1 ALFRED PLACE

Looks like this is going to be our new work home for the next year or so. I went to the opening bash, got slightly sozzled on cheap champagne (pleasant nevertheless) and signed up. Unlike other alcohol-fuelled decisions, in the clear light of day and sobriety, I have no regrets.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

At a recent Teambuilding workshop I asked the small team what kept them awake nights. One person replied that it was the fact of reporting to 2 bosses. Everyone sat up at the prospect of chewing on this juicy morsel. But after some careful digging, it transpired that the fact of having 2 bosses wasn't in itself an issue... in fact it all worked quite well.
So why had it been raised?
Answer: 'because I didn't want to be left out not having a problem to share'.
Now what's the problem?

HAVE A GO...

Continuing from my preceeding post, I often wonder what I would do if I saw a group of youths up to no good. Would I intervene? I then ask myself what if the group was replaced by a tiger (yes, one of those stripy wild cats). Obviously I wouldn't attempt to tame the tiger and make it see the error of its ways. So why should I do the same with a bunch of feral teens? The result could be the same.
In other words why would I waste my time and jeopardise my wellbeing trying to change innate behaviour in an animal, a disconsolate youth or an unsympathetic boss?
Now this isn't meant to be a universal principle - I think a lot depends on the drivers: is someone else's welfare at stake and am I acting in their best interests? Or do I want the satisfaction of controlling the errant behaviour of a 3rd party?

OTHER PEOPLE!

I ran a Creative Problem Solving workshop the other day. After some work it transpired that the team's real problem was the boss, who was not present. But on further examination this was a smokescreen - the real problem was that the boss didn't do or say what the team wanted. Already we'd moved away from the person to the behaviour. Then it became clear that the boss's negative behaviour was a response to the team's behaviour - so the real problem became the relationship. Now relationships need 2 parties - 2 to tango. So the emphasis shifted from one person's personality to a network of relationships.
And the question changed from: how can we change our boss's behaviour? to: how can we work within these constraints to get what we want?

ORPHEUS

My institution's management network is looking for a new Chair. Problem: no one's volunteering. And in their paradigm, this is a problem. Enter Orpheus the conductorless orchestra:

Instead of one person taking on the orchestra's artistic responsibility and leadership, we share leadership throughout the membership of the orchestra. Each piece sees a different concertmaster, rotating principle musician chairs, and a sharing of ideas and inspirations. This empowering formula creates a dynamic setting where each musician takes artistic ownership of the performance, not just his or her own part. When we feel personally connected to the music, we know you will too. This is the Orpheus Process.

If this sounds too good to be true, listen to the results: http://www.orpheusnyc.com/Performances.html

FALSETTO YET TRUE

Andreas Scholl, the great German counter-tenor has a profound insight on learning:

"I have this phrase which sums up the process: imitation, contemplation, emancipation. You begin by imitating, you observe yourself doing the action and then you can move on and become free."

This really resonates with my experience but I only realised it reading this quote.

REVISITING COMPLEXITY

I've been re-reading Arthur Battram's 'Navigating Complexity' over the Christmas break. I do like the way it skims over the vast surface of this subject, quite happy to leave issues unresolved. It reminds me a favourite 'get out of jail' card that I've used recently: "The question is more important than the answer".

FLESHY COGS

This week's Times reveals that 1 in 3 of us are bored at work. This occupational ennui is apparently due to the simplification and automation brought about by technology. Ironic that the deployment of technology itself is actually very interesting and stimulating (speaking as an engineer).
I wonder if the problem wouldn't be eased if those involved were considered not just as fleshy cogs in the machine, but as people with a need for challenge and meaning.
Henry Ford complained that he got a whole person when all he wanted was a pair of hands - that was a loooooong time ago.

GIRL TEACHES DAD A LESSON

Emmanuel Gobillot, writing in the Engineering Management journal of the IET, describes how paying his daughter to clean her room backfired when after a while she declared that it just wasn't worth it. Here is an example of an economic incentive destroying moral and social obligation.

DARK BUSINESS

...and on the subject of physics as a metaphor for organisations (or maybe the other way around), Dave Snowden suggests that just as Dark Matter accounts for most of the Universe, so invisibles account for most of an organisation. Thanks to Johnnie Moore for this one.

I wonder if the sub-conscious is another example of the subtle unseen supporting tangible, gross manifestation?