” have left – and the bank has improved. Er…sounds to me like you should let more of them leave, Sir Philip…!
which is more or less what I have been saying for sometime!
and Graham goes on to say:
But why is it that everyone in the banking industry – and the Government – falls for the line “we have to pay people high salaries in order to keep them”?
If you want to read more on this then go to Graham’s blog here
On 11.15.09, In Know-What/Why, Me, by Barry Mapp
For me the term ‘Thought Leader’ has been hijacked from its intuitive meaning (someone who leads on thought and thinking) to become used as a surrogate for “Trusted Advisor” and also someone who effectively manages their reputation.
For me the important part of the term in “Thought Leader” is “Leader”. If you are trusted and well known [...]
For me the term ‘Thought Leader’ has been hijacked from its intuitive meaning (someone who leads on thought and thinking) to become used as a surrogate for “Trusted Advisor” and also someone who effectively manages their reputation.
For me the important part of the term in “Thought Leader” is “Leader”. If you are trusted and well known and respected are you a Leader? Maybe these are necessary characteristics but surely not sufficient.
A Thought leader in my book will be someone well differentiated from a trusted “Thought Follower”.
This means that every true “Thought Leader” must also be an iconoclast in their field. Most Blogs for example are full of interesting content but nearly all reflecting the thoughts of others or opinions about thoughts of others. The Thought Leaders will be the one’s who are challenging much of the current thought, not simply regurgitating it.
When Einstein said that we won’t solve the problems of today by the same thinking that created the problems, he was obviously suggesting that in order to solve the chronic problems of the day we need to think differently and from a higher, wider or different perspective. Not “more of the same” thinking or “this worked for me thinking” or the “solution is obvious thinking”.
It’s interesting how many of my “Thought Leaders” are, or were, Physicists. It was Bohm for example who devised a way (Bohm’s Dialogue) of allowing new thoughts and new solutions to emerge from a group. It was Deming who identified that Western Management not worker malaise was the biggest threat to continual improvement in Business. It was Eli Goldratt and his Theory of Constraints that helped manufacturers remove broken links from their value chains and improve performance and profits. Each of these Physicists were looking at issues from outside of the current paradigm. And of course Einstein was a Physicist as well.
So how many people calling themselves “Thought Leader” could also be described as “Iconoclast” coming up with thinking that challenges the grey cells? For me a Thought Leader will be someone – if they do nothing else- makes you stop and think! Also an Iconoclast Thought Leader is unlikely to be “thinking with the majority” and therefore will not always be popular.
Oh and someone has just asked me “Are you a Thought Leader”? Well I’ll let you decide. Here are some of my recent ramblings intended to make you think about your thinking and to signpost possible different directions that your thinking could take in order to find new solutions
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/it-strikes-me-that-a-lot-of-wh/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/iconoclasts-stand-a-very-good/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/thinking-in-different-ways-2/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/what-makes-a-“creation-company”/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/08/how-rewards-sabotage-creativity/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/10/unintended-consequences-what-do-very-large-bonuses-attract/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/11/bonus-culture-proud-to-win-a-cabbage-not-the-cash/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/235/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/three-new-words-for-the-21st-century/
http://barrymapp.com/2009/07/lessons-for-science-from-the-mesmer-experience/
http://barrymapp.com/?s=thought+leader
Apparently on Radio 4 this week, Shane O’Riordain (Group Communications Director of the Lloyds banking group) said “It’s entirely right for companies both our company and others, to pay bonuses when performance targets have been met – its an appropriate part of compensation”
One wonders, knowing the sort of unethical things that were being done in [...]
Apparently on Radio 4 this week, Shane O’Riordain (Group Communications Director of the Lloyds banking group) said “It’s entirely right for companies both our company and others, to pay bonuses when performance targets have been met – its an appropriate part of compensation”
One wonders, knowing the sort of unethical things that were being done in the name of ‘performance’ and bonus attainment, that the phrase “entirely right” shows that these top bankers still just don’t get it. After all it does appear that a lot of the time their ‘performance’ could be equated with highly driven ‘unethical behaviours’ (see Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract?)
Later the same morning Radio 4 had Paul Moore, the HBOS “Whistle-Blower”, being interviewed by Michael Buerk in the programme “The Choice”. This contained extraordinary material on the targets culture. It included the “Cash or Cabbages Day” when, in full public gaze, those who had made their targets received some cash, while those who hadn’t were awarded a cabbage. Mr Moore spoke graphically about the culture of fear and much more, which will be familiar to many who found themselves caught up in such a ‘macho’ culture. The Programme can be viewed again on BBC iplayer here
So I would just like to praise those at HBOS who won the cabbage. Be Proud. Because most likely the reason you did not earn the ‘performance’ cash was that you were behaving and selling ethically!
Thanks to Brian Leeming and Henry Neave for bringing the Radio 4 interviews to my attention.
On 10.28.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Non Political Party, Uncategorised, numeracy, by Barry Mapp
In this piece I introduce some more differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0, and in the next piece (now that I have finally found how to put tables into wordpress) I will be drawing up a table that summarises examples of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0
Math 1.0 can be considered to [...]
In this piece I introduce some more differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0, and in the next piece (now that I have finally found how to put tables into wordpress) I will be drawing up a table that summarises examples of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0
Math 1.0 can be considered to be a special case of Math 2.0, where certain aspects of reality are ignored for the purpose of making things black and white and therefore easier to manipulate and compute.
Math 1.0 is helpful in specific circumstances like simple counting and manipulation of number, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing of pure number, and for making approximations, and is also useful in statistical manipulations where it is valid to manipulate data away from its context. Math 1.0 thinking successfully delivered a rocket to the moon but has failed to deliver insight into most chronic problems affecting humanity today. Math 1.0 thinking is part of the problem!
Math 1.0 is not valid in the domain of measurement nor when ‘counting’ is actually for the purpose of measuring ‘things’. And yet we use Math 1.0 with measurement all the time!
Using Math 1.0 as the ‘logic vehicle’ for interpreting changes in measurement data is a major reason why we have witnessed so many decisions by leaders and politicians in the last few decades that have turned out to be wasteful and that have exacerbated rather than solved ‘problems’. This happens when the Math we learn at school (Math 1.0) is applied into the world of measurements. And a science based around this maths re-inforces it as a science of reduction and ‘ism’ (“ism” happens when a discipline comes to believe its working model of the ‘world’ as true rather than ‘useful in defined situations’). So the belief (as true) in the mechanistic universe and the use of Math 1.0 as a sturdy, reliable and incontrovertible companion has led the traditional Newtonian scientist up the proverbial garden path and is still being led there daily. Multi-billion pound projects based on the assumptions of a reductionist science leading absolutely nowhere, whereas situations that could be drastically improved based on a science thinking in terms of systems and Math 2.0 are not being allocated the same research money.
To fully appreciate the meaning and consequences of data measurements, a good understanding of Math 2.0 and its application is required. If we care to look, we will find that the scientific, political and business literature is littered with examples where statisticians (who we would think would know better) have fallen into the trap of applying the thinking of Math 1.0 to the situations described best by Math 2.0, thereby giving us misleading ‘expert’ information and advice
This venn diagram shows the relationship between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0:
On 10.06.09, In Non Political Party, numeracy, by Barry Mapp
Are we really Numerate? How numbers lead us up the garden path!
Our Politicians and Business Leaders talk about the need for us all to be both literate and numerate when we leave school and as such literacy and numeracy are key subject components of the National Curriculum and beyond.
But are we infact teaching the literacy [...]
Are we really Numerate? How numbers lead us up the garden path!
Our Politicians and Business Leaders talk about the need for us all to be both literate and numerate when we leave school and as such literacy and numeracy are key subject components of the National Curriculum and beyond.
But are we infact teaching the literacy and numeracy required for success in the real world?
I think not and I will be posting my thoughts on this over the next few weeks on this blog
Here I make a start, looking at Numeracy.
I call the numeracy that we learn at school and in our universities “Math 1.0″ (And in general this is the only form of numeracy we are taught, so most if not all of our leaders are only numerate to the level of Math 1.0)
This is a Math that is useful, but only in the very simple domain of counting and manipulating pure numbers. This domain is what Donald Wheeler (one of the few statisticians in the world who seems to understand this stuff) calls “Math World” a strange world that has very little bearing on everyday reality. It is very misleading in fact when, in the Real World, we use Math 1.0 to manipulate, interpret and compare measurements
It was Walter Shewhart (the man who has been called the father of quality) who said “Data is meaningless outside of its context”. Using my language here, he could have rephrased this as “Data is meaningless unless processed using Math 2.0″ (Math 2.0 is a way of working with numbers that keeps the important context ‘in view’)
Math 1.0 is the Math of the Counters. Math 1.0 works for the abstract Math-World. Math 2.0 however is needed for Real-World Problems.
Many of our “number experts” (mathematicians and statisticians for example) base their life-long working knowledge on this Math 1.0, so they are then part of the problem. Math 1.0 is entrenched in academia and science.
It is now one of those implicit unquestioned assumptions (like water is to fish and air to birds) that Math 1.0 is numeracy and that Math 1.0 describes the sole reality of numbers. There will certainly be a few people in very high powerful places who know about Math 2.0 but are happy for the rest of us to just learn Math 1.0. When it comes to comparing things, Math 1.0 does not clarify issues, instead it clouds them.
All this means so few people know or understand the limitations of numbers, and therefore that numbers can be used to keep us all in the dark (ages?) about most things. We will never really know whether our Health Service or Schools are getting better or worse using Math 1.0. What is certain is that using Math 1.0 we get into endless debate about the trivia from the data (we can call this “noise”) and we will nearly always be missing the important understandings (we can call this the “signal”). Without Math 2.0 the useless information (noise) is drowning out the important information (signal).
So although it seems ludicrous that some, if not most, of our main ‘experts’ in Maths and Statistics use a Math that was devised for the special case of pure numbers and counting and that is strictly NOT applicable to numbers as MEASUREMENT.
But it is such experts that write a numeracy curriculum for our schools, universities and accountants that is based on a special case with numbers (the Math of simple counting – Math 1.0).
In the real world most of the important numbers we deal with on a day to day basis are to do with measurement, or involve counts that are being used as measures, and so we need to apply “Math 2.0″ in order to interpret these situations.
When we use simple Math 1.0 for interpreting data measurements we create problems and misunderstanding. Because we have come to rely on numbers in every facet of life and business (we found we could no longer trust the word of leaders, doctors, scientists etc so we needed their numbers) numbers now heavily impinge on our emotions.
We can get very angry when we see numbers we don’t like. The problem is often there is no valid reason to get angry with the numbers, it is Math 1.0 we should be getting angry with. We should be getting angry that we are not taught the ‘numeracy of measures’ at all.
Everyday we are all making decisions with sometimes life-threatening or very severe unintended consequences because of a lack of real-world numeracy because we don’t have the skills of Math 2.0
No-one is excluded. Politicians, scientists and business leaders all continually make poor decisions when they apply Math 1.0 thinking to real-world Math 2.0 situations, making us depend on numbers in a way that is totally irrelevant, abstract, misleading, artificial, and distorting.
Our lack of real-world numeracy Math 2.0 skills is I believe a big part of the problem why so much today seems to be going wrong. We follow the numbers but we don’t understand the numbers and as a consequence we jump to the wrong conclusions and we take actions misguidedly on the numbers and actually then make matters worse rather than better. (Deming called action based on misguided interpretation of data – tampering and he devised the funnel experiment to help us understand how tampering makes matters worse)
So at this point you may be asking what is this Math 2.0, why isn’t it taught in school and what difference would it make? I will some outline the key differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0 next time but here is a taster.
Math 1.0 is an artificial world where lines have no thickness, parallel lines can’t meet and numbers are absolute. When we use Math 1.0 there is only one correct answer and it is not possible to have variation in the answer. (in the real world however variation is always present)
Math 2.0 on the other hand is a real-world Math where lines have thickness, parallel lines can meet and most importantly measured numbers are never absolute. As variation exists in all things Math 2.0 does not ignore its effects (whereas Math 1.0 assumes random variation does not exist)
So here is a little teaser to see if you are working from Math 1.0 or Math 2.0
MATH 1.0
Math 1.0 2 + 2 = 4 YES this is absolute, there is only one answer and that is 4
Math 1.0 implies that this answer is the same whether we are using simple counts or measures.
So 2 inches plus 2 inches will always equal 4 inches
MATH 2.0
Math 2.0 – when simply counting, the results are the same as for Math 1.0
So 2 + 2 = 4 this is absolute, there is only one answer and that is 4
However when adding together measures or comparing measures:
2 + 2 = 4 but only on the average (so each time we take measurements and add them together the answer can vary either side of the number 4 by an amount which Math 2.0 can reliably approximate )
this scenario would be more precisely written as:
2 (v1) + 2 (v2) = 4 (v3)
where v1,v2,v3 is the variation (plus minus 3-standard deviations) that is inherent in each measurement
This brings me on to a further significant difference between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0.
In Math 1.0 there is ALWAYS significance in any change of number and therefore there is value in comparing just two data points. So if something measured 20 last month and 23 this month Math 1.0 says there is a change (an improvement if good stuff, a worsening if the measure is bad stuff. So as Math 1.0 is the math of pure counting if we have 20 apples in one basket and 23 apples in another it is clear that the second basket has (three) more apples in it. Math 2.0 would come to the same conclusion. However if the tree in your garden produced 23 apples this year and 20 last year we actually need Math 2.0 when seeking to make a decision about whether this difference means the tree yield is improving? For we are now not looking at the pure count of the apples we are seeking to use the numbers to give us knowledge about the tree. Now instead of apples and tree performance think of pupil exam success and school performance. And then by way of extrapolation think school success and league tables.
In Math 2.0 we CANNOT KNOW IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between 20 and 23 unless we have more data (and then a lot of the time Math 2.0 will show there will be no likely significant change). Math 2.0 tells us that comparing just two data points is ALWAYS meaningless (and of course it can provide the evidence for this). Each time we just compare two data points we are viewing the data outside of its context.
If only journalists were schooled in Math 2.0 we would not have so many meaningless, stupid headlines in our papers. But there again, they probably wouldn’t sell so many newspapers, so you could see that their bosses would be quite happy that their journalists are only numerate to Math 1.0 level.
Using Math 2.0 many headlines in the newspapers would read “Probably no change in the trade figures this month” rather than something that appears very dramatic like “4% fall in trade figures throws UK back into recession”.
Which of these two headlines would make you buy the newspaper – the first one (‘probably no change” so nothing much is happening - a quite likely scenario using Math 2.0) or the second headline derived using the inappropriate use of Math 1.0 ?
Have I grabbed your attention?
If you already know what I mean by Math 2.0 great, please post your own examples here about how Math 1.0 misleads, If you think I am a raving lunatic and it simply can’t be possible that we are being taught the wrong numeracy at school for making sense of the real-world, then please follow, watch and learn. And if you still think I’m being stupid tell me so.
In the next two articles in this series I will be comparing in much more detail some of the differences between Math 1.0 and Math 2.0 and seeking to impress upon the sceptics out there that this is really important stuff.
Next Time: Maths and Science leading us up the (wrong) garden path
On 10.04.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
It would appear that Very Large Bonuses Attract – Very Greedy People.
Now if experience tells us this is so (and certainly Alfie Kohn’s research showed that one thing that bonuses and other rewards don’t do is to lead to long-term improvement) how should we read the statements that have been made by the top [...]
It would appear that Very Large Bonuses Attract – Very Greedy People.
Now if experience tells us this is so (and certainly Alfie Kohn’s research showed that one thing that bonuses and other rewards don’t do is to lead to long-term improvement) how should we read the statements that have been made by the top British Institutions that if they don’t pay large bonuses their top earners will go and work for European or American Companies.
Put these two ideas together (Greedy People and Go Elsewhere) and a super strategy for British Companies would be to – wait for it – stop paying bonuses.
Bonuses might attract top earners but experience (with the credit crunch etc) is telling us that these top earners do not benefit their organisations IN THE LONG TERM (and therefore do not benefit any of their stakeholders in the long term either).
So are there some British Companies out there brave enough to stop paying ‘performance related’ bonuses and to see what happens? The consequences could be very good! Not a loss at all but a gain.
All the greedy earners who don’t care a stuff about the customers, will go to the competitors (hooray I hear from all those people who have suffered from all this miss-selling), leaving space for a new type of entrepreneur to take up these jobs within companies – (those with an innerpreneur mindset). Would not it be good for the long-term success of financial institutions for example if all the work was done by employees wanting to do the very best they can to give good service for past, current and future customers. Unfortunately as Kohn showed many years ago, big ‘carrots’ move the focus away from the service. The focus in the bonus culture is “what do I need to do today to make my carrot bigger (and also give me bragging rights to the biggest carrot)”. The focus should be of course be “what do I need to do today to really help my customer?”
So should not our politicians be suggesting that bonuses simply STOP in order to make our Institutions better? This then leaves one question. If such an organisation goes on to make increased profit in a ‘no bonus for performance’ model, how do all the employees get to share in this success as an intended consequence? (Answers not on a postcard, but please post your suggestions here)
What is a fair way to keep the focus on customer service, and to share in the benefits that accrue from being a truly long-term customer-focussed (as opposed to a bonus-focussed) company?
On 09.04.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Creativity, by Barry Mapp
Under what circumstances do creative ideas happen?
Here I will touch upon Herbert Benson’ work on the relaxation response and some more research from Csikszentmihalyi.
Csikszentmihalyi’s earlier work on the psychology of happiness had coined the word “flow” (others refer to this as “being in the zone”) a state of relaxed focus attention when humans can [...]
Under what circumstances do creative ideas happen?
Here I will touch upon Herbert Benson’ work on the relaxation response and some more research from Csikszentmihalyi.
Csikszentmihalyi’s earlier work on the psychology of happiness had coined the word “flow” (others refer to this as “being in the zone”) a state of relaxed focus attention when humans can achieve extraordinary results with minimal effort.
In his recent research on creativity Csikszentmihalyi links the conditions for flow to the conditions for creativity.
Some of the conditions for “flow” to occur are in the table below:
CONDITIONS for FLOW |
|
(1) Clarity of Purpose (2) Rapid Feedback (3) Balance between Challenge and Skill (4) Distractions are excluded (5) No worry of failure (6) Ego is not present (7) Autotelic (the task is an end in itself) Some features of the flow state::
|
Let’s look at these features from the traditional management/business perspective
In the Compliant Company many things are happening to prevent this human condition of “flow”.
- Arbitrary targets destroy (1).
- Annual appraisal is the antithesis of (2).
- Setting challenges to achieve targets without a method for achievement upsets (3).
- Supervision, having your “activity” measured + arbitrary targets are major distractions for (4).
- A Blame culture sabotages (5)
- A reward culture sabotages (6)
- Extrinsic rewards sabotage (7)
The key requirement for attaining a creative or ‘peak’ experience
Herbert Benson has given some great insight here.
Hiss early research was on the “relaxation response” and he was the first western doctor/scientist to study the abilities of eastern yogis.
His recent work has been on what he calls the “breakout principle” – what happens when people get their “ah-ha” moments and make a breakthrough in their thinking.
What he has shown is that in most cases of creative solutions to complex problems there is first a period of intense mental struggle with a task. (Activity and task merge, much like Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow”). Then there is a period of “release”, of deep relaxation, and this release leads to the breakout point or the “peak experience”. (Benson has demonstrated that under these conditions the brain produces “puffs” of nitric oxide. Zohar has shown this is associated with the production of “coherent” brainwaves which correlate with these breakthrough moments)
So this helps to explain why we get our most creative moments when walking, or in the shower, or having a massage etc. Intense activity followed by deep relaxation is a necessary requirement for ‘breakthrough’ moments.
How does your company operate to ensure there are opportunities for lots of creative moments in the workplace?
The best creativity arises from intrinsically motivated individuals – those who are doing something for the satisfaction within the task itself or for the satisfaction from the completion of a task. Intrinsic motivation is driven by curiosity and the desire to make a difference. Extrinsic motivation is driven by the temptation of a carrot or [...]
The best creativity arises from intrinsically motivated individuals – those who are doing something for the satisfaction within the task itself or for the satisfaction from the completion of a task. Intrinsic motivation is driven by curiosity and the desire to make a difference. Extrinsic motivation is driven by the temptation of a carrot or the fear from a stick.
Intrinsic motivation is sabotaged by rewards. It’s almost that simple.
With rewards, the focus is on the reward not on the desire to complete a task or to make a difference. People start to do the tasks for the reward rather than the satisfaction of doing something of value.
Old Psychology demonstrated that animals do things for reward or to get away from pain (the carrot or stick approach). Old Psychology holds when the animal has survival needs unsatisfied (the hungry cat can be tempted but the satisfied cat can’t) and the theory of manipulation by carrot or stick holds true (Skinner’s original work with animals actually only worked when they were frightened and half-starved).
New Psychology is different. Creation Companies are those that are becoming more and more tuned in to New Psychology and New Thinking Principles. A Creation Company will recognise that when a human being has most of their basic needs met, carrot and stick is not as effective as Old Psychology predicts (thought those that would say they are ‘hungry’ for success can be tempted by the really big rewards).
But as Alfie Kohn and now Daniel Pink have affirmed there is very little evidence that rewards improve human performance in the long-term. And the main reason is that extrinsic motivators sabotage intrinsic motivation. Linking pay to performance therefore sabotages long-term performance. The Banking Crisis is an example that partially arose when companies, and individuals, focussed on the carrots and not on the service. Lose sight of the task and you lose sight of the potential disastrous consequences of doing things for the wrong reasons. Thus it is not therefore a question of moderating the bonus culture, with legislation if necessary, (as Politicians and Business Leaders would suggest) rather the question is how can we abolish the bonus culture.
We need to find mechanisms whereby people benefit from the long-term success of an organisation rather than rewarded for the profit they make on behalf of the company as individuals. We need this for companies to become Creation Companies that produce goods and services for the general good and well-being of people, life and the planet. That do things for the seventh-generation long term and not next year’s wage packet.
If you are a leader and you are not convinced by the idea that rewards sabotage intrinsic motivation (and thus also sabotage creativity and creative thought) then read Alfie Kohn’s “Punishment by Reward” or view Dan Pink’s video on the surprising science of motivation here
Now is the time for leaders to wake up to the fact that much of what we do in the guise of ‘management’ is detrimental to improvement (see here the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management)
Personal Creativity: what type of person produces creative ideas?
We need to understand that we can all be creative and we can all learn to become more creative.
So what can we learn by looking at the background/opportunities of people who have produced some really big creative ideas? What can companies learn in order to ensure that [...]
Personal Creativity: what type of person produces creative ideas?
We need to understand that we can all be creative and we can all learn to become more creative.
So what can we learn by looking at the background/opportunities of people who have produced some really big creative ideas? What can companies learn in order to ensure that creativity happens in the workplace? I have already discussed some of the factors in a company that allow creativity to happen here.
However are there any personal characteristics that a Creation Company should look for when they employ new personnel? Well it’s not necessarily what we have been led to believe. And this also means that personality type profiles with an ‘either-or’ questioning approach can mislead.
In a landmark study on this subject, Csikszentmihalyi looked at the personality characteristics of ninety-one exceptional people (each of whom had made a difference to a major domain of culture). What he found (here) was that the creative people in his study had complex personalities. ((4) (Csikszentmihalyi Creativity. Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention ISBN 0-06-092820-4)
So if the question was “are they introvert or extravert” the answer was both (so this has implications for “old science” personality questionnaires that assumes an either/or approach to personality). What he found was that creative people could be both energetic and restful; smart and naïve; playful and disciplined; fantasy oriented and reality grounded; extrovert and introvert; humble and proud; masculine side and feminine side; conservative and rebellious; passionate and objective and could “suffer” yet enjoy what they did.
Thus for creativity to blossom in the workplace, we need to value complex personality, not expect people to fit into neat boxes. Indeed we need to allow people to “be themselves” and to honour the uniqueness in everyone.
So maybe, upon reflection you have a complex personality. Your ‘personality’ is not the box that some survey or ‘expert’ put you in. Maybe also you are fortunate to work in a ‘creation company’ (ie one that is or is becoming). Then what other factors appear to be important for each individuals creativity to emerge?
Coming Next: The Circumstances for Creativity
Hierarchy – Good for Learning, Bad for Leadership
The brain loves to make new connections. New connections are of course new associations. When associations are random in nature they are easily misplaced (in the brain as well as in your filing cabinet) and thus easily forgotten.
Therefore as far as learning and remembering are concerned ‘ordered’ associations [...]
Hierarchy – Good for Learning, Bad for Leadership
The brain loves to make new connections. New connections are of course new associations. When associations are random in nature they are easily misplaced (in the brain as well as in your filing cabinet) and thus easily forgotten.
Therefore as far as learning and remembering are concerned ‘ordered’ associations are best. Hierarchical ordering of associations is the way the brain can most quickly absorb and retrieve information.
A hierarchical arrangement of ideas allows the brain to quickly move between different levels of meaning. To quickly ‘zoom out’ to the big picture or to zoom in to a component or detail.
The most effective tool for helping us to pre-order or re-order any new and existing associations is the Mind Map (by the way NOT spider diagrams) basically because one of the ‘rules’ of Mind Mapping is to order information in this highly effective hierarchical way.
If you live in the UK and you want to learn how to be more effective as a learner, check out my Mind Mapping and other workshops here
Hierarchy is however bad for business because it leads to ‘command and control’ mentality (see here)
On 08.10.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Know-How, by Barry Mapp
How Creation Companies differ from Compliant Companies (New Science, New Thinking and Creation Companies)
The concepts and research from the “new sciences” challenge our current thinking (theories-in-use) and challenge some sacred beliefs and ethos about how best to do good business. Creation companies (whether they realise it or not) embrace new psychology and new science ideas. [...]
How Creation Companies differ from Compliant Companies (New Science, New Thinking and Creation Companies)
The concepts and research from the “new sciences” challenge our current thinking (theories-in-use) and challenge some sacred beliefs and ethos about how best to do good business. Creation companies (whether they realise it or not) embrace new psychology and new science ideas. This thinking is in line with other iconoclast thinkers of our time such as, Russell Ackoff (Systems Thinking), Edward de Bono (Design Thinking), Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi Flow Thinking), and Eric Jensen (Brain-Based Thinking)
Let’s look at some of the major differences between Compliant and Creation Companies:
COMPLIANT Companies tend to have the following characteristics:
- Leadership Style that is Command and Control
- Order maintained by Policies and Rules
- Competitive Internal Departments leading to sub-optimisation
- Focus on Activity and the need to work faster, and measuring the things that can be easily measured but may not be that important
- Asking people to improve but not giving them the method or means by which to do so (carrots and sticks offered rather than a method for improvement)
- Lack of Trust (Old Psychology suggests that people cannot be trusted -extrapolated from the 1% or less who can never be trusted)
- A Blame (and Fear) Culture. Asking, “who went wrong” (If things are not working, look for what the people are doing wrong and then give them a rollicking). Little opportunity to learn in a Blame Culture
- People (particularly the leaders) confuse models with reality
- The valued thinking is “Expert Mind”
- Risk Avoidance
- Black and White Thinking (shades of grey are discouraged)
Creation Companies tend to have the following charateristics:
- Leadership Style - Freedom from Command and Control
- Order maintained through Principles and Relationship
- Co-operative, Whole System approach (optimising the whole)
- Focus on outcomes and improving outcomes. Aware that most of the important things can’t actually be measured through “activity”.
- Allowing people to improve the systems and processes by giving them the methods and resources by which to achieve the improvement
- Built on Trust (New Psychology suggests that people can be trusted – extrapolated from the 99% who given the right conditions can always be trusted)
- A No-Blame Culture. Asking “what went wrong”(If things are not working, find out which processes need to be changed. In a no-blame culture the business can learn from mistakes
- People understand modelling and use many models
- The valued thinking is “Beginner’s Mind”
- Opportunity seeking
- Multiple Possibility Thinking
Summary
The focus of Compliant Companies is on “conformance”. Compliance is maintained through the rules and structures, the management mechanism is mainly command and control, there is a blame culture for mistakes. Conformance (to standards and best practice) is a cultural principle.
The focus of Creation Companies differs, in that the people have guiding principles rather than rules, there is a noticeable freedom from command-and-control mechanisms, there is a no-blame culture, and there is continuing positive change and joy in the work.
End Piece: And of course Creation Companies will know about and understand the factors that encourage humans to be creative. The next posts in this series look at some additional to creativity ‘Identifying and Nurturing Personal Creativity’ and ‘The Circumstances for Creativity’. The real Creation Companies are also likely to be very aware that the reward culture sabotages creativity and also the consequences of paying large bonuses to make things happen (unfortunately they make the wrong things happen and select the wrong people to best do the intended work)
On 07.30.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
Applying the principles of “New Psychology” to Business
Both New Psychology and New Science are underlying themes in this Superblog. Let’s just take a first brief look at what we mean by the terms New Psychology and Old Psychology and next time we’ll look at “New Science”.
The following is adapted from a Paper presented by Barry [...]
Applying the principles of “New Psychology” to Business
Both New Psychology and New Science are underlying themes in this Superblog. Let’s just take a first brief look at what we mean by the terms New Psychology and Old Psychology and next time we’ll look at “New Science”.
The following is adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”
Psychology has always been important in Business
In Business, psychology (i.e. our understanding of, or beliefs about, human behaviour) has always been an important factor in “how we do things around here”. Psychology thus underpins the workings of both the old and new style company paradigms.
The Psychology of Compliant Companies is “Old Psychology” (behaviour that is predicted primarily from studies on starving animals or unhappy or sick human beings).
The Psychology that underpins successful Creation Companies is “New Psychology” where people behaviour is predicted from the studies of animals that were happy and cared for, or from research on human beings that are living happy and fulfilled lives.
Note that nearly all textbook psychology is “Old Psychology” – so you won’t find much about new psychology from standard psychology books.
It is interesting to note that most of our business advisory groups (like Business Link in the UK) still promote business systems based on old psychology and indeed their own organisational structures and processes are rooted in old psychology.
Most Government strategy around influencing business and services is based on old psychology and even most business consultants (including those who profess to be thinking outside the box) are often using “old psychology” techniques and theories.
The following table shows some of the fundamental differences between Old Psychology and New Psychology approaches.
Old Psychology Principles (this includes):
- (extensive use of) Extrinsic Motivators (Carrot and Stick)
- People Treated like children (heavy on rules and regulations)
- External Targets set from above (nearly all are arbitrary!)
- Blame culture. Whose fault? Whose head must roll?
- Visible are many of the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management
New Psychology Principles (this includes):
- (Mostly) Intrinsic Motivation (very reduced use of punishment or rewards, work not bonus driven)
- People Treated like adults (owning the work principles)
- Goal setting by the people (seeking alignment with the leaders goals)
- A ‘No Blame’ culture. What happened? What can we learn?
- Cured, or nearly cured, of the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management
In many ways the Old Psychology is the Psychology of the exceptions – the study of the minority studied under unusual or poor conditions.
New Psychology is based upon understanding how the majority will behave under good conditions. So Old Psychology does hold true under stressful or fear conditions, and likewise New Psychology holds true under joyful and happy conditions.
The New Psychologies embrace ideas like those of Glasser (Choice Theory), Kelly (Constructive Alternativism) and Griffin and Tyrell (Human Givens approach). New Psychology is congruent with Kohn’s research on Co-operation and Motivation, with Dweck’s research on “Self-Theories” and with Deming’s ideas on the transformation of management. (More about each of these Psychologies in later blogs)
Coming Next: New Science, New Thinking and Creation Companies
On 07.29.09, In Creating Creation Companies, by Barry Mapp
Five Working Principles of the Creation Company
The first three principles mentioned in Tom McGehee’s book Whoosh are:
1) a leadership style free from command-and-control principles
2) a corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work
3) An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old
The two additional principles of those Creation Companies that will [...]
Five Working Principles of the Creation Company
The first three principles mentioned in Tom McGehee’s book Whoosh are:
1) a leadership style free from command-and-control principles
2) a corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work
3) An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old
The two additional principles of those Creation Companies that will survive for the Long-term is that they learn to:
4) Inoculate themselves from the seven deadly diseases of management which are endemic “diseases” in ‘Compliance Companies’.
5) Apply the principles of “New Psychology” and “New Science” to “how we do things around here”. This includes continually applying new knowledge (as it is acquired) about the brain, the human spirit, learning, and human potential etc
Let’s look at these last two principles in more detail
First, the seven deadly diseases of management? (as outlined by W Edwards Deming)
- There is a Lack of constancy of purpose.
- There is an Emphasis on short-term profits.
- There is Evaluation by performance, merit rating, or annual review of performance.
- There is Mobility of management (resulting in high staff turnover)
- There is Running a company on visible figures alone.
- There is Excessive medical costs (this point is related more to the American Market, but we could reframe this as the cost high costs that companies bare of early retirements and redunduncies)
- There are Excessive costs of warranty and Litigation, fuelled by lawyers who work for contingency fees.
There are these Lesser Category of Obstacles also mentioned by Deming:
- Neglect of long-range planning.
- Relying on technology to solve problems.
- Seeking examples to follow rather than developing solutions.
- Excuses such as “Our problems are different”.
Here are three different perspectives on these seven deadly diseases:
Coming next: The final principle of Creation Companies: Applying “New Psychology” and “New Science” to the Business
On 07.28.09, In Creating Creation Companies, Know-How, by Barry Mapp
Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”
A Creation Company can be thought of as a place (business) where the work systems, work processes, work culture, work management and work leadership are aligned with people and [...]
Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”
A Creation Company can be thought of as a place (business) where the work systems, work processes, work culture, work management and work leadership are aligned with people and how people work best.
Where such alignment occurs this can lead to extraordinary results.
When the systems do not get in the way of the work, human spirit and human joy and passion unfold.
When alignment happens between people and systems, the work can “flow”, unimpeded by artificial constraints, boundaries, controls or hierarchy.
When the work is aligned with how people like to work, then every person in the business is able to perform at their very best, such that everyone has the opportunity to produce extraordinary results.
When there is such alignment, individuals have a sense of control or influence over the work and a sense of responsible for their own work
The Fundamental Principles for creating a Creation Company
Tom McGehee says there are three fundamental principles for a Creation Company (and ANY company can generate the excitement, energy, confidence, and audacity of the “whoosh” of a Creation Company by subscribing to these fundamental principles):
1) A leadership style free from command-and-control principles
2) A corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work
3) An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old
From my personal experience, I would also add two additional principles required for (long-term) Creation Company performance (this makes it five principles in all) and these will be discussed in the next blog
Coming next: Five Working Principles of Creation Companies
On 07.27.09, In Creating Creation Companies, by Barry Mapp
Creating Creation Companies
(Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”)
Let’s take a preliminary look at the differences between a “Compliance Company” and a “Creation Company”. These are terms that I like, that were first penned by [...]
Creating Creation Companies
(Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”)
Let’s take a preliminary look at the differences between a “Compliance Company” and a “Creation Company”. These are terms that I like, that were first penned by Tom McGehee in his book Whoosh.
Today a key business challenge is to recognise and realise the full potential of each organisation. However when we continue to lead and manage our organisations in the same way as we have always done, we are going to get what we have always got. The call to lead and manage in a totally different way – to transform “western management”- was first issued by W.Edwards Deming. Many have cherry-picked from Deming’s ideas but few have attempted to transform management along the lines that he proposed.
Most organisations continue to be run in “the old ways” based on “old psychology”,“old science” and “old management” principles (each of these terms will be explored more fully in later blogs). As Russell Ackoff pointed out a few years ago, most business schools are part of the problem because they still teach “old way” approaches. However more and more iconoclasts of our era, from different fields and domains, are backing the need to transform management thinking. Tom McGehee is one of many calling for a change in our thinking. He calls the transformed organisation a “Creation Company” and the old-style organisation a “Compliance Company” – terms that I will use also.
Compliance Companies, whether they realise this or not, erect barriers to change and innovation by insisting on control of (1)information, (2)resources and (3)decision making, in order to preserve the status quo. In such companies (which remain the vast majority) people have never been trusted to supervise themselves and inspect their own work. People are never able to do their best efforts because the management systems get in the way.
Coming Next: So what makes a “Creation Company”?
On 07.16.09, In Know-What/Why, by Barry Mapp
Thinking the human brain was designed to do
Do you ever stop to think about your thinking? It seems to me that there are at least three levels of thinking that the human brain can do that enhances our capacity to design ‘newness’. To actually solve issues where the current level of thinking fails to find [...]
Thinking the human brain was designed to do
Do you ever stop to think about your thinking? It seems to me that there are at least three levels of thinking that the human brain can do that enhances our capacity to design ‘newness’. To actually solve issues where the current level of thinking fails to find long-term effective solutions.
“We cannot solve the problems of today with the same level of thinking that created the problems in the first place”
Albert Einstein (He said words to this effect many times over his lifetime)
What did Einstein mean by this? Well I guess using my terminology from the previous few blogs on this topic he did not mean crowing cockerel thinking, nor flat world thinking, not even earth around the sun thinking. Neither of these three ways of thinking would cut the mustard for Einstein.
So lets look at three further levels of thinking that would ‘cut the mustard’
Here are the three levels of thinking that our human brain was wired to do, ways of thinking that clearly differentiate us from the abilities of reptiles and other mammals.
(1) “Out from my Existing World” Thinking
This is thinking where the thinker takes a (one dimensional) step out from their current set of beliefs (or paradigm) about how the world (and everything in it) works. So rather than staying ‘imprisoned’ within the assumptions, beliefs, and theories of the existing system (my current world) to take a step outside/above and look from a different viewpoint or perspective. This level of thinking is sometimes described as ‘out of the box’ or ‘lateral’ thinking
(2) Multiple Perspectives Thinking (MPT)
MPT occurs when you can suspend you existing assumptions and start to scan ‘reality’ from multiple perspectives or ‘viewing points’. For example when you are in dispute with someone you can look to hold three different perspectives in your head and view the situation from each. What is your thinking on this issue, what are the likely thoughts the other person has, and what would a third person who no axe to grind think about this situation. By viewing this issue from three perspectives gives insights not possible from just one. Anyone acquainted with W. Edward Deming’s ‘System of Profound Knowledge’ will appreciate that Deming created a tool that let’s us view any issue through the lens of four different perspectives. When we do this we get a good sense of the unintended consequences that we might ‘cause’ by simply taking a ‘one perspective’ viewpoint.
This type of thinking is greatly enhanced when we are in multilogue. Here we listen and share information in a particular way and sitting with people who hold widely differing perspectives. Everyone in the room suspends their existing assumptions and then as the multilogue progresses they seek to hold the totality of thoughts and ideas in their heads. And then (and only then) from a state of nothingness (shown by absolute silence) there begins to emerge through the vehicle of the group, new thoughts and ideas. In a society that is not used to sitting in the silence, multilogue is tricky to achieve (Many of us seem to be threatened by it)
However there are however tools and techniques that will allow us to achieve this type of thinking whilst working on our own and Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge is one such tool.
(3) Meta-Thinking
This is our ability to think about thinking. To be able to think and to challenge our own thinking and the thinking of others. It appears that we are the only life-form on this planet to be able to ‘meta-think’ and it is this one ability that has made us so successful. All the great major breakthroughs in human advancement have come about through this ability. We cannot achieve any of the other five levels of thinking without having this ability. Yet what are we most likely to do when we have a problem? Think-about-our-thinking or sit and watch a reality TV programme?
It is sad to know that the three levels of thinking described here (each of which lift our abilities above that of reptiles and mammals) are so rarely used to focus and seek solutions to the challenges we have today. Einstein would not be happy. If you live in the midlands and you want to jump-start your thinking and creative ability I have some upcoming workshops on these topics in Birmingham and Worcestershire
Coming Next: Black and White thinking – the curse of our society
On 07.10.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
Taking Politics out of the Political – Three New Words for the 21st Century
If we are ever to take succeed in taking the Politics out of the Political (Party) System need to ‘invent’ some new words.
Two exisiting words that do not help us to move away from the present system are Government and Political
Government – [...]
Taking Politics out of the Political – Three New Words for the 21st Century
If we are ever to take succeed in taking the Politics out of the Political (Party) System need to ‘invent’ some new words.
Two exisiting words that do not help us to move away from the present system are Government and Political
Government – has within it the term ‘govern’ which contains elements of to rule, to control, to determine etc (eg to exercise continuous sovereign authority over ; especially to control and direct). Government was something that replaced the single ‘ruler’ (person who rules over). There is very little difference though in the meaning of “to rule” and to “govern” ( both have a sense of control, dominion, or direction over; to dominate by powerful influence; to decide or declare authoritatively or judicially; to decree)
If we wanted to apply a different set of conditions by which we run a Country, where the emphasis is not on controlling people but something more enabling we need a new word. So I am going to use the word Enablement as an alternative (model) to Government. An Enablement would have the brief of doing everything possible to allow people and communities to become the best that they can be.
The role of any Enablement would be to help remove the things that disable the people from being the best they can be and to become a facilitator for improvement by advocating useful models and discarding the useless models (Political Parties can become so attached to their useless models that this becomes a big part of the problem – I have already mentioned elsewhere that “Target Setting” is a useless model for facilitating real long-term improvement here).
An Enablement moves away from the emphasis of the ‘rule of law’ (you should feel bad about yourself if you break the rules) to the ‘rule of helpful behaviours’ (you should feel good about yourself when you behave in ways that are helpful to others). The idea of Goverment is based on “Old Psychology”; Enablement is based on the principles espoused in all the New Psychologies”.
The second unhelpful word is ‘political‘.
There is no academic agreed meaning of this term but most definitions contain the words ‘power’ and it does seem that it is the lure of power in one form or another that motivates people to use ‘political means’ to achieve things. It is often assumed in the literature that whenever groups interact ‘politics’ is a natural consequence.
However I have participated in group interactions similar to what the Physicist Bohm described as ‘dialogue’ and when engaged in such Bohmian Dialogue ‘politics’ is not a natural consequence (and as there is some confusion about the meaning of ‘dialogue’ I am going to introduce what will be a third new word and rename Bohmian dialogue as “multilogue”).
So if it is possible to do things (non-politically) in groups that lead to more effective (indeed better) decisions, then we need a new word and I am going to use “Qualitics”.
In a future blog I will attempt to define Qualitics in detail but for now let’s just see it as a way groups can work together co-operatively to allow new ideas to emerge that can lead to mutual quality outcomes.
So here are three new words for the 21st Century. Enablements as an alternative to Goverments, Qualitics as an alternative to Politics with , and multilogue (a la Bohm) as an alternative to debate.