Archive

Posts Tagged ‘power’

Notes on ‘Business Anarchist’

March 5th, 2010 3 comments

Several people have asked me for more information about the book I’m writing at present, ‘The Business Anarchist‘, so here’s a quick summary of the themes and structure.

Who or what is a ‘business-anarchist‘? Anyone who works with inherent uncertainty in business in an intentional, disciplined way – working with the uncertainty rather than trying to ‘control’ it. Often it’s not so much a person as part of a business-role – a necessary part of that business-role. (Most of the examples in the book will come from my own field of whole-of- enterprise architecture, but the same principles apply in just about every other type of business-role.)

Why ‘anarchist’? Anarchy is about working without rules, working ‘outside the box’. When ‘business as usual’ breaks down, a disciplined form of anarchy is probably the only way through to something new that works well in the new business context.

‘Kiddies-anarchy’ and real anarchy: Anarchy has had a very bad press in the past, mainly because of what I describe as ‘kiddies-anarchy’ – an overdose of presumed ‘rights’ without responsibilities, especially in terms of causing disruption and destruction without any awareness or respect of the consequences for anyone else. Real anarchy is very different – arguably the most difficult of all political forms, because there are no easy rules to fall back on or to blame. Some entire organisations have been run on anarchic lines – the Quakers have done so for centuries – and even some businesses – such as Ricardo Semler’s Semco Group – but here we’re mainly focussing on an often-unnoticed yet everyday set of roles and responsibilities within an ordinary, everyday type of business.

What kind of business? Any business, and any type of business – for-profit, not-for-profit, government or social – from a huge global conglomerate right down to the local bridge-club or the school parent/teacher association.

Business-analyst and business-anarchist: Business-analysts deal with certainty and predictability: they refine the figures, crunch the numbers, track the trends. When your business world is reasonably stable, you need your analysts to help you optimise efficiency and maximise returns. But when your business world is not certain, not predictable, that’s when you’ll need your anarchists. And you’ll need your anarchists then, too. Your analysts can only tell you how to do more of the same, better – which is good, of course, in its own context, but it doesn’t help when what you really need to do is something different.

What’s different about how business-anarchists work? The quickest one-line answer is that analysts rely on rules and algorithms; anarchists rely on guidelines and principles.

What principles should business-anarchists rely on? Obviously this varies from one context to another, but from my work in whole-of-enterprise architecture the three most important design-principles seem to be these:

  • There are no rules;
  • There are no rights; and
  • Money doesn’t matter.

These three principles, and a fourth follow-on principle, Always enhance adaptability, provide the overall structure for the book.

There are no rules: Rules provide a spurious sense of certainty that can let us down badly when our business-world changes around us. The real world is much messier and more complex than any system of rules that we could devise. Hence at times it’s necessary to start off from the assumption and expectation that there are no rules: instead, we have to rewrite the rule-book, by working back to the core-principles from which the rules originally arose. A simple everyday business-example of this is embedded in the ISO-9000 standard on quality-systems:  work-instructions provide ‘the rules’ that we need for real-time practice and process, but when the world changes, we need to rewrite the work-instructions by working upward to procedure, policy and, if necessary, overall vision.

There are no rights: ‘Rights’ are an important social fiction, but as with rules, they don’t actually exist in the real world, and in themselves they tell us almost nothing about how to create the conditions that such ‘rights’ would require. In practice, apparent ‘rights’ arise from mutual, interlocking responsibilities – so it’s those responsibilities, and not the purported ‘rights’, that are where we need to start. This has important implications for business-architecture and enterprise-architecture that will be explored in some depth in the book – for example, we need to ask serious questions about “What do shareholders own?” if they possess all the ‘rights’ for the business but without any real responsibilities.

Money doesn’t matter: Money is important for every business, of course, especially in a commercial context – but as with rules or ‘rights’, it’s not the place where we need to start. Money is also only one small part of the overall economy in which the business operates: reputation, trust, attention and respect all need to exist before any money will be placed on the table. And if we state – or show – that we’re only interested in ‘making money’ from our customers and community, why would anyone want to engage with us? As with other ‘rights’, money is solely a social fiction, and profit is an outcome of being ‘on purpose’ to values: to achieve the profits that we may desire, we first need to start from values, with a values-architecture that describes how we engage with everyone within the extended-enterprise of the business.

Always enhance adaptability: Change is the only certainty: we therefore need to design for that fact. Mistaken notions about rules, rights and money often serve only to slow us down, placing the business at risk as the world changes around us. This sections of the book explores how to embed the ‘business-anarchist’ principles into everyday business-practice, especially in business-architecture and enterprise-architecture.

More details to follow over the next few days, including book-cover, cover-blurb, ISBN numbers and so on. Publication-date is fixed as late-April, so I need to keep moving! :-)

On reflexive methodology

December 27th, 2009 5 comments

Apologies: this is going to be another long one, and probably more technical than most people want to see (especially at Christmas? :-) ). But I do promise that it’ll be useful to you if you’re interested in methodology of any kind; and I also promise that despite the problems that arose from the last couple of posts here, it won’t be an angry rant. :-(

The point I’m trying to address here is this: what methodologies do we need to use to assess the validity of methodologies? As with the previous posts, this is still very much a work-in-progress: there’ll necessarily be a certain amount of ‘feeling my way’, and almost certainly a few mis-steps along the way. So please do allow me some room and leeway as you read this; and also, to get the best out of this for yourself and your own work-context, please do expect to have to do some in-depth thinking and cross-correlation of your own.

What I’m trying to tackle here are some of the most complex and paradoxical problems in the methodology of methodology itself: none of this is ‘kiddies’-level’ stuff, and you’ll need a solid background in theory and practice of methodology before you can make much sense of it. So please don’t assume automatically that I’m ‘wrong’, or that I’m some kind of religious nut, because you’ll miss the whole point of this if you do. This does also need to be a collective development, so as before, constructive comments and criticism would be most welcome!

Read on, anyway.

Read more…

Another note on Spiral Dynamics

October 1st, 2009 No comments

A couple of quick follow-ups on my recent post on the Spiral Dynamics cultural-assessment framework, which I use in some aspects of my work on business-architecture and enterprise-architecture.

First, as per his comment on that post, Kent Bye has assembled on Flickr an excellent collection of more than 90 descriptive graphics about Spiral: see http://www.flickr.com/photos/kentbye/sets/72157622255211051/ . A valuable resource for anyone interested in Spiral: strongly recommended.

Second, I probably need to emphasise a bit more a perhaps subtle distinction between awareness of the Other – as represented by Spiral layers as ‘distance from Self’ – versus responsibility toward the Other. If we’re not aware of the Other, we necessarily have limited ‘response-ability’ toward that Other because we’re not aware of it. Likewise there’s a crucial distinction between unawareness and deliberate indifference – simple ignorance versus a literal ‘ignore-ance’ of the Other and its needs – because in the first case there is no ‘response-ability’, whereas in the second there’s a deliberate refusal to enact ones known mutual responsibilities with the Other (passive dysfunctionality in relationship, otherwise known as ‘abuse’).

To give a direct business example, consider the mutual responsibilities implied in ‘corporate social responsibility’. In classic Friedman terms – “the business of business is business” – a corporation is an ‘artificial person’ and therefore has no responsibilities outside of profit-making: the consequences of such profit-making are, to use Douglas Adams’ phrase, made invisible by assigning them as ‘Somebody’s Else’s Problem’. In this view, there is no ‘Other’ beyond the corporation and its owners: the corporation is the enterprise, the enterprise is the corporation. Yet in order for the profit to be created, there need to be transactions, and a market in which those transactions occur: here, by definition, the enterprise must extend beyond the corporation, hence the Other must exist, and be acknowledged to exist, otherwise the corporation could only make its purported profit by cannibalizing on itself (not that that’s an unusual circumstance in business, of course…). So the Friedman model implies a classic game of ‘have your cake and eat it’: the corporation acts as if there are responsibilities to itself from the Other, but none of itself to the Other.

The relation itself can be highly asymmetric in responsibilities – as it is in functional variants of Spiral ‘Red’, for example, such as the trusted team-leader or platoon-leader – but as long as the responsibilities are mutual and do balance overall, the system will still work. (Spiral ‘Purple’ tribal, ‘Red’ great-leader or ‘Blue’ priest-led models are often essential where there’s a natural asymmetry of decision-making capabilities – hence ‘response-abilities’ – between the leader(s) and the bulk of the group.) But trust will fade and fail when that mutuality of responsibilities is not respected, in either or both directions. There’s usually more tolerance when the failure of responsibility arises from a true lack of awareness; but when the lack of awareness is feigned, or the mutuality deliberately ignored, expect there to be trouble, followed by rapid loss of trust. And from a business perspective, if trust fails, the transactions will also falter and fail – and likewise the profits. Hence one quick way to understand the current ‘Global Financial Crisis’ is that its root-cause has been a betrayal of trust on a massive scale. Another topic for another time, I suspect, but in the meantime, using Spiral as a means for architects to model value-sets, ‘distance from Self’ and mutuality of responsibilities seems like a useful way to go.

More on ‘Dimensions of a Spiral’

September 18th, 2009 2 comments

This one’s fairly long – quite a bit longer even than my usual over-long posts… Theme here is a framework called Spiral Dynamics (see a previous post on this), which is used to identify value-systems in individuals, groups and organisations. Base-idea is that Spiral’s layered stack of value-systems – all too easily misused as a linear sequence of cultural development – is better understood as a ‘culture-space’ bounded by key dimensions such as distance-from-self, perceived relatedness, and responsibility.

Probably not relevant to IT-architecture, but likely to be of interest to business-architects and others. Click on the ‘Read more…’ link, anyway.

Read more…

Reference-sheets on Slideshare

June 30th, 2009 No comments

Realised that the free-download reference-sheets from the Tetradian Enterprise Architecture books would be useful to have up on Slideshare as well, so have uploaded them there for more general accessibility than solely from the Tetradian Books website.

A minor glitch in that they ended up as ‘Presentations’ rather than ‘Documents’: anyone know how to fix this? There doesn’t seem to be anything about it in the rather limited online help on Slideshare itself: odd…

Hope it helps, anyways.

Slideshare #9: Power and response-ability ‘manifesto’

June 28th, 2009 No comments

One more from the archives – or rather, a rework into another format of the ‘manifesto’ from the intro to my book Power and response-ability: the human side of systems. The basic version is part of the book, and also available as a standalone reference-sheet, but I thought some people might prefer it in PowerPoint form, with one concept per page. Note, though, that it’s quite a bit over a hundred slides – 95 ‘theses’ plus the section headings – so it does take a while to skim through.

Slideshare #7: Purpose, power and productivity in the new economy (2001)

June 23rd, 2009 No comments

Another slide-deck from a fair while back (2001, in this case), but still seems relevant today. Many of its quotes reference a section in The Economist edited by Peter Drucker, about ‘the business of the future’.

[It's in PDF format, as the 'Notes View' of the PowerPoint, soslides and script together.]

‘Manifesto’ on power in the workplace

June 21st, 2009 No comments

As part of the setup for getting the ‘What is power, anyway?‘ slide-pack online at Slideshare, I’ve finally gotten round to doing something I should have done a year ago: a three-page reference-sheet version of the Manifesto‘ on power in the workplace, that forms the intro and summary for my book Power and response-ability: the human side of systems.

I did the original version of this way back in 2001, but it’s still just as relevant today. Inspired in part by the structure and content of the Cluetrain Manifesto, it summarises the nature of power in the workplace, with a set of 95 statements under the following section-headings:

  • Systems
  • Economy and the ‘bottom line’
  • Stakeholders and corporate culture
  • Purpose and quality
  • Knowledge
  • Work-relationships
  • Power and response-ability
  • Human forms of power
  • Power in the work-environment
  • Sources of power
  • Mistakes about power
  • Power-addiction, winners and losers
  • Scope of power-issues
  • Conclusions and actions

As with all the reference-sheets, it’s a free download, of course. Hope you find it useful, anyway.

Slideshare #5: What is power, anyway?

June 21st, 2009 No comments

“An oldie but a goodie” – this one dates from way back in 2002, but is still relevant as a way to get people thinking about the human side of systems.

Probably best viewed as a self-running ‘PowerPoint Slideshow’ – follow the Slideshare link to download it – but works well enough as a simple flip-show.

‘Power and Response-ability’ book

July 25th, 2008 No comments

Power and Response-ability' at Tetradian Books’Yup, I’ve been at it again – getting more of my previous material from the past few years out into printed-book form.

This one’s Power and Response-ability: the human side of systems – click the link or the graphic for more details on the Tetradian Books website.

As usual, there’s a free download of the e-book available from the Tetradian Books site; printed copies should become available in a couple of weeks’ time from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and other retailers.

Basic idea is a really simple dichotomy: the physics definition of ‘power’ is the ability to do work, whilst most social definitions are more like the ability to avoid it. As I put it in the book, “many of the common concepts of power in business are so close to perfectly wrong that it’s amazing any work happens at all…” The resultant mess is a key concern for enterprise architecture, particularly as we start to integrate the human side of systems into the architecture at the whole of enterprise level.

This isn’t as much of a workbook as the others in my Tetradian Enterprise Architecture series: the only diagnostic checklist is right at the end, in the appendix. It’s more of a text-based exploration of the issues around personal power, shared power and ‘ability to do work’ (hence ‘response-ability’), both in the workplace and in the wider business / economic milieu (themes I’ve been researching for the past couple of decades and more, really). In that sense, it also gives the business background to SEMPER and all the other tools and techniques that I’ve packaged under the Tetradian banner.

Share and enjoy, perhaps? Comments much appreciated, anyway.