There’s no such group as “They”

One of the most extraordinary things about many of us is our ability to blame other people.  Eavesdrop on a conversation at a water-cooler, coffee machine, or whilst wandering around a store and, eventually, you will hear someone blaming somebody for something.  Clearly, in many cases heaping opprobrium on another individual is appropriate especially if it’s is the goal-keeper of your team and they’ve just dropped the ball over the line.  However, the people who get it in the neck most are often a group simply called “they”.  Of course, there are instances when “they” is used as a term to cover a generic group of anonymous individuals and the motives of “they” are questioned rhetorically; but it’s in organisations that we see the emergence of “they” as a force to be reckoned with.

The issue with “they” is two-sided and reflects to some extent the “us and them” attitudes that have characterised many workplace relationships over past decades.  I’ve seen this problem manifest itself at a number of levels, especially during change programmes.  Senior leaders often impose change top down. They see their role as making others change and thereby widen the gap between themselves, as the drivers of change, and the rest of the workforce who become the objects of change. This sort of approach helps to perpetuate a degree of learned helplessness and a dependency culture.

Traditional management approaches also tend to make it more difficult for people to see themselves as individuals.  Organisational silos and hierarchical structures combine with old-fashioned attitudes to keep people in boxes and inhibit any sense of collaboration or individual creativity.  Yet to blame the system for many of the supine attitudes held by people in many organisations is to miss the point. Many people are, to far too great a degree, ready and willing to delegate much of their lives to anonymous others.  And when they don’t like how things have turned out, rather than take responsibility they’re happy to blame others.  Sometimes it’s due to the dependency culture, including the lure of stability that comes from the security of a regular income with bonuses and a pension. At other times it’s due to personal inertia and a reluctance to shoulder responsibility for oneself. In between the two are those who have postponed their real life until after they have retired, making a quasi-Faustian pact with their employer for deferred gratification.

Those who do take control of their lives tend to find it the most liberating thing that they’ve ever done.  As George Bernard Shaw put it: “To be in hell is to drift; to be in heaven is to steer.” Wresting influence from others and seizing back authority over one’s actions can give an extraordinary sense of purpose and direction to individuals.  Rather than blaming bosses, politicians, or even society at large, the only person left to blame is the one looking from the mirror. This sense of personal ownership isn’t all about doing one’s own thing. It’s an attitude of mind.  Even within large organisations there are those who are able to see beyond what needs to be done towards what ought to be done.  Taking control back of one’s attitudes and directions and not blaming others is the route to personal leadership.

For some, of course, there will always be security in the crowd.  It’s not just the tribal instinct at play but the feeling that it’s far less tiring having someone else do all the heavy thinking for you.  Remember that great scene in The Life of Brian when, in a case of mistaken identity, Brian finds a multitude outside his bedroom window. “You’ve got to think for yourselves.” he says “You’re all individuals” “Yes” the crowd reply “We’re all individuals.”

Leader-proofing

I was recently at a talk (about, as it happens, political blundering) when the speaker said that a sign of a good organisation is whether it is leader-proof. It occurred to me then that cult of leadership is indeed beginning to die its death.  After having had decades of alpha males running organisations as the Chief Entertainment Officer, people are starting to question the myth, perpetuated by business schools and head-hunters, that leaders are special. In fact, some are beginning to question whether they do more harm than good.  I have written in the past of how those who most want to become leaders are often the least suited to the role. Often they get caught up in the moment and start to believe in their own in supremacy.  They’re encouraged by a small coterie of advisers; add in group think and sycophancy and before you know it seems as if the lunatics have taken over the asylum.  As Warren Buffett once said:  “I always invest in companies an idiot could run, because one day one will.”

Another problem with the wrong sort of leadership is that it can lead to learned helplessness. Employees become so used to being told what to do that they start to lose the ability to think for themselves, either through fear of getting things wrong or out of lack of practice.  In many organisations, the strength of the top-down, command and control structure is such that decisions are constantly being upwardly delegated.  I know of one organisation where the power of the senior leaders was so strong that middle managers acted on the assumption of how their bosses would react and they’d simply not propose any option that they thought would get a frosty response.

The new leaders are those who see their role not merely as making decisions and being in charge. Rather, they recognise that leadership is about empowering people and creating the environment where decisions can be taken.  Yet in many instances, organisations are still only scratching the surface of the creativity of their people.  Most workforces today are full of technologically-savvy people who are keen to share and collaborate.  Businesses, however, are dominated by silo mentalities and a culture of management by results that inhibits rather than encourages cross-functional working.

One organisation, however, has taken leader-proofing to the extreme.  Video games developer, Valve, has no leaders.  Individuals themselves decide what to work on, where to sit, even how much each other gets paid.  Teams coalesce naturally around the best ideas.  Dialogue and creative thinking is at a premium, uninhibited by hierarchy or traditional structures. Obviously such a structure may not work everywhere, but it is interesting how there are those who see that there is another way to operate away from the normal pyramid-shaped, leader-led organisation.

In the meantime, leaders of traditionally-run organisations need to start to consider their own role in unleashing the power of thought latent in their organisation and held back by its structure.  They need to realise that the more that they give away the stronger their organisation becomes.  Businesses need leaders who embrace the opportunities that new ways of working offer and who can leave behind the old style of management.  Leader-proofing means not only liberating the creativity of the whole workforce but also of moving on from the old approach to leadership.  The traditional caricature needs to be put to rest.  As, for instance, John Cleese once said:  “I find it easy to portray businessmen.  Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.”

Willpower

I’ve been meaning to write about this topic for a while but I’ve kept putting it off.  One day I may seek help for my procrastination problem.  To be fair, I’m not quite as bad as Goncharov’s marvellous character Oblomov who spends his day in his dressing gown surrounded by books and dust-covered papers, constantly resolving to start work.  The fact is, however, that more and more of us find ourselves putting off the things we’d like to do, or even need to do, in favour of either finding distractions or just doing the same old things.  It seems that it’s harder than ever to break out of the rut.

There are a number of reasons for this personal inertia.  One of them is the very modern problem of the tyranny of choice. The overwhelming number of options that we have for how we spend our lives and our spare time creates anxiety.  With too much choice we end up sticking with what we know.  We become more and more reluctant to try new things or to broaden our horizons.  We know we should try new things, fulfil our ambitions, or do what’s in our best interests, but we invariably stick to our old ways of behaving.  The great Flanders and Swann song, The Sloth, sums up this self-inflicted ennui rather well. (Don’t put it off, listen to it now! http://bit.ly/1diasIV ).

Linked to this is “busy doing nothing” syndrome.  We all know people who are so busy working that they have no time to stop and think.  For them working is a form of procrastination, postponing the real conversation that they ought to have with themselves about what they really ought to be doing.  These people are too busy to allow themselves the opportunity to discover their true needs and to follow their authentic self.  In a way, this endless cycle of activity is, in effect, inactivity.  As Jerome K Jerome said in his essay “On being idle”, one can only really be thoroughly idle if one has lots to do.  Being busy is often little more than a method of displacement from the real issue.

The pace of today’s modern life comes littered with opportunities for distraction.  The 24hr, invasive nature of the media means that few people ever delight in switching off. Many people are driven half mad by the demands placed on them by being constantly switched on and the expectations of an instant (and considered) reply.  Again, this creates a superficial world and with it a sense that if you’re not tweeting with the in crowd then you’re not actually part of society.  And if you don’t answer your emails on holiday or at one o’clock in the morning then you’re not totally committed to your company.

Once all distractions have been put aside one’s left with oneself.  Although this can be a lonely and disconcerting place to be, it is also the start of the journey to one’s authentic self.  Eventually, with focus, it is possible to learn to listen and hear what one’s true needs and ambitions are. Having established them one needs willpower to bring them to life. Willpower is a mixture of focus and discipline.  Rather than self-esteem, which is an outcome, the key to happiness and fulfilment is self-control.  The people who succeed are those who first find their true self and then set out to achieve their goals with purpose, determination and willpower.  Goals plus willpower leads to success. No goals plus no willpower leads to the same old same old.  

And as George Bernard Shaw said: "Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire, you will what you imagine, and, at last, you create what you will."

Talking the walk

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the station the other day.  I was walking quite briskly, a briefcase in one hand, a phone in the other (I’m always expecting a call), and in my mind I was rehearsing a conversation that I would be having at a meeting later that day.  I was, in fact, completely in the zone. So much so, however, that as I stepped on to the kerb I lost my footing and fell over. I got up, dusted myself down and gave the kerb a long, hard accusative stare. But once I was sure that nobody had seen me I settled down to think about what had occurred.  The fact was that I had been so distracted by walking to somewhere else whilst thinking deeply about the future that I had lost any connection with the present.  Rather than practising mindfulness, I’d been doing mindlessness.

It is extraordinary how easy it is to miss the present moment and to be too busy to just be.  As TS Eliot put it in The Rock: “where is the life we have lost in living?” Many of us simply miss the moment and those that are “present” are often only present in the artificial superficiality of the hustle and bustle of the so-called real world.  Modern communications technology has both empowered us and made us more connected whilst at the same time it often makes us feel curiously disconnected us from ourselves. Twitter, for instance, can make us feel both part of the happening world and yet strangely insignificant compared with those seemingly more influential.

The recent Ofcom survey on the media consumption habits of the British throws up some interesting insights.  The good news is that for the first time for a while there is an increase in families coming together to watch TV.  Regardless of the content of the programmes it is important that families take time to be with each other.  However, the bad news is that it seems that many people “distract” themselves from the TV by phoning, texting, or interacting with others on social media. So even when we are together we’re not actually together. Doh.  As Alain de Botton put it: “It is one of the unexpected disasters of the modern age that our new unparalleled access to information has come at the price of our capacity to concentrate on anything much.”

The idea that we can do two things at once is a myth and yet people seem to do it all the time.  Business meetings are often taken up with people sitting in front of their laptop or emailing on their phone with only one ear on the conversation.  Rather than listening to understand they listen to respond. And then there’s the business presenters who put detailed powerpoint slides on a screen and then talk to (or over?) them not understanding that we can either read the slides or listen to the points but we can’t do both. And if anyone says that they are the exception that proves the rule, tell them that the research shows that the people who are worst at multi-tasking are the multi-taskers.  As Confucius said, a man who chases two rabbits loses one and misses the other.

The good news is that there is a growth in the number of people practising mindfulness.  Indeed, there are now many businesses which are encouraging their employees to get involved in the discipline.  They recognise that mistakes are happening because people are too busy and under so much pressure that they’re missing the present (perhaps this will even lead to a decline in noisy, distracting open-plan offices in favour of a return to quiet areas of concentration). Society needs to be less frenetic and more grounded.  We all need to be more aware of the present and live for the moment and stop running on autopilot mode where we look without seeing and hear without listening. Only then will we be able to concentrate on the moment.  As Brian Tracy put it: “Throughout my career, I have discovered and rediscovered a simple truth. It is this: the ability to concentrate single-mindedly on your most important task, to do it well and to finish it completely, is the key to great success, achievement, respect, status and happiness in life.”

And if you still think multi-tasking is a good idea, next time you’re in your car remember the scary thought that half the people around you are trying to drive and follow their SatNav.

The inevitability of gradualism

It can be quite depressing sometimes, looking at the world and thinking how much needs to change. All those wrong turns we’ve taken as a society valuing the wrong things for the wrong reasons (we’re pretty much the first generation, for instance, who don’t see our principal role as that of passing on the lessons of the past; but we are the first to see elderly parents as an encumbrance best out-sourced to “care” homes). Such societal wrongs seem to provoke three reactions: the ostrich-like ignoring of the reality; the shrug of the shoulder, what-can-one-do acceptance of the status quo; and the radical, up-with-this-I-will-not-put of the change agent.  It was, of course, Marx who said that: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world…the point is to change it". However, despite my rather iconoclastic thinking, I’ve never been much of a sans culottes revolutionary. In fact, I’ve always been rather suspicious of the action-orientated eager beavers rushing overhead frantically making things happen. 

For me, change is always more effective when it comes from within; and, to that end, I prefer to influence it and let it happen in its own good time. Change rarely works when it’s forced on either an individual or an organisation.  Real change occurs when the person is themselves the agent rather than the object.  And the gestation period for that moment of self-realisation differs by person, organisation and issue.  The natural process of change can be helped by thinkers, and coaches. By providing a questioning environment they in effect give permission for people to think and feel differently and to realise that there is no rule book which states that life had to turn out this way.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I’m beginning to sense that more and more people are beginning to question why things are the way they are and how, perhaps, they can start to change.  Two things recently helped to reinforce my view.  The first was a marvellous personal event, that of my daughter’s graduation.  She was one of nearly 200 young people receiving her BSc in psychology (at the same ceremony there were also around 25 MSc graduates and half a dozen PhDs.).  It occurred to me that the huge explosion in the popularity of this subject can only be a good thing for society.  Equipping a whole generation of future leaders with the knowledge, interest and scientific understanding of how people think and behave the way they do must be a positive development.  Using evidence-based research to consider the effect of both nature and nurture on human behaviour will help us better understand how we can positively impact the society we live in.

The second event was reading a blog. http://blog.wcgworld.com The author (a communications thought leader and himself a PhD Experimental Psychologist) wrote about an MBA class lecture he gave on reputation.  What was interesting was less the content of the lecture and more the way he described how these future business leaders addressed their group exercise.  Faced with three major corporate issues, the class responded by seeing the solution as being proactive transparency and stakeholder engagement.

Bit by bit we are seeing people question action-orientated leadership, management by results, and a sole focus on shareholder value.  Slowly but surely, we are seeing a more mindful approach creep into business, including a growing move towards long-term thinking and environmental sustainability.  We need to nurture these thoughts and allow people to feel comfortable challenging current social norms. For instance, rather than accepting that the political debate must be dominated by the demand for growth we recognise that true happiness is rarely found in mindless acquisition. 

I believe that the current zeitgeist has entered the first stage of change, that of questioning.  Let’s pause and celebrate, but recognise the inevitability of gradualism.

Time to change our politics

For the past few weeks I ought to have been living in the past. I’ve been reading two excellent books: Jesse Norman’s book on Edmund Burke and Antonia Fraser’s Perilous Question, which deals with the 1832 Reform Act.  Both are great reads; however, both curiously feel as if they are dealing not with historical events but rather describing current affairs.  Both deal with broken systems of parliamentary representation, governments out of touch with the moods and needs of the people, embryonic and dysfunctional parties, strong and weak leaders, and desires for change pitted against obstinacy and intransigence.  Plus ca change, eh!

Fast forward to today and the argument is over the funding of political parties.  This, as is often the case, looks at the problem from the wrong end presupposing, as it does, that we need parties.   Some say that the ideological differences between right and left are greater than ever.  They may be at the macro level of big versus small government, but faced with the manifesto commitments of the political parties few electors could, in a blind test, place the right policy with the right party.

Issues today are also far more complex, inter-related, nuanced and global than ever before.  And yet we continue to try and force them into the constraints of the old two party political system.  As Private Willis, guarding the House of Commons in Gilbert & Sullivan’s 1882 operetta Iolanthe, sang it:

“I often find it comical, how nature always does contrive

That ev’ry boy and ev’ry gal that’s born into the world alive

Is either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative”.

And then there’s the ping-pong, he said, she said adversarial nature of the debates in the House of Commons cockpit made worse by MPs having to tow the party line. Quoting W.S.Gilbert again, this time in the words of Sir Joseph Porter in HMS Pinafore:

“I always voted at my party’s call

And never thought of thinking for myself at all.”

Sometimes there are free votes, so called as they allow MPs to use their conscience liberated from the dictats of their party whips (although why on earth the Hunting Bill was felt to be a conscience issue no-one seems quite sure).  Then there are referendums on issues too important to be left to our usual legislators. We’ve had two in this country, the first on the original decision to join the EU and the second the ill-judged and ill-timed referendum on PR.  However, such plebiscites do beg the question of what are our politicians for if not to decide, on our behalf, on great matters.  Or if we are to have referendums, why not on other issues, such as the perennial question of the death penalty; or indeed, on issues such as the UK’s membership of the UN or NATO, both of which affect our sovereignty as much as Europe.

People are beginning to question the efficacy of the political system. Many agree that it does need to be modernised.  It is becoming recognised that for many people it is simply irrelevant, and the reality is that the vast majority outside the political bubble have disenfranchised themselves from party politics.  Some want to start the reformation by having open primaries for electing candidates.  It is a good idea but, again, it starts in the wrong place.  We need to properly understand where the decision-making process is best served.  Few, if any, can name their MP (or, indeed, accurately identify senior politicians) and yet the solemn myth of the link between MP and their constituency perpetuates. And much of the work they do in their constituency surgeries involves either trying to solve problems caused by local government and other agencies, or in being the counsellor of last resort.  At the other end of the scale, even Lloyd George would be amazed that reforming the House of Lords remains a work in progress.

So where does one start?  Part of the problem is that the debate is taking place within the confines of the existing system.  Of course change can only come from within, but it requires great maturity to be able to see beyond one’s own position.  The question is not how can we reform the current political process, but what is it actually for and, given what we know and the realities of how we now live, how can we make it as engaging as possible for all citizens to be able to contribute.

But then for some change is always difficult. The Duke of Wellington was reported to have “…never read or heard of any measure up to the present moment which could in any degree satisfy his mind that the state of representation could be improved or rendered more satisfactory to the country at large.” Plus ca change, plus c’est la même chose.

Travails of my Aunt (part 2)

For those of us brought up in an era of three TV channels and the test card, the iPlayer is a marvellous innovation.  It provides high quality content for use on multiple platforms so that the consumer can choose where, when and how they watch and listen.  It is a service of which the BBC can be justly proud.  It is, however, as likely to sink the corporation as it is to be its saviour.  This is because whereas a licence is required to watch live TV there is no need to buy a licence to watch the same programme on the iPlayer a day later.  Perversely, the very service which is there to provide consumer choice could be the one that limits it.

There are many people who see the conundrum that the iPlayer poses as being the come-uppance that the BBC deserves.  After all, so the argument goes, the BBC is the elephant in the room when it comes to creating the great content giveaway mindset.  Just at a time when newspapers and other media are struggling to find business models to cope with the disruption caused by new electronic media channels the BBC, funded by the licence fee, continues to give away all its content for free.  It is, of course, very hard to compete with a totally free model.  But having done so much to create an uneven playing field, the BBC is now about to face its own nemesis.  A whole generation has been born for whom paying for content is anathema (considering the many hurdles they’re seemingly happy to face in order to get their content free, then waiting a day to watch the BBC doesn’t seem much of a hardship.)  And there’s now a constant stream of businesses (a term used here rather loosely) whose model is to give services away free, build a big following and then introduce charges.  At which point, of course, the users simply migrate to the next “free” service.  And so as the iPlayer becomes more successful it is merely encouraging a something for nothing society.

Another marvellous irony is that the BBC (whose journalists see their role as, inter alia, holding the powerful to account) is refusing to declare how many people are now declining to pay the licence fee, preferring instead to wait a day and watch programmes free on the internet.  The corporation has resisted requests under the Freedom of Information act, declaring that such transparency may encourage people to break the law.  Others may say that it is simply the fear that more people will realise that the licence fee may be approaching its sell-by date and that it is no longer appropriate in the modern, digital multi-platform and multi-stream world. 

The disruptive technology of our digital era is causing everyone to rethink the role and relevance of their services.  Behaviours and consumption habits are changing constantly, partly because of technological advances, opening up huge opportunities and challenges.  One thing is for sure: organisations and institutions that don’t face these challenges head on will fail.  Progress requires both success and failures - our banks should not be too big to fail and neither should our favourite aunts be shielded from the real world – and progress means adaptability and flexibility and a built-in resilience. Change needs to be encouraged by creating the environment in which it can occur naturally. 

Maintaining the old models through regulations does not create progress.  Lifestyle and behaviours have changed and all organisations must respond accordingly. Perhaps the BBC, and others, should recognise not so much the price of everything but the value of everything.  Content should not be given away free. It’s neither a healthy nor a sustainable model. Neither, however, should there be a restrictive one-size-fits-all charge.  As with much in life, the answer is somewhere in the middle.  And that requires a flexible and adaptable attitude towards change.

Networking is not working

It’s all too easy to get the wrong end of the stick with networking.  Perhaps it’s the memory of the “networking opportunity” coffee breaks at conferences when people you’ve never met sidle up and try to engage you in polite conversation in order to sell you things that you don’t want to buy.  These opportunities can be a nightmare for introverts, who tend to either hide in the toilets or pretend to catch up on emails. The back-slapping extroverts stalk the room distributing their bonhomie in exchange for business cards.  And days later the emails start arriving announcing that “you may remember that we met briefly at…” before launching into a sentence that makes its way straight to the delete button.

There are two main reasons why this sort of traditional networking is not working.  Firstly, many people seem to mistake quantity for quality. For them networking is all about trophy hunting where size is everything.  You don’t even have to have met all the people in your network; as long as you recognise their name or have a group in common that’s all you need to “invite” them to join your Linkedin circle.

The second reason is that there are those who think that the whole point of a network is to get work. For them it’s simply a case of a mathematical formula: for example, Gladhanders Law which states that the greater the number of people in your network the higher the chance that someone will give you work.  This, of course, also misses the point.  Opportunities come from two main sources: the most important is personal recommendation, and the basis of recommendation is trust.  It’s not just about people you know or with whom you’ve worked, it’s about people whom you trust.  A good example would be plumbers.  Would you employ a plumber whose business card you picked up at a networking event or who you found on the internet, or would you first ask your friends for a recommendation of someone of whom they’ve got real experience?

The second source of opportunities is serendipity. And this is where the new networks can play a role.  True networking is about enriching oneself.  It is about being in an environment where everyone is giving and everyone is taking.  It is about the sharing of ideas and insights, all with the purpose of widening ones own knowledge and understanding.  It can be a truly enriching experience.  And the point is that the more enriched you are, the more you have to offer; and the more that you have to offer, the more people (and opportunities) will gravitate towards you.

So the moral is that rather than seeking out networking events that will further your career, look for those where you can give and where you can be enriched.  And, finally, remember it’s not who you know, it’s whom you know.

Habemus Chatam?

So we now have a new Pope and Vatican-watchers are falling over themselves to anticipate the likely hallmarks of his papacy.

A key emerging theme is dialogue - specifically dialogue which bypasses the formal hierarchy of the Church. Pope Francis is expected to go beyond the Cardinals and talk to the next layer down, the Bishops – apparently an unprecedented move.

Has someone been giving His Holiness lessons in change management?

Those of us who spend our lives working with organisations of similar size and complexity to the Vatican (albeit with perhaps less noble motives) know only too well the stifling effect of management bottlenecks, controlling the flow of information both up and down.

Cutting across functional silos – either horizontal or vertical – to enable dialogue with those closer to the field or coalface is essential if the challenges of change are to be properly gauged and ultimately re-framed for the multitude who stand to be affected by it or required to support it.

If Francis is to be the reforming Pope that so many hope for, there’s no better way to cut through the Bull.

Useful work v useless

Three recent news stories have raised questions about the nature of work.  Firstly, there is the transatlantic spat between the US tyre company CEO who is declining to take over a Goodyear factory in Northern France because the “so-called workers” only worked three hours a day, spending the rest of the time eating and talking. Then there were reports of a survey which found that one in three professionals is suffering from “burnout” leaving them struggling to cope with stress at work.  And finally there’s the news that Yahoo’s CEO is banning working from home in favour of meat space offices.

Useful work v useless toil was the title of a lecture given in 1884 by William Morris to the Hampstead Liberal Club.  He said that there were two kinds of work - one good, one bad. “One not far removed from a blessing, a lightening of life; the other a mere curse, a burden to life.” (Morris was also pretty handy with a soundbite: “toiling to live that we may live to toil” was rather a good one. )

For nearly all of us work is not an optional extra.  As Morris puts it: “The race of man must either labour or perish.  Nature does not give us our livelihood gratis”. But for many work has become all-embracing.  I often say to US friends that whilst they call themselves the land of the free they are, in fact, slaves to their work - starting ridiculously early, working ridiculously late, and taking fewer holidays than most.  And what is it that they do?  As Parkinson’s law states: “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.”  Work often becomes unproductive with the focus on a hamster wheel of input, constantly doing things and attending endless meetings.  Occasionally this production line results in output but not often enough to disrupt the raison d’etre of input for its own sake (for if we could achieve this input efficiently then how would we spend our days?).

The decision, taken by a global technology giant, to move all its people back into offices in order to be more effective at “communications and collaboration” is as good a definition of irony as you’ll see for while.  Technology was meant to liberate us, to allow us to work, share, learn, and produce efficiently regardless of location.  Here’s Morris again in 1884: “Our epoch has invented machines which would have appeared wild dreams to the men of past ages, and of those machines we have as yet made no use.”  Work is something you do not a place you go.  Offices can be hot-houses for team-work and collaboration, but they can also be noisy, unproductive, and bureaucratic places full of politics, processes and people.  Being rid of the need to spend the day navigating through what I’ve often described as large company syndrome can be a liberating experience, allowing issues to be seen with a far greater degree of clarity. As always it’s a question of balance but one thing’s for certain, you don’t get collaboration by imposing rules of where and how people work.

One interesting idea I came across recently was of an Australian company which had free Fridays.  For the first four days of the week employees did their jobs, working within their functional areas on the roles on which they were measured and incentivised.  On Fridays, however, they could work on whatever took their fancy across the business; private projects, assignments with other teams, or just offering help.  They found that problem solving soared and creative ideas flourished.  Allowing people to bring their ideas and expertise to a variety of issues is important.  As Morris again said: “To compel a man to do day after day the same task, without any hope of escape or change, means nothing short of turning his life into a prison torment.”   After all, it’s not where you work, it’s how and why.