Lots of people have told me how they hate meetings, interruptions and administrative overhead at work. And on the internet you don’t really have to search long to find excellent blog articles like meetings and why I hate them. Not only the time and energy spent in meetings that do not seem to produce value, the time required for all the context switches is often not taken into account as “work time”. We will only get paid for spending time on actually producing value as “agreed upon with our managers”.

And the better we are at doing “multiple things at the same time”, the more that loss of time and energy is considered a part of the “free economy”. We may actually be asked to spend 50% of our time on a “trouble shooting or problem solving” for that yearly goal setting form, but without taking into account the necessary “context switches”. Encapsulation attempts?

Goal setting form??? Yes, that form that assumes a stable year, and has just stolen a weekend of our time because we know it will come back to haunt us during a performance review. Filling in that form is also not considered “work time” …

The stolen time and energy in filling in forms, meetings, and loss of time and energy due to “context switches” and “power plays” is one of the things most organisations have “tacitly agreed not to talk about”.

Focused on actual response-ability and excellent product manifestation as we creative problem solvers can be, we do not want to loose even more time and energy on fighting the legacy system, and we kinda leave it at that. Kinda, because it makes us hate those meetings, forms, and procedures, and eventually our work.

Trouble shooters’ and problem solvers’ time and energy are taken for granted, become hidden factors, simply because an organisation and management process in general does not desire to find “trouble”, “problems” and “mistakes”. Especially executives do not want to know. We must all just be more positive, n’est ce pas, and success will manifest itself, so “the illusionary top” can get those fat bonuses, and “give” us a “free” lunch?

The Love

Focused on maturity of excellence, we can land ourselves in a position where we get encapsulated by the system because we keep solving the “wrong problem”. The real problem here is the above multiple bind the most creative problem solvers can be in. Solving these system problems requires courage of the problem solver/change artist/foreign element to

• raise awareness on these issues.
• gather multiple viewing points even when “everybody knows that …”
• use excellent communication.
• break any co-dependency dance and attachment with named system so encapsulation can’t work.
• anticipate aggression from the system, even when we would like to believe we are already working in a more fully humane context.

Balancing Our Act

From the Satir Change Model (our experiences as change artists):

In an organizational context, a foreign element can be generated internally, inspired by the desire to improve. This desire can come from management or from participants on the operational level; the change can be mandated or voluntary. How such desires are substantiated by which stakeholder will greatly affect the reaction to the foreign element. In both cases they are reactions. In the case of an unwanted, unexpected or mandated change the people within the organisation (system) may try a number of strategies to neutralize the impact of the alien element. The system may reject and expel the foreign element; people may ignore it, use delaying tactics, or may try to encapsulate the foreign element within the “normal” ways of handling things, or they may try to find a scapegoat to attack and blame.

When mandated sequences of events are experienced a couple of times on the operational level, trust levels of operational people in management being able to lead, goes down quickly. People will anticipate more on potential future management blaming than by management desired changes. Whatever happens, people do learn to anticipate effectively!

And a healthy balanced system accepts and investigates the foreign element mirrors received with care in mind, and integrates what is (re)useful.

People going incongruent in meetings, thereby making the meetings “unfocused” and “unproductive” are a sure signal there is something “hidden” or “blind” in an organisation that needs attention. We can’t simply fill in that “it’s for attention” and ignore the signal. We can ignore it after investigating if and when we so choose. When people want our attention it may be for a reason. Maybe there is some information that may shatter our belief the system is in excellent condition, but if that is the case and if we haven’t chased away all our creative problem solvers yet, the gains are just around the corner and can outweigh the loss of our personal shattered belief by a tenfold, minimally. How interactions and stances can affect a system?

The Challenge

It is what it is. And if people have no desire for “excellence”, for whatever “reason”, so be it.

Any effort to control the nature of things is ultimately useless. One who knows this, however, is free to continue to insist on trying.

Are we actually on the lookout for such signals too, and investigating the system if and when we hear people complain about “unproductive meetings”? Besides meaningful measurables on that beautiful porsche type dashboard, do we also track significant observables? Are we seeing, guiding and steering towards a more fully humane system or routinely looking at an illusionary black box?

Do we really wish for maturity of excellence in our organisations?

1. Put profit over value. In the ever faster running war-work-western-culture-machine, your customers value their (recreation) time the most. You can use this to gain profit. For example, if your complaints department only opens in one location, and only between 10 and 11 am on monday – to allow people to fill in the complaint forms required for making an appointment to actually launch their complaint – your business is probably doing great.
2. Value meaning over significance. Your idea for an item, system or information is brilliant. You do not need marketing research, and no compelling story to sell it – your idea is so brilliant, it will sell itself. This is, of course, because you are absolutely right. And branding is for unthoughtful simpletons and evil businesses.
3. Don’t ever be unconventional. The conventional patterns are good enough for others, hence good enough for you and your business. They’ve served mankind so well for so many millenia now. People everywhere really enjoy the familiar and hate change. Besides, because we’re going for a single “bottom line” approach (see pattern 1), we can use that “built up over millenia recognition factor” to our benefit.
4. Go absolutely unconventional. No plan or recipe required.
5. Don’t ever verify or validate anything. And don’t cross train and gain with your colleagues.
6. If you are starting an international business (or aggregate), do it in the 7 most widely used languages, right from the beginning. Chinese, Italian, French, Spanish, Japanese, German and English. Have ‘em all. We did this for an open space aggregate. Really, it’s a definite killer.
7. If you are starting an international business (or aggregate), forget about other cultures entirely when choosing your business name. The truth is that no business name — regardless of how memorable or even how well-established — is critical to success. For all intents and purposes, “Triad” is a fantastic name. So is “Butt Sweets”.
8. Never ever link a product that satisfies a need that hasn’t been catered to sufficiently (yet), to an ongoing development. For example, do not link your business to the free/open source economy. And never link controlled folly fun to Satir Workshops.
9. …