Kategoriarkiv: Networks

Tamsin Woolley-Barker on deep patterns in life

Tamsin Woolley-Barker is an author and evolutionary biologist. She looks for the deep patterns in life. Here is an article1 where Tamsin Woolley-Barke writes:

Organizations can’t keep growing the way we structure them today.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with hierarchies. In fact, nature uses them all the time—to stop change from happening. … Hierarchies are important and useful. But they aren’t the right structures for adapting to change …

Superorganisms … have been networked for a very long time.

Team performance emerges in real-time … Superorganisms break large, complex problems into tiny bites of action, building until tipping points are reached and change is triggered. There are no forecasts, budgets, meetings, or plans. There is no boss. Strategy happens organically, all the time, everywhere, and decisions are frequent, small, and imperfect.

If you want your company to change and grow, nimbly and continuously, … what you need is a living thing.

1 Tamsin Woolley-Barker, Want to build an organization that lasts? Create a superorganism, The Biomimicry Institute, 2016-03-25 (accessed 2016-09-16).

Living structures are fractal

A fractal exhibits repeating patterns at different scales. What’s interesting is that fractal structures are found everywhere in nature. Examples of such structures are branching trees and blood vessels. Even the largest known structures in the Universe are fractal. The cosmic web, for instance, looks very much like a neural network. Maybe the whole Universe is (approximately) self-similar over all scale ranges?

Related post:
The cosmic web

The cosmic web

Credit: V.Springel, Max-Planck Institut für Astrophysik, Garching bei München.

The distribution of matter in the Universe is not homogeneous, but is distributed in a network of knots and links. The knots are regions where the gravitational forces are higher. These knots are then connect to others through filaments. Researches call these large-scale structures in the Universe the ”cosmic web”.

1 Université de Genève, The cosmic web: Seeing what makes up the universe, ScienceDaily, 2 December 2015. (Accessed 13 March 2016)

Bonnitta Roy on an open architecture for self-organization

Bonnitta Roy describes in An Open Architecture for Self-Organization how to ”to distribute management responsibilities into self-organizing teams, without losing strategic performance”. She calls this ”The Open Participatory Organization”, or OPO for short. The governance of an OPO is CriSP, or ”continually regenerating it’s starting position”. This means that the form of the organization ”takes on the shape that best fits the current conditions and contexts”.

The OPO is built on ”locations”, which are occupied by teams. Locations ”co-evolve with the teams and people that occupy them”. The locations are ”performance-objective-value” zones, where:

  • The performance ”is an emergent outcome of the collaborative interaction of its members”.
  • The objectives ”emerge from the role-identities of its members”.
  • The values ”are an emergent outcome of the intentional-motivational states of the members”.

Bonnitta Roy distinguishes between two types of ”performance-objective-value” zones, core and network.

  • All ”key operations of the company” take place in the core zones. The core zones are ”where the value of the company is generated”.
  • All other operations that are ”necessary and sufficient for the company to sustain itself, develop, improve, and thrive” take place in the network zones.  The network zones are ”responsible for the exchange of resources in the organization”. Network zones are delineated into four major classifications: ”Access, Adaptation, Support and Incubation”.

Locations exist at different scales in the organization:

  • Organization, e.g., ”Vision, Mission and Values”.
  • Core & Network Zones, where each zone has a ”performance-objective-value” set that is common to all teams in the zone.
  • Teams, where each team has its own ”performance-objective-value” set.
  • Individuals, where each team member specifies their individual ”performance-objective-value” set.

The OPO distributes ”disciplinary power throught the network through a participatory governance”. Strategic choices are based on ”involved participation with what is actually the case, not on conversations limited to official scripts … and irrelevant abstractions”.

Related post:
Bonnitta Roy on how self-organization happens

Book Review: Team of Teams

Teams of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World by Stanley McChrystal, with Tantum Collins, David Silverman, and Chris Fussell, is a book about the restructuring of the Joint Special Operations Task Force from the ground up. The book is built upon the authors ”personal experiences”, together with their ”reviews” of ”published studies” and ”interviews” with ”experts in a wide variety of fields” (p. 5). The authors ”lay out the symptoms”, the ”root causes”, and the ”approaches” that they and others have found effective (p. 5). I think the book contains a useful blend of practical and theoretical knowledge.

The authors describe in detail throughout the book how they restructured the Task Force ”from the ground up on principles of extremely transparent information sharing … and decentralized decision-making authority”. In short, how the Task Force became ”a team of teams” (p. 20). The Task Force was an ”awesome machine”, but it was ”too slow, too static, and too specialized” to deal with its volatile environment (p. 81). Key to the necessary transformation was to understand what made the ”constituent teams adaptable, and how this differed from the structure and culture” of the Task Force at large (p. 92).

Trust & Purpose
The teams in the Task Force are forged ”methodically and deliberately” (p. 94). The purpose of the training is to ”build superteams” (p. 96). The training is all about ”developing trust and the ability to adapt within a small group” (p. 97). This is done because ”teams whose members know one another deeply perform better” (p. 98). Teams which are ”fused by trust and purpose” are much more potent, and ”can improvise a coordinated response to dynamic, real-time developments” (p. 98). ”Team members tackling complex environments must all grasp the team’s situation and overarching purpose” (p. 99). The physical hardship during the training “is a test, not of strength, but of commitment” (p. 99). Furthermore, “failure is always punished” (p. 97). The trainees who make it through the training ”believe in the cause” (p. 100), and are prepared “placing their lives at risk … alongside committed patriots” (p. 100).

Oneness & Adaptivity
The competitive advantage of teams is “their ability to think and act as a seamless unit” (p. 105). This is sometimes called “joint cognition” (p. 105). The point is that “a thorough integration of minds … can unlock far more complex solutions than a set of individual thinkers” (p. 105). Great teams are more like “awesome organisms” than “awesome machines” (p. 120). However, the challenge is that the larger the organization gets, the “harder it is for it to think and act as one” (p. 124). Team dynamics are “powerful but delicate” (p. 127), and teams are “much trickier to build and maintain than we like to think” (p. 127). Accomplishing a true “team of teams” involved “a complete reversal of the conventional approach to information sharing, delineation of roles, decision-making authority, and leadership” (p. 131).

Information Sharing
The transformation of the Task Force “demanded the adoption of extreme transparency” in order to provide “every team with an unobstructed, constantly up-to-date view of the rest of the organization” (p. 163). The critical first step was to share the “information widely” and be generous with “people and resources” (p. 167). The thinking was that the value of the “information and the power that came with it were greater the more it was shared” (p. 167). The “Operations & Intelligence brief” became the “heart muscle of the organism” and the “pulse by which it would live or die” (p. 164). The O&I, as it was commonly called, was a daily meeting “held by the leadership … to integrate everything the command is doing with everything it knows” (p. 164). Over time, the O&I began to “develop its own gravitational pull as more and more groups recognized what the speed and transparency … could offer” (p. 167). Individual and organizational “arrogance manifested itself in subtle ways as people tried to assert or maintain their preeminence”, but “eventually people either produced or faded in importance” (p. 166).

Information sharing was just a start. The next step was to strengthen the relationships “among the Task Force’s internal teams”, and between “the Task Force and the partner agencies” (p. 180). Slowly, “personal relationships” and “bonds of trust” grew between the teams (pp. 175—177). “Bonds of trust began to form” and “began to overcome internal competition and barriers to cooperation” (p. 180). The “new architecture” consisted of “extreme participatory transparency” and the “creation of strong internal connectivity across teams” (p. 197). Paradoxically, the “seemingly instantaneous communications … slowed rather than accelerated decision making” (p. 202).

The practice of relaying decision up and down the chain of command is based on “the assumption … that the cost of the delay is less than the cost of the errors produced by removing a supervisor” (p. 209). In reality, “the risks of acting too slowly were higher than the risks of letting competent people make judgment calls” (p. 209). Authority was pushed down “until it made us uncomfortable” (p. 214). On the whole, this initiative “met with tremendous success” (p. 214). “More important, and more surprising, we found that, even as speed increased and we pushed authority further down, the quality of decisions actually went up” (p. 214). One reason for this was that “an individual who makes a decision becomes more invested in its outcome” (p. 215). Another reason was that “leadership simply did not understand what was happening on the ground as thoroughly as the people who were there” (p. 215). “Individuals and teams closest to the problem, armed with unprecedented levels of insights from across the network, offer the best ability to decide and act decisively” (p. 219).

The role of the senior leader changed. The role “was no longer that of [a] controlling puppet master, but rather that of an empathetic crafter of culture” (p. 222). The focus shifted to “shaping the ecosystem” (p. 226). “Thinking out loud” and openly admitting “I don’t know” was “accepted, even appreciated” (p. 229). “Asking for opinions and advice showed respect”. The “overall message reinforced by the O&I was that we have a problem that only we can understand and solve” (p. 229). “A leader’s words matter, but actions ultimately do more to reinforce or undermine the implementation of a team of teams” (p. 232).

The authors emphasize that “there is no such thing as an organizational panacea—the details will always be different for different people, places, and objectives—but” they ”believe that” their ”model provides a good blueprint” (p. 249). I think something really important has to be at stake in order to be able to turn an organization into a team of teams. I also think you need to have true teams in place, and not just teams in name. The way of forging teams described in the book is extreme to say the least. And I think the role of senior leadership can be both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing if senior leadership really understands—and accepts—the central tenets outlined in the book. It’s a curse if senior leadership doesn’t, because then the team of teams will be turned into a “command of teams”, or just an old-fashioned “command” (p. 129). The book is well worth reading!

S. McChrystal, T. Collins, D. Silverman, & C. Fussell, Team of Teams, p. 129.

Related book review:
The Art of Action by Stephen Bungay

Corporate Rebels United

Are you ready to do what hasn’t been done before? Do you want to reclaim your passion for work? Then check out Corporate Rebels United! The following common principles define who they are and what they stand for:

  1. We love our organizations and want them to succeed in this high-velocity, hyper-connected world.
  2. We dare to be great.
  3. We have the mandate to be brave and to challenge the status quo.
  4. We will reboot our corporate and organizational culture to install a 21st century, digitally native version.
  5. We accelerate positive viral change from deep within the fabric of our organizations.
  6. We enable and empower the rest of our organizations to move at rapid pace, but with room for patience and reflection.
  7. We unleash the enormous potential that lies within every human being within our organizations.
  8. We re-ignite the passion in our organizations.
  9. We are not just talkers, but doers.
  10. We are building a global network of change catalysts that act from their true selves.
  11. Our actions lead to new product and services and new global practices for value creation, agility and velocity.
  12. Our community acts from deep personal awareness and presence, and an irresistible enthusiasm opening up old rusty structured.
  13. We are architects and scouts into the future,
  14. and we want to guide our organizations in navigating a safe path from now to then.
  15. We are very well intentioned individuals.
  16. We are united people with shared purpose, starting with our own being.
  17. We maintain integrity and relevance..
  18. We keep our community a safe environment, where you can become who you want to become. Where you are not alone in being a catalyst.
  19. Our core values are integrity, clarity of reason, brightness and great positive energy.
  20. Reflection, reporting back and adding-on to each others input and opinions is our natural way of collecting and discussing opinions.