Discipline makes Daring possible.

Goals

Goals

I’m not remotely into football, but inevitably I catch the odd England game – or at least snippets of them.

What’s struck even me this time round, has been the aim to win rather than merely not lose.  There’s been a definite effort to actively score more goals than their opponents, rather than get away with letting fewer goals in, or relying on penalty shoot-outs.

This is not rocket science.   If you try and score goals, while preventing the other side from scoring against you, you give yourself more chances to win, and win conclusively.  It also makes for a much more exciting game to watch and to play – for both sides.

Delightful as it is to win, winning isn’t everything.   How you win matters.  The process matters.  And speaks volumes about your priorities.

Planning to disappear.

Planning to disappear.

It’s well known that being employee-owned is good for a business.

But why stop there?

Why not make your business employee-run too?

Enable every employee to be ‘a Boss’ with a Customer Experience Score.

You business will be scalable, replicable, durable.

And you can plan to disappear.

Morrissey

Morrissey

Yesterday, my husband was working his way through his record collection.

As always, Morrissey stood out:

“I am human and I need to be loved – just like anybody else does.”

Something worth remembering as we build our business processes.

Work/play

Work/play

Why do we enjoy playing Dungeons and Dragons?

Because we know the rules.  We know the world we’re operating in.   We know our own capabilities.  We know there is randomness, provided by the dice.  And we know that the people we’re playing with know all that too.

Within that framework, each one of us can play freely with the skills we’re given and the attributes we acquire.  We can collaborate, go it alone, or switch between the two.  If we’re Dungeon Master, we can even change the rules.

Nothing is predetermined, there’s room for the unexpected, yet everything is coherent.    It’s a safe space enclosing the perfect balance between constraint and freedom, between box and creativity, between process and play, between community and individual.

Life can’t be like this.

But work can.

Discipline makes Daring possible.

I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue

I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue

The joke hidden in the game of ‘Mornington Crescent’, played to inscrutable rules on ‘I’m Sorry I haven’t a Clue’ –  is that actually there are no rules.   The teams make them up as they go along.

It’s an old parlour game, a jolly hoax played by a group of friends on a newcomer.    Hilarious for the friends.  Bewildering for the newcomer.

And it’s probably what joining your business feels like.

Down with pin factories.

Down with pin factories.

For Adam Smith the pin factory, with its production line and strict division of labour, was the epitome of efficiency.  It meant that thousands more pins could be manufactured, which in turn meant more people could afford to own them.

Until eventually a pin became the epitome of worthlessness, a thing you wouldn’t bother to pick up if you dropped it.  The factory model solved a production problem.

Products aren’t the only thing we make through our work.  We also make people.   And since Adam Smith, we’ve also known that the pin-factory approach makes unhappy people.

Humanity no longer needs to be efficient.  We no longer have a production problem.

We have a distribution problem. We have an unhappiness problem.  And we have a survival problem.

It’s time then, to look for a different mode of production.

One where the survival of our species is the side-effect of work that produces lives well lived for all.

We can start from the bottom up, as we grow our own small businesses:

Think orchestra, not pin-factory.

On kings and forgiveness.

On kings and forgiveness.

Seth wrote a very interesting blog this week on Monarchists.

“As Sahlins and Graeber outline in their extraordinary (and dense) book on Kings, there’s often a pattern in the nature of monarchs. Royalty doesn’t have to play by the same cultural rules, and often ‘comes from away.’ Having someone from a different place and background allows the population to let themselves off the hook when it comes to creating the future.”

I agree, but I think the whole thing is more subtle and interesting than that.

Kings ‘from away’ could act in ways that were totally unacceptable to the native population – in order to create change.   Sometimes, they were even asked in.

Beyond that though, those same Kings were contained and constrained into a purely formal role.  They became figureheads, cherished, personally pampered but essentially powerless over the society they ‘ruled’.  They didn’t administer the results of their change and they certainly didn’t take over resources.   The original population carried on as custodians of the land, society and cuture, as before.

That was the point.

A stranger king enabled a system based on shared authority and collective, consensual decision making to radically change without breaking itself apart.   You could almost call them a scapegoat rather than a king.  Nowadays we’d call them a consultant.

The challenge then, is not merely to be prepared to ‘put yourself on the hook’ to lead change that will make the community uncomfortable, but also to forgive those of your peers who do it for you.

Shuhari

Shuhari

“It is known that, when we learn or train in something, we pass through the stages of shu, ha, and ri. These stages are explained as follows. In shu, we repeat the forms and discipline ourselves so that our bodies absorb the forms that our forebears created. We remain faithful to these forms with no deviation. Next, in the stage of ha, once we have disciplined ourselves to acquire the forms and movements, we make innovations. In this process the forms may be broken and discarded. Finally, in ri, we completely depart from the forms, open the door to creative technique, and arrive in a place where we act in accordance with what our heart/mind desires, unhindered while not overstepping laws.”  Endō Seishirō

You want your entire team to get to ri.

That’s impossible while the shu is only in your head.

Discipline makes Daring possible.

 

HT to Carlos Saba for the thought. And to Claire Perry-Louise for creating the space where it can be shared.

Superficiality

Superficiality

I had my blood test yesterday.   Ahead of me in the queue was an angry (not rude) man.   He’d waited 2 weeks for his appointment and taken time off work to attend, only to be told “You’re not on our list”.

Testing was a pretty efficient set-up, with 3 people taking samples for 3 people every 5 minutes, so they were able to fit him in.

During my turn I asked what had gone wrong.

“It’s the call centre”, I was told.  ‘They send us about 30 people a day, who aren’t on our list of appointments.   Sometimes for appointment times that are already taken.  Sometimes for children who shouldn’t even be sent here – we can’t handle children here.  We do our best to fit people in, but we can’t always do that.  It wastes everybody’s time and makes our job miserable.   We’ve tried to tell the call centre, but we don’t have the authority.”

On the face of it, centralised booking for several different units at different hospitals should be more efficient.  A small team can handle more volume more efficiently, saving costs across all units.

But this only works if the central team are a) incentivised to produce a satisfactory outcome of the entire process;  b) have all the information they need, when they need it, to do that job properly, and c) use feedback from people further down the line to improve how it works.

Otherwise all you’ve added to the process is a silo that increases real costs for everyone involved.

There’s a more fundamental error that’s been made here.   The people delivering a service should be in control of the customer experience of that service.   Either by managing the end-to-end process themselves, or being a key player in its design and continuous improvement.

But I’m guessing that customer experience was probably the last thing on the mind of whoever came up with this, along with a genuine interest in efficiency.   Superficial gains were enough for them.

It shows.

Piracy

Piracy

Pirates were a threat to the 18th century establishment.  Not only because of their predations, but because of the alternative organisational model they offered.

Here are the Articles for Revenge, a pirate ship captained by John Phillips pictured above:

  • Every Man shall obey civil Command; the Captain shall have one full Share and a half in all Prizes; the Master, Carpenter, Boatswain and Gunner shall have one Share and quarter.
  • If any Man shall offer to run away, or keep any Secret from the Company, he shall be maroon’d, with one Bottle of Powder, one Bottle of Water, one small Arm and Shot.
  • If any Man shall steal any Thing in the Company, or game to the Value of a Piece of Eight, he shall be maroon’d or shot.
  • If at any Time we should meet another Marrooner [pirate], that Man that shall sign his Articles without the Consent of our Company, shall suffer such Punishment as the Captain and Company shall think fit.
  • That Man that shall strike another whilst these Articles are in force, shall receive Moses’s Law (that is, 40 Stripes lacking one) on the bare Back.
  • That Man that shall snap his Arms, or [smoke] Tobacco in the Hold, without a Cap to his Pipe, or carry a Candle lighted without a Lanthorn, shall suffer the same Punishment as in the former Article.
  • That Man that shall not keep his Arms clean, fit for an Engagement, or neglect his Business, shall be cut off from his Share, and suffer such other Punishment as the Captain and the Company shall think fit.
  • If any Man shall lose a Joint in Time of Engagement, he shall have 400 Pieces of Eight, if a Limb, 800.
  • If at any Time we meet with a prudent Woman, that Man that offers to meddle with her, without her Consent, shall suffer present Death.

A pirate ship was governed by the Pirate Council, who deliberated on decisions until a consensus was reached.   A Captain was only elected for engagements, and could be anyone.

A far cry from life on a Navy ship, where the Captain’s rule was absolute, and his share of booty determined by him.

As Colonel Benjamin Bennet wrote: “I fear they will soon multiply for so many are willing to joyn with them when taken.”

No wonder they were crushed.