Fallible management: Recent Episodes

Bart Vanderhaegen

A podcast about management, knowledge creation and behaviour.

What is induction ?

The process of going from a set of observations to a generalisation
See multiple objects with a characteristic X, all such objects have characteristic X
The sun rose every morning already (every observed morning had the characteristic that the sun rose) … so the sun will rise every morning, so tomorrow the sun will rise again
“The future will behave like the past”

In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that concepts and theories are merely useful instruments whose worth is measured not by whether the concepts and theories are true or false (or correctly depict reality), but by how effective they are in explaining and predicting phenomena.

Suppose you are a sales perons, and have a product that allows the customer to be 3% more efficient in his operations

Why is just tranferring that knowledge to the customer not enough to make him buy your product ?

You may be wrong
There may be conflicting ideas still in the mind of the customer
Knowledge needs to grow in the mind before it can be enacted upon

What problem ?

“What can I do to influence the subjective valuation of my product by the prospect?”

Why that problem ?

You only sell something if the customer values your product more than its price (and more than alternatives)

Why is epistemology so important ?

And why is it not talked about ?

3 concrete tips:

Express ideas as explanations
Say how an action will transform a situation or capability, and why that action
NOT : subjective opinion about importance (loose actions / goals)
Avoid positive arguments
Arguments appeal to authority
Encourage alternative ideas
What other actions could lead to the same goal
What other better goals can be achieved via these actions ?

“The fastest way to grow knowledge is to set up a "competition" between multiple ideas, all vying to solve the same problem”

Mistaken for multiple reasons:

You cannot be 100% clear about ideas
It's coercive
It's good that we have conflicts of ideas: only those lead to improvement of ideas

Sales is not easy, and all things not easy can be made fun. More on that later

What is not fun about sales now

Inherently disappointing : getting so many no’s for 1 yes’
We make it dull or frustrating in two ways
by the typical KPI management
Discussions about numbers
By throwing vague ideas around
Customer is key / our products have value
Can say that about everything at all times, it does not solve any problem
By justifying “the right way” all the time
“You should just sell like this and the business will grow”
If it doesn’t work, it is frustrating to having to repeat that all the time
It does not allow for alternative trials/ suggestions
What do we do to compensate, but what does not make it more fun
Coaching
Often analysis of who you are and what you should do to improve
At the level of your personhood, not ideas to can help you sell more
Also quite generic, simple tests, simple ideas (be more self conscious, we are all in this together)
What can actually make sales more fun ?
Approach it as a problem solving exercise
The problem of what to do or say so that the subjective valuation of your product by the customer goes up
You need a theory
About the valuation
About what to say or do
You need to improve your theory
Find better ways to convey
You can do that together with other sales people
Not as just sharing opinions
But really testing the theory “what is we did A instead of B, what would happen, and why ?”
Creativity ! new ideas / improved theories !
The role of data: to point to an issue / not something you derive conclusions about
All actions are a test of your theory. They provide useful information to change it or improve it. Don’t just celebrate succes, but more importantly learn from mistakes !
There is an objectively best theory about what to do to persuade a customer, it’s fun trying to seek it out, by throwing out ideas that don’t work and replacing them with ideas that might work

Ideas/ knowledge can only change in 3 ways:

Preventing them from changing: you secure them from changing by justifying their truth, by adding arguments to them that say why they are true, e.g. appeal to authority arguments.
Subjectively adding parts to them (without critically investigating) that you feel are missing / or throwing out parts that you feel are not needed
Actually improving them: you find flaws in them and try to correct them

About the (intuitive) misconception: it’s people who solve problems, not really ideas

"Hard" management methods: Focused on measurements (deviation between a target/ forecast and actuals), setting up authority (hierarchy, roles & responsibilities), predictions (visions, targets, goals, …), providing "clarity", ...

"Soft" management methods: Focused on putting “people” central, with the idea that performance follows when people feel good

Sharing a quibble I have with the "blue" people characteristic in the Insights Disovery people assessment method.

The same question "why?" about some phenomenon in reality can have 2 very different types of answers: (i) the proposal of a causal explanation and (ii) the justification of the truth of the phenomenon

An explanation is a consistent mental model of a transformation/ task/ change, and it contains:

The result or goal you want to achieve
The actions required to achieve that goal
The arguments why (why that particular goal (and not some other), why will those particular actions lead to the goal (and not some others))

Epistemology is relevant when explaining any human activity, as it is a better/ deeper explanation than explanations at the level of behaviours (actions) or personality (assessments of persons as a whole)

Key aspects discussed related to how companies typically use KPIs

Start from the KPI and not from the problem and solution (for which the KPI was supposed to be an indicator)
Corrective actions are parochial and without causal power
Corrective actions that have causal power are corrective explanations and contain not only an action but also a goal and argument for how the action will cause the goal, but the corrective explanation is disconnected from the original explanation, i.e. does not serve to improve either one of both or both
KPI focus leads to the idea that only KPIs are a relevant source to criticise a solution. Whereas any creative argument can serve as good criticism to improve a solution (think about the aspects of a solution that are still not measurable because too early stage for example)

There are no "problem solving methods".

Reason being that if there were such a method, we would be able to automatically crank out solutions by simply following it.

The same goes for the "scientific method" (science is also problem solving). For example, Einstein had 2 miracle years (1905 and 1915), but followed "the scientific method" every day of his 40+ year career. If there was a valid scientific method, his output would have been much more smooth over that entire period.

Solutions to problems come from creativity, and improvement in solutions comes from correcting mistakes in the solutions. Both creativity (having ideas) and error-correction can not be prescribed by a method.

Which is a good thing ! It allows novelty, progress, improvement, ...

By the way, there is a method for "problem definition" though: the steps to take to define a problem, i.e. the AS-IS vs the TO-BE, the obstacles in between, the root causes of them, ... But defining a problem is still independent from the idea that will solve it.

Does money printing create wealth ? Austrian economics says no and with a very simple but powerful logical argument.

Some thoughts on David Deutsch” definition of knowledge as ‘information with causal power”

Also some ideas on how to use this in organisations

It is not contested that managers rely on their teams to get problems solved.

However, in practise this turns out less easy than stated here. I go into some of the reasons why it is not trivial and concrete ways for improving this.

What is a business cycle ?
The role of money
The unhampered economy
1. The hampered economy

Unpacking the slogan ...

The natural state of any relationship is that fact that ideas differ. That is not “a shame” … or a proof that there is distrust. It is just the natural starting position. If it were a proof of distrust, then the first step would indeed have to be to start developing trust

Instead, trust emerges, but is not a methodological primary step to achieve

The moral process and the knowledge creation process run in parallel.

Moral: being open, not lying, not being opportunistic, listening ….
Knowledge creation : the correction of errors on both sides

DMAIC:

Define the problem (Set the goal, ...)
Measure the problem (AS IS, ...)
Analyse (Root cause analysis, ...)
Implement (Find solutions test and implement)
Control (Monitor and sustain improvements, ...)

Popper’s method:

Problem definition ( "What to do next ?" Given the ... Root cause analysis, AS-IS / TO-BE, ...)
Tentative Solution (Tentative answer to the what to do next question, i.e. a guess for what to do to solve the problem)
Error-correction (Using not only data but also argument)
1. New Problem

Illustrating what methods don't mention via the DMAIC problem solving method

Comparing the Popperian method to problem solving to it's alternative

Thoughts on why I think ESG is not a good vehicle for moral progress in companies

Some thoughts on why and how I took up an interest in Austrian Economics

Start from a problem (incl. scope, conditions for good solutions, …)
Generate ideas with idea owners
Separate session on criticism in group (NOT adaptations)
Idea owner’s free choice to adapt idea or not

Knowledge creation is "evidence based" when it starts from evidence, and "explanation based" when it starts from a problem and a (guessed) explanation for how to solve it

All plans are wrong for 2 main categories of reasons

The goal is wrong: What you really get when you execute the steps may not correspond to the stated goal. Or the goal conflicts with another goal you want to achieve
The steps are wrong: you need different steps to achieve the goal you said to achieve

There are 2 ways to deal with this:

The bad way: seeking positive arguments
The good way: seeking criticisms and improve the plan

Covering two opposite conceptions about what science is: the inductive method versus Popper's method

Also briefly covering what the relevance of this is to all our "other" types of knowledge (e.g. sociological, political, moral, ...)

We seek answers to the question "Who am i ?"

But is that possible ? What is the alternative ?

What you can not use a goal for:

Derive what you should do next

What you should not use a goal for:

As an infallible prophecy of the future that cannot be wrong

What you can use a goal for:

Challenge your plans - eliminate things from your plan that will NOT get you to the goal
- Only one of the many ways to improve your plans, not the only one !

Introducing 2 possible approaches to answering this question ....

They cannot confirm your plans (only falsify them)

They take away the attention from other ways to improve, other than measuring things (arguments)

Both problems are soluble

Notice KPIs only when they contradict a plan
Spend more time on critical arguments rather than measurements only

We act upon our ideas - our behavior is a consequence of our ideas (goals, plans)

Ideas can be explicit, inexplicit and subconscious

Ideas evolve via conjecture and criticism

Now, when we want to make people do things, we try to replace existing ideas with new ones

Departments like Finance, Sales, … are constructs (to label and structure where people are)

What really exists are problems: conflict of ideas

For example: Finance wants customer payment periods shortened for working capital reduction, sales want to give longer payment terms. 2 ideas are conflicting here. You can never say that Finance deals with this, because sales is going to counter argue.

The solution to the conflict is never black and white IN a particular department

It is a mistake to think it should. “We are finance so we decide on payment terms”

It is all cooperation around a conflict of ideas from both sides. The solution that is implemented CAN EVEN come from a sales guy … or from any outsider. And those can be good solutions.

Or a sales person can criticise an initial solution from Finance, making Finance change their solution. Can you then say that the Finance department solved it ? No you can’t

What is the concrete implication: do not restrict solutions too narrowly to departments, set-up open, cross-functional teams to solve these problems, understand that solutions evolve via criticisms from many parties, making them eventually much better than the initial idea

People are the collection of ideas plus a universal capacity to change or improve them

When we hire people, we hire both aspects.

Many companies launch One Way of Working programs

Why

Oversee complexity - you don’t see it in small companies
Monitor and control deviations

Flaws

Methodology is never the key driver of impact
People act in vitally unique ways every day when solving problems
Take the autonomous thinking out of people’s job
Problem solving is impeded or delayed

We want to change in companies: from any current state to any new state (goals/ objectives). We need 2 things for that: a prediction (of the goal we want to reach) and an explanation for how to actually reach it (current state, actions, decisions, milestones, issues, ...)

We focus on predictions too much : the goals in and of themselves / plus the KPIs to show how far we are away from the goals, the rewards when reching the goal, the importance of the goal, ...

What is more important is to have good explanations for how to reach goals

For people to reach goals they need to know how. You can’t reach it without knowhow

And criticisms to improve those explanations

There are however still good and bad explanations

Bad explanations: “If you take your responsibility, you will reach the goal”

It is close to true but a bad explanation, it doesn’t explain how the goal will be reached

Good explanations: clear plans, with real-time updates whenever you learn from criticisms

Either from trying something or aligning/ correcting something in the plan before trying it out

The real knowledge is in the explanations, not in the goals not in the KPIs

Recommendations:

Explanations should get more time
Explanations should be written down (apart from all the goals and KPIs that are already transparant)
Criticism instead of seeking support for your explanation

Moralising

Start from a situation that they consider a moral problem
Something immoral, unfair
But then …
- Reverting to blaming the people,
  - generalizing from a specific event to general characteristics of the person in question or groups of people
- Excluding the possibility that people can learn from mistakes
- Appealing to condemnation of those people
- Signaling that you are not one of those people, that you have more truth

Solving a moral problem is the opposite

Identifying the problem, even asking if it is a real moral problem
Go into the specifics of the problem, the context, the actual events, criticisms on certain claims about the event … consider all your claims fallible, you seek more truth
Propose and test solutions

Sharing the recording of my appearance on the Economics for Business podcast where I talked about the experience of Flow and how to create open organisations that allow for more Flow experiences

Change is unpredictable

What you think the change will be
What I think the change will be
What the change really is going to be

Change can be overstated

Because it is unpredictable, we tend to overstate it
Cynical approach is taking over
People change all the time however.

Change is content related

People’s acceptance of change is linked to the way they perform their new work
It is not linked to or less dependent on how well you communicate the change

You need a minimum of autonomy to figure out how to accommodate for the change

Even if hard decisions have been made at the level of process or software, their consequences at the level of the work of everyone are not fully determined yet

Short announcement of the name change

You have failed versus you are fallible

You have failed = subjective judgment, because the standard against which you have failed can be anything to anybody
- The same objective series of events can still be labeled as failures or success depending on the subjective standard you want to measure them against
You are fallible: objective, there is objective truth and you can be objectively wrong about it

Why is fallibility important, regardless of failure of success?

It is the only way to allow to detect where you are wrong and try to correct it (improve it)
It has 2 opposites
- Relativism: I am already correct as what is true is what I consider to be true, other people may consider other things to be true. I cannot improve upon my claims because I assigned them already as true for me
- Dogmatism: I know I am right because I have infallible knowledge that cannot be improved. I have absolutely true knowledge in my hand already

Fallibility and failure are independent of each other, have nothing to do with each other

You can have failed and still learnt something about your plan/ goal
You can have failed and also NOT learn something about your plan/ goal
You can have succeed and have learnt something new
You can have succeed and not have learnt something new (your plan was sufficient for the problem at hand, or you have been lucky, or the subjective standard for success was so general …)

All 4 combinations of fallibility and failure are therefore perfectly possible

One danger is to equate fallibility to failing: admitting that you are objectively wrong is often equated to failing. And that is wrong, it is admitting that you are looking for improvement of your ideas and that you are not falling in the trap of relativism or dogmatism. So fallibility is something that should be encouraged in organisations ! Failure of course should not be encouraged, but it will not when you encourage fallibility. One because they are completely different things and Two because fallibility is the key condition of knowledge growth, and when problem become more complex, knowledge growth IS the key thing you need in order not to fail !

Authority can never be a "logically correct" justification for taking a particular decision.

Instead what we do (individually when contemplating a decision, or together) do is compare the content of candidate decisions, criticise that content (incl. consequences) and take the decision that survives criticisms best.

An organisation structure is any theory about:

How to divide work in entities and departments
How to organise those entities "internally"
How to organise the connection between those entities

However, it is a theory that is completely distinct from that other important question: "How to capture value in the market, consistently ?"

What I learnt from the theory of knowledge that I didn’t learn from reading 100+ management books

The question for all CEO's: "How am I making it easy to correct errors in my organisation?"

People are solving problems. They do that with idea’s. Some ideas are suggested, but many need to be developed. All initial ideas contain errors.

Now there is a simple 2 way outcome: 1) either people correct their errors or 2) people don’t

An organisation should be judged in how easy it is for people to correct their errors

Hard: no transparency, blaming and shaming, authoritarianism, superficial opinions without good explanations (why?)

Easy: comfortable with criticisms, allow to make errors (before they do harm), seeking good explanations

About personality tests such as MBTI, Insights Discovery, DISC, ...

Dutch version of episode 107

There are dramatic and less dramatic arguments of anti vaxxers. The dramatic ones are the ones dealing with the 5G chip implanted in the vaccine or the conspiracy theories of virologists and politicians to make the people obey and stay home …

But some arguments are less dramatic than those (but still false though).

An example of this kinds of arguments: The vaccines are not tested for the long term effects

What “hard” coaches really do, has nothing to do with coaching:

You scare your athletes (which is not giving any advice)
You can already cover yourself in the case of bad performance (which also has nothing to do with coaching)

How will I meet this expectations ?
Why in that way and not another ?

(to be asked continuously)

About interpretations of QM and why those "can" allow us to understand QM.

"Why did that happen?" is a common question.

You can, rationally, answer this question in 3 (very) different ways:

1) Giving evidence for the phenomenon happening

2) Giving "a" cause for the phenomenon

3) Explaining why your cause is a better explanations than some other cause (comparing explanations and retaining the one that survives the comparison, so the one that explains "best")

A short treatment about what is wrong, pessismistic and dangerous about this statement ;-)

Discussion about why personality tests "must be" wrong and why that is actually a good thing (that they are wrong)

I am referencing 2 specific tests (there are many more)

MBTI test: 16 types of behaviours
Insights discovery test: 4 colors and 8 types of behaviours

My arguments for saying that they are wrong are based on Karl Popper's epistemology (critical rationalism)

Bruce Nielson (@bnielson01) explains the 4 strands of the Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch (@DavidDeutschOxf)

The 4 strands contain our 4 deepest theories about reality:

The theory of evolution - (specifically the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution / Richard Dawkins refinement of Darwinian theory of evolution): how life evolves, how we can explain how species look like and behave, and how they came to look the way they look
The theory of epistemology - (specifically Karl Poppers epistemology of critical rationalism): the theory about knowledge. What it is, how is grows, how we use knowledge etc etc
Quantum theory (specifically the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or "the Everett interpretation"): about the behaviours of the smallest constituents of the physical world
The theory of computation (specifically Alan Turing's theory of computational universality): the theory about what a computation really is, and what the set of all computations is that we can express in physical systems (hardware)

Should we centralise or de-centralise activities in organisations ? And why ?

I argue that both of these statemnts are incorrect/ incomplete:

The hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) are "exact" sciences
The social sciences (psychology, sociology, economics, ...) are "different", and therefore not "exact", so we can treat them differently

Empathy is …the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

It results in a statement/ idea about the other: I think/ know that this person feels this …

And here is the point where epistemology comes in

2 possible errors:

You may be wrong because we didn’t put in effort
They may be wrong in expressing how they feel

Conclusion : your epistemology is as important as your willingness to show empathy

The Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis: Every physical process can be simulated, to arbitrary precision, by a universal computing device.

This claim seems to be the pinnacle claim of all realist claims, I go into it's various consequences for realism

There is a reality out there - actually 1 reality
We can create knowledge about that reality
That knowledge is not only descriptive but also explanatory (given that a computer program is an explanation)
Our knowledge can grow, matching reality eventually to arbitrary precision
1. Reality is deterministic
2. Physical processes are equivalent to computations. Computations cause physical stuff to move. So computations have causal power. So there are 2 types of causation : the laws of physics and knowledge (computer programs)
3. Given that our brains are Turing machines we are universal computers: we can understand everything once given the program
4. Given that there are no barriers to evolving our algorithms and create knowledge, we are also universal explainers: we can discover all theories that match reality to arbitrary precision
5. If morality and aesthetics involve physical processes (like suffering in morality or attraction in aesthetics) then we can objectively simulate morality and aesthetics as well. Making them also fields of objective knowledge, independent of our minds

So if you a "real realist", say you endores the CTD thesis ;-)

Some thoughts on why i don't think that big data = power

Or better: why there is much more to it than that

Discussions are about ideas, not people
1. Start from a problem to solve (a difficulty)
2. Ideas solve problems in a specific way (they are not random or standard, general recipes)
3. Ideas are transparent and written down
4. Ideas should be explanations, not just descriptions
5. The hierarchy should participate in the improvement of ideas (offering criticisms, not imposing them or not show no intrest at all in ideas)
6. Ideas have idea owners that own the improvement of their idea (with enough autonomy)
7. Criticisms that improve ideas is welcomed and becomes a tradition
8. Thinking = seeking mistakes/ making improvements … NOT justifying that you are right

Any person wanting to realise any thing (for example in a company) needs 2 things:

Ideas - I.e. information about: where do I stand today ? What do I want next ? Where should I aim for and how do I get there ?
Conviction: an explanation (by that person) for why the idea is important and will succeed

What do I mean ?

In management, we tend to “replace” actual ideas with approximations too easily and too quickly
High level statements about goals, visions, attitudes
Numbers about everything (dashboards, …)

Why do we do this ?

Simplicity: it becomes measurable and spreadable
Assume that the approximation will do the job

Does it work

Ideas do something different than approximations

Alternative

Focus on ideas, specific ideas and how to improve them
Using transparenc, autonomy and cooperation as drivers in that process

Sales management methods typically deal with procedures, practises, policies, dashboards with numbers (actuals vs target), etc

But what is the role of the ideas of sales people in all of this ? And the role of improving those ideas ?

Coaching/ Training = tackling the question “How should one behave?”

Emotionally / operationally

The more important thing = tackling the question “What should I/ we do next, why and how ?”

People solve problems “in the action” - they are not thinking “how should I behave ?” while doing things and trying to make progress

Some thoughts related to a post of Simon Sinek saying: “Take the risk of optimism”

Karl Popper explained that an argument never should go like:

I am sure of because of all these reasons: …

He explained that arguments should go like this:

Here is my theory … and it has these flaws: .... Here is another theory which has less flaws so might be more useful …

The problem with first way

It assumes that knowledge cannot grow: that there are only a finite number of solutions and that we have to pick the right one
It assumes you can proof that you are right
- Confirmation/ verification is impossible
- No authorities ...

So here is the key question that every CEO, leader or manager asks him/ herself:

Given that I know where to go with this company, & how, ... how can my idea spread so everyone knows it ?

Can you compare the effect of 2 different election systems in any given democracy ?

It's hard ! You cannot do controlled experiments like in science: too many different influences at play when comparing any 2 countries with different election systems.

However, you can compare the effect of election systems on 1 key thing that matters: how do they influence the growth of knowledge (i.e. the growth of knowledge that solves the political problems in a country)

According to Karl Popper: a problem is a conflict between ideas

Think = solving problems = growing knowledge (knowledge containing less and less conflicts)

Thinking is not : finding more arguments for your case, that is static. Knowledge doesn’t grow when you do that

So Popper was after the growth of knowledge all the way

Our knowledge is never final, never confirmed, and given our fallibility we can always improve and grow our knowledge

Naive falsification: "throwing out knowledge when it is falsified" is the exact opposite ... so cannot have been the aim of Popper

They should start from existing internal ideas

… and act as a party that tries to enhance the content of those ideas ….

… in such a way that those internal ideas

actually improve
but still remain internal (only internal ideas get executed: an idea that sits only in the mind of a consultant, can, by definition, never be executed)

A little upfront warning. In a good Popperian sense: a critique is aimed at improving something, not at throwing it out. I am not suggesting to NOT set goals.

Anyway here are the 4 critiques

The future is unpredictable
1. Setting a goal is kinda predicting
2. Sticking to the goal is counterproductive
3. People spend time energy and ideas trying to pursue something that in the end will have to be changed once it’s really really clear that it cannot be obtained
4. The goal doesn’t contain the ideas you need to make progress
5. The goal doesn’t contain the info on how to make progress
6. Example: I want to loose 10 pounds.
  1. Nothing in that statement tells me how to approach and what to do and why
  2. A goal tends to distract attention from making real progress now
7. It is much easier to disagree about something in the future than about something in the present (many more options, far less testable, also less concrete)
8. The goal should serve as a means to criticise what you are doing now
9. What you want to do now (and how and why) is much more important, and there should the focus be on. Goals can be used as criticism
10. Goals sometimes serve as religions that allow to forget about the question “what to do next?”. As long as we can indulge in the beauty of our long term destination, that seems to serve as a temporary relief. However, temporary reliefs are not what we are after, we are after figuring out what to do next (and how and why)

There is an asymmetry in how knowledge can grow: you can not push for it to grow faster but you can perfectly "prevent" it from growing (trough bad philosophy mainly)

So you can NOT directly influence the actual growth, but you can easily and directly influence preventing it from growing

About the focus on improving ideas/ error correction in the Pactify approach

Some thoughts on whether and when management consulting works.

Self-help advice (tips& tricks, books, coachings, ...) do seem to contain valuable knowledge in and off itself.

But is that all that is needed for them to work ?

The demarkation between good and bad cultures may be: the difference in speed with which good versus bad ideas travel in a group.

I am discussing the list of "constraints" that Popper applies to critical and rational thinking:

No confirmation or verification of a theory is possible
No induction without error correction allowed
No credences for theories, that's useless
No absolute sources of knowledge exist
No foundations of knowledge exist
No certainty possible
No recognition of truth is possible
No forecasts possible
No safe/ general claims allowed
No explanation less content allowed
No direct observation possible

The appeal to "cooperate" or "to do this together" is often coercive: it's a way to ensure everyone aligns to what you want. Real cooperation is different. Real cooperation = distributing autonomy + seeking consent around a new idea = not forcing everyone on 1 line

It is impossible to get everyone on 1 line before starting something, and it is impossible to do that at every step of the way.

So you need not want that

Everyone has different ideas about how to realise something, the act of forcing that to 1 given idea you have is not effective.

It works better the other way around : seek for the idea that gathers more people around it, by evolving it into an ever better explanation. By letting the idea evolution free instead of fixed on beforehand

Episode 75 - A misconception about communication : when you have communicated, you’re not “done” … you merely just started.

Some reflections after my talk at the Oxford Karl Popper Society.

The original talk is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB67Hp0n4QQ&t=4764s

Een idee van Karl Popper over politieke systemen ... toegepast op management systemen

This piece is based on Popper's 1945 book “The open society and its enemies” … where he laid out his ideas about politics and democracy.

Fixing a solution too quickly, and then being too sure, too soon

Too little autonomy in contributing to a solution
Too little cooperation in the problem solving process

Discussing the link between Flow (a concept coming out of psychology, and developed by Michaly Cszikcentmihaly) and Critical rationalism (a theory of epistemology, developed by Karl Popper)

In this episode I discuss the following slide in Linkedin:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6742406509872861185/

Pseudoscience / irrationality * Making claims about truths based on appealing to some "preferably selected" authority * Foundationalism and justified

Empiricism

Making claims about truths based on empirical evidence. The evidence "contains" the knowledge.
The authority becomes: the senses and the “information” that is given to us by the senses
Foundationalism and justified

Critical rationalism

All claims about truth are fallible, human guesses (‘conjectures”)
But they can be improved
No foundations and no justification, but error correction

"The Peter's principle" : You always get promoted to your level of incompetence

De wetenschappelijke consensus is het product van het wetenschappelijk process, tot nader orde het beste process dat we hebben om dichter en dichter bij objectieve waarheden te komen.

Compromissen zijn (uiteraard) een stap vooruit tov alleenheerschappij/ dictatuur/ … maar verre van optimaal om problemen op te lossen. Startpunt: "een standpunt" = een verklaring die 1 consistent geheel is van ...

Wat er moet gekozen worden/ en wat niet
Hoe die keuze moet geïmplementeerd worden (uitgevoerd worden)
Waarom dat dat zo moet gebeuren en niet op een andere manier

Een standpunt is dus veel dieper en breder dan bijvoorbeeld: ik vind blauw de mooiste kleur die er is

De essentie van een compromis: dat consistent geheel uit elkaar rafelen en hercombineren met delen die je uiteen rafelt uit iemand anders zijn standpunt

Het probleem

Niemand herkent het nog als een consistent geheel waar ze van overtuigd zijn dat het gaat werken
Niemand leert iets bij, het was niet datgene waar jij van overtuigd bent
Het hele proces begint van nul af aan, kennis groeit niet mee

Wat is beter:

Een consistente, complete verklaring de kans geven om getest te worden
Een verklaring waarvan minsten 1 iemand overtuigd is dat ze gaat werken
- Autonomie (maar via samenwerking verbeterd of verrijkt)
- Als het faalt, leert je er uit, want het was uw overtuiging in zijn geheel

Karl Popper is mostly known for his demarcation criterion between science and pseudo science … however, his theory of knowledge (epistemology) is lesser known, but at least as interesting. It's called "critical rationalism"

Een paar ideeën van David Deutsch (Hoofdstuk 13 "Choices" uit “The beginning of infinity”) los gelaten op de recente regeringsvorming

Regels zijn een soort ideeën maar niet alle ideeën zijn regels Er moeten toch regels zijn ?

Zijn ze statisch of evolueren ze?
Wie moet ze zetten ?

Regels lossen geen problemen op

De strekking “wie moet wat doen” * Geen autoriteiten op vlak van kennis * Gevaar voor justificatie * Verschillende tegenstrijdige ideeën gejustifieerd (enkel op basis van: het is mijn job maar niet: zo wordt het bedrijf beter)

De strekking “welke idee”

Een idee is centraal
Een idee kan verbeteren
Een idee hoeft niet 1 op 1 aan 1 persoon te hangen
- Het is iets objectiefs
- Je kan en moet het samen verbeteren
- 1 persoon kan wel de evolutie van het idee trekken, maar niet de inhoud ervan controleren

Voorbeeld van een mierenbrug: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BdjxYUdJS8 Een emergent fenomeen: iet dat wel verklaard kan worden, maar niet vanuit de onderdelen

Andere emergente fenomenen: gedachten, evolutie, computerberekeningen

Management inherently is a process of knowledge creation Knowledge about:

What direction to go in?
What steps to take?
Who should do what?
How to perform an action or task?

2 reflections: 1. Knowledge creation is inherently unpredictable 2. Two theories about knowledge (Justified True Belief and Critical rationalism)

What is management knowledge ? What problem does management knowledge solve?

How do we increase productivity?
How do we increase employee engagement?

What does management knowledge contain ?

Choices, decisions, actions, …
Goal setting, planning, executing and steering execution

Is management knowledge objective or subjective ?

What if we follow our subjective knowledge ?

Can we access it ?

Een idee eigenaar (idea owner) moet "goeie" kritiek organiseren rond zijn idee

"An idea owner should organise for criticism on his/ her idea in order for the idea to grow"

Het probleem

Een management methodologie gaat uit van justificatie
- Onze methodologie is foutloos als je ze volgt
- Popperiaans denken gaat uit van falsificatie
- Zoek actief naar fouten en corrigeer die

Wie heeft gelijk ?

Wat is het nu juist dat we controleren in organisaties?

Met welk effect typisch?

Wat kan beter wel gecontroleerd worden en wat beter niet?

We typically control 2 things in organisations:

"People" ... when we say “you should do/ think this or that”
"Outcomes/ results" … when we say “we should increase/ improve ….” (made impersonal, e.g. we should increase trust, engagement, productivity, ...)

Both ways are flawed ... so what is a better "use" of control ? (i.e. not flawed and with actual better outcomes?)

The specific PROCESS of knowledge creation ... not the CONTENT of the knowledge created ...

How do you do that ?

"Cooperation is happening whenever people on the team enhace an idea of an individual on the team"

Dit zijn 3 typische definities/ beschrijvingen van "samenwerking":

We zien/ observeren het: teams lijkens "volgens ons" goed samen te werken
Hebben het over het eindresultaat: een gemeenschappelijk doel bereiken
Hebben het over iedereen individueel: verantwoordelijkheid opnemen

De tekortkomingen: het gaat (i) of over observatie (ii) of eindresultaat of (ii) ingezoomd op te laag niveau

Maar geen van die definities gaat diep genoeg in op “hoe” samenwerking werkt

De hoe van samenwerking:

Het verrijken van een idee van een individu DOOR het team

De hoe van tegenwerking

Het verarmen van een idee van een individu DOOR het team

Een paar belangrijke punten:

Samenwerking start van een idee van een individu: elk idee ontstaat altijd ergens in 1 persoon, nooit toevallig tegelijkertijd in alle individuen in exact dezelfde vorm
Idee als uitgangspunt: dat is het primaire dat kan veranderen/ evolueren en de rest mee kan doen veranderen
Verrijken kan velen vormen aannemen: Uw steun betuigen aan het idee (consent)/ Kritiek geven op het idee om het beter te maken/ Voorstel doen om onderdelen uit te werken

Wat kan je doen om samenwerking te verhogen ?

Verrijking organiseren
- Idee eigenaarschap
- Communicatie (expliciet / inexpliciet)

Interview met Jozef Van Giel, maker van de podcast "Kritisch denken"

Een boeiende podcast over epistemologie, pseudowetenschap en wetenschapscommunicatie

Website: https://www.kritischdenken.info/

Twitter: @RusselsTheepot

Enjoy !

Bart

Het probleemoplossend vermogen van een organisatie zegt iets over hoe goed een organisatie problemen aanpakt, het valt uiteen in 3 componenten

Welke mix van relevante problemen, en hoeveel, kan de organisatie aanpakken ?
Welke kwaliteit van de oplossing ontwikkelt ze?
Welke graad van samenwerking haalt ze, in het ontwikkelen van de oplossing

Kritiek klinkt slecht, maar eigenlijk is kritiek het mooiste geschenk dat een idee kan krijgen.

Het idee wordt beter, degene die het idee heeft wordt beter, en samen krijgen jullie het gevoel dat de verbetering van het idee vanuit samenwerking komt

Geen kritiek geven is erger: desinteresse of optie uitspelen om het idee van tafel te krijgen ...

Kritiek moet altijd in de vorm komen waarin gesteld wordt hoe een idee verbetert en waarom. Als je dat niet kan dan is het geen goeie kritiek

Emergent fenomeen = elk fenomeen wat tot stand komt via een relatief complexe opeenvolging van oorzaken en gevolgen
Waarom is het relevant?
Bijna alles is emergent
Het maakt verklaringen moeilijker maar zeker niet onmogelijk
Het kan ons verleiden tot overgesimplifieerde verklaringen voor iets
Als problemen complexer worden en we zoeken te simpele verklaringen om ze op te lossen, gaan we zo ook niet goed oplossen
Emergentie is NIET controleerbaar: je kan niet alle stukjes van de ketting van oorzaak en gevolg identificeren (daarom is het emergent) … laat staan beinvloeden en controleren … dan kom je zeker ergens compleet elders uit met uw resultaat !
Wat kunnen we nu doen ?

Eerste nederlandstalige episode. Over managen "door te voorspellen".

Feedback& kritiek graag via: bart@pactifymanagement.com

Dank voor het luisteren !

Mvg

Bart

PART 12 today

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a “hard to vary” explanation
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together can (and should) tie people more strongly together than their shared place in the organization
Real cooperation is seen in the solution that people develop: everyone (i) contributes beyond their role (both to the what/ how/ why of the solution) and (ii) acts to align to it
A good solution doesn’t break down classically into its organisational parts. A good solution makes it hard to guess who contributed what to it (by the look of it)
Knowledge creation/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop optimally in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

Thanks for listening !

PART 11 today

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a “hard to vary” explanation
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together can (and should) tie people more strongly together than their shared place in the organization
Real cooperation is seen in the solution that people develop: everyone (i) contributes beyond their role (both to the what/ how/ why of the solution) and (ii) acts to align to it
A good solution doesn’t break down classically into its organisational parts. A good solution makes it hard to guess who contributed what to it (by the look of it)
Knowledge creation/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop optimally in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

Thanks for listening !

PART 10 today

PART 9 today

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.

Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge

The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)

The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives

Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)

A good solution to a business problem needs to be a “hard to vary” explanation

The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected

Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution

Solving a relevant problem together can (and should) tie people more strongly together than their shared place in the organization

Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why & how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation

Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs

Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com Thanks for listening !

PART 8 today

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a “hard to vary” explanation
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together ties people more closely together than their shared place in the organization or shared opinions
Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why& how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation
Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs
Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

Thanks for listening !

PART 7

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a “hard to vary” explanation
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together ties people more closely together than their shared place in the organization or shared opinions
Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why& how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation
Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs
Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

Thanks for listening !

Today point #6 of our 12 point filosophy

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a “hard to vary” explanation
A solution is an answer to a problem
The typical problem that is solved in organisations:
So the solution = all the things (knowledge, decisions, actions) that will get you as an organisation to the desired improvement ?
Why does the solution needs to be an explanation?
Because that may be complex and may result in unwanted outcomes if you don’t understand why some things will happen and not others
What is the criterion of “hard to vary”?
Why does it need to be hard to vary ?
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together ties people more closely together than their shared place in the organization or shared opinions
Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why& how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation
Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs
Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

Today Part 5

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a hard to vary explanation
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together ties people more closely together than their shared place in the organization or shared opinions
Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why& how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation
Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs
Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

This episode is part of a 12 part series on the Pactify philosophy, today POINT 4

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a hard to vary explanation
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together ties people more closely together than their shared place in the organization or shared opinions
Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why& how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation
Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs
Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

This episode is part of a 12 part series on the Pactify philosophy, today POINT 3

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
Organisations are problem solving systems
Problems are inevitable, they come at you in continuous flows
The problem solving capacity of an organisations is defined as: (i) The kind of problems it can solve (ii) The quality of problems it can solve and (iii)The amount of cooperation in doing so
Organisations need to continuously improve on all 3 aspects simultaneously
There is no holistics remedy for this: No overall slogan or remedy
It is also not reductionist: you cannot tweak simple buttons for this and hope that the overall problem solving capacity grows
It’s emergent: it grows “in the action”/ it emerges from the action; at avery step of knowledge creation, progress and cooperation
So there is also a limit to the predictability of this, let alone the controlleability of this … however of you get certain things right inside of the emergent process, there is a ways of guiding the problem solving capacity towards continuous growth
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)

6.A good solution to a business problem needs to be a hard to vary explanation

The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together ties people more closely together than their shared place in the organization or shared opinions
Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why& how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation
Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs
Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

This episode is part of a 12 part series on the Pactify philosophy, today POINT 2

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a hard to vary explanation
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together ties people more closely together than their shared place in the organization or shared opinions
Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why& how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation
Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs
Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

This episode is part of a 12 part series on the Pactify philosophy, today POINT 1

Start from a question/ problem, not from an answer or half answer.
Most problems are unique, requiring new knowledge, they cannot be optimally solved with old knowledge
The main task for an organisation is to continuously grow it’s problem solving capacity (being able to solve more problems, more optimally, with more real cooperation)
The best solutions “emerge” in a process, they cannot be known/ controlled in advance, they are the ones that eventually resist criticism better than their alternatives
Knowledge cannot be poured into people, they need to work themselves on understanding it, through own ideas and criticism (and you “staying in the question”)
A good solution to a business problem needs to be a hard to vary explanation
The solution (explanation) you build is never infallible, can not be justified but only (continuously) error-corrected
Engagement is primarily driven by being able to solve relevant problems, with enough of your own input in the solution
Solving a relevant problem together ties people more closely together than their shared place in the organization or shared opinions
Real cooperation is when everyone (i) contributes beyond their role to a shared explanation for why& how to solve a problem and (ii) finds maximum alignment in the how and why of the explanation
Good solutions (evolved ideas), developed in cooperation, extend across& over roles/ functions/ layers. They cannot be clearly separated and reduced to the sum of distinctly separate inputs
Good knowledge/ engagement/ cooperation … all develop in a specific process of “learning in the action”. The process has 5 key drivers for the learning: real communication, transparency, autonomy, flow and group flow

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

A selection of 4 ideas from Karl Popper that should be part of all management books:

There are no fundaments for knowledge - justificationism doesn’t work
Authorities are not a good source for knowledge (Good knowledge comes from solving a problem through alternated conjecture and criticism)
The problem with “the bucket theory of knowledge”
All observations are theory laden

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

Why should we always want to “decide things together” ?

If we don’t, does that make us a “lesser” team, or on the contrary ?

What is the consequence of “deciding things together” … on the quality of the decision?

For feedback/ comments/ criticism: reach out to me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

As always, thanks 4 listening !

Episde about what is wrong with most theories about leadership ... and what the concept of "emergence" has to do with it.

For the concept of emergence, I refer to episode 22 and episode 7

For comments/ criticism/ feeback: mail me at bart@pactifymanagement.com

Cheers

Thanks for listening

Bart

For criticism and feedback: reach out at bart@pactifymanagement.com

Thanks for listening

Cheers

Bart

Explanations are key in project management.

They state why and how a goal will be reached (and e.g. why not in another way)

Also, people can improve and align on explanations (not on isolated statements in a plan or report that show no direct link with the explanation for succes)

Many projects only contain isolated statements (of actions/ TO DOs/ Status/ ...) with explanatory power: without explaining why those things will lead to result (goal achievement) ... and why not other things.

About a very popular yet dreadful expression: “KISS: Keep it Simple Stupid” At least, it’s a non statement. And it’s misleading.

Discussion on my Linkedin slide: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6683960594212671488/

What can we learn from Einstein’s theory of general relativity, in terms of (i) the power of the evolution of an idea and (ii) The importance of error correction

Episode about “what is an idea” … or “what is a relevant definition for an idea”.

Classical: an idea is a short, action focused statement. E.g. “let’s go to the gym” … or “let’s make a plan first”.

Ideas should not be isolated single statements. They are more. They should be evolving into broader and broader accounts of “how you want to solve a problem”.

Why?

By making them short and isolated you miss the beauty and the power of an idea
Because ideas are important, they change the world. But only if they are allowed to evolve into an explanation. An explanation of why and how a problem will be solved.

An explanation grows in a particular way: the good parts are kept, the bad parts are replaced. But the entire thing is and should still be the idea. Or the explanation if you want.

It’s wrong to say: we need 1 idea and then the execution is just brainless automated follow-up. In and during execution you need new ideas and improve them as well … all of this is also part of the entire idea to solve the problem.

Episode on this slide I posted on Linkedin:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6680377988816617472/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A6680149857430196224%2C6680377879110410240)

Emergence: all phenomena that have complex causality in the way they “appear”

Examples of emergent phenomena in organisations:

A good idea that gets implemented with succes
Cooperation between people
Leadership behaviour of managers
…

The issue: you cannot control for emergence to happen

But what can you do ? … That’s what this episode is about.

Episode about this slide I posted on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6680084290505592832/

Dealing with the difference between good and bad cultures in organisations, and especially with how good or bad cultures “grow”/ “get created” … (i.e. the drivers)

Governance = answers to the “who should rule/ decide/ do … about what?” question

Why do we consider it as a dogma? It has the potential to solve everything

Why can it never be “the” solution to all problems?

What is missing therefore ?

We all know that criticism doesn’t work when it’s about people.

We know it should be about content, content of people’s ideas.

But then ? How should we provide criticism (or feedback) to content ?

Reporting is vital in organisations

I want to highlight 2 very different ways of reporting … and it’s consequences:

Status reporting : where do you stand versus plan ?

“Theory reporting”: What are you solving? How ? And why ?

Small diversion into the 2 main epistemological theories: Justified True Belief and Critical Rationalism/ Fallibilism

And why being fallible is good news in organisations (!)

What is "We should ... -management" ?

What are its mistakes and how to correct them ?

Contents:

The bucket theory of knowledge: a classical theory about how knowledge is transmitted from one person to another
The criticism and improvement on that theory (by Karl Popper)
The implications thereof

The best ideas are not the ones that come from the smartest people

Also, the first version of an idea is irrelevant

What matters is HOW an idea evolves !

An idea can evolve along these content elements:

The goal (what makes the problem to be solved)
Approach (how to get to the goal)
Status and planned progress (what part is realised and what part is still to be realised)

But what are the relevant drivers for optimum evolution of an idea? (What makes that it evolves in the best way - as opposed to less good ways?)

In this episode I go into 2 quotes of the philosopher Sir Karl Popper:

Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a ways that you can avoid being misunderstood
All observations are theory laden

What is fallibilism ?

What is it’s opposite?

Why is it relevant for management ?

What are drawbacks?

How to overcome the drawback ?

Ideas, and only ideas, are the primary ingredient for any type of improvement we seek

This episode deals with how and why ideas get killed in organisations, and then do not make it into solutions that deliver the improvements we sought for.

Out of scope in this episode:

The questions on"What is the difference between good and bad ideas?"
The question on "Who should have which idea?"

Linkedin version of the podcast: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bart-vanderhaegen-46a6971_ideas-business-change-activity-6672453919261655040-sQto

Enjoy

Bart

Flow is the optimum experience … as coined by the psychologist Mihaly Cszikcentmihaly.

He did very interesting work in trying to figure out what the explanation was for this experience, what the causes or drivers were.

He came up with 3 key drivers of Flow.

The experience itself can be looked at from different perspectives as well and I want to go into one which is often underrated:

The psychological experience: it feels really good, it makes you forget everything else
The performance related experience: you deliver your best possible performance/ outcome when in Flow
The knowledge creation experience: (and this is the one which is often forgotten) you create the most optimum knowledge while in Flow, the very specific knowledge to keep you in Flow and making optimum progress. So Flow is also a knowledge creation process …

To illustrate this we need to look at the third condition for Flow: the balance between skill and difficulty. This condition implies that Flow is something dynamical, that you can always fall out of Flow and get back into Flow during your activity. The reason being that both skill level as well as the difficulty of the task is dynamic and not static. Any activity has phases of varying difficulty … and your skill level is also dynamic: the more you do something, the better you become in that activity and therefore your skill level increases.

Now if both skill and difficulty are constantly changing over time, how do you keep them balanced in order to maintain the experience of Flow ?

The answer is: by continuously creating relevant knowledge
- Knowledge on how to increase the difficulty if you get bored
- Or knowledge on how to increase your skill (learn from your feedback) if you get frustrated

Both types of knowledge creation are the essence of optimum learning, and as it goes with knowledge creation: it’s fallible, never right the first time, and takes a lot of error-correcting to get closer and closer to the kind of knowledge that is useful. In this case useful to maintain Flow (by either understanding how to get out of either boredom or frustration)

I use the term “problem solving” a lot, as a synonym for "work", and it needs some explanation.

First of all, it’s NOT about interpersonal problems
It is: CONTENT problems, that prevent you from making progress and that require you to come up with a solution to make progress again

It’s not negative ! on the contrary, it’s positive ! It’s what you need in the first place to make progress !

Ignoring problems is ignoring opportunities to make progress.

Or worse, or more dangerous, consider that all new problems are the same as old problems and that therefore can be solved with old knowledge …

But then, why talk about problem solving when you can just talk about “performing work” ?

Well that would be oversimplifying things

There is much more to “just doing my job”
Your daily job, even in very operational type of jobs, is never the same
The context always changes, the people you interact with can have different reactions, …
- Example: the receptionist at the hotel ...

Suppose we don’t create knowledge while performing work, then either work would be 100% repetitive which is impossible or we would never be able to make any kind of progress.

If you really believe that you don’t create new knowledge while doing your job:

They your job can immediately be replaced by a computer
Or you are permanently stuck in your job, making no progress at all anymore

So … we don’t just “perform work” … “we solve problems in order to be able to perform our work”.

In fact, this makes work interesting, you don’t just say “I sell computers” … you can go deeper into what makes that job so specific ? What problems you encounter and what specific ideas you have or are working on to solve them ...

On a broader level, and when thinking about “how to make more progress” … which is the ultimate question at the end of the day … we can ask ourselves many very interesting questions:

What kinds of problems should be solved and what kinds should not ?
How to decide what problems should be solved ?
Who should decide what problems to solve?
Where should problems be solved?
Who should solve the problems?
How to optimally create knowledge and foster behaviour in order to solve those problems?
How should cooperation look when solving problems?
What processes and drivers promote optimum problem solving ?
…

The point being: if we look at work as “just performing the work I am responsible for performing” … we neglect all of these interesting questions … we neglect all of the optimisation potential that is opened up through these questions. We basically rely on oversimplified rules for how to organise work or “who should do what and report to whom”.

I hope to get into all of these specific questions in future episodes, it will take us some time because they open a variety of different and new aspects such as the theory of knowledge creation, and principles behind behaviour change

Hope you hang on to discover and relate to it!

What is it ?

Organisations are problem solving systems
Everyone, at any moment, is doing something that is aimed at making progress (be it creating knowledge or executing knowledge to solve a problem)

You now have options for organising problem solving

Option 1: The role in the hierarchy determines the problem you are expected to solve
- There is a specific one-on-one link between who should solve the problem and the kind of problem that is solved
Option 2: Distributed problem solving - no one-on-one link between between who solves the problem and the kind of problem

Option 1 has a problem

It’s impossible to separate problems into the exact domain of responsibility of every separate individual
- Problems have dependencies with other people’s domain of responsibility
- So far so good, then we just create combined teams ?
- Another problem: it’s not by combining people into teams that they will also consider this a combined problem and certainly not a combined solution
- Consequence: they’ll get stuck. They cannot just add their respective solutions on top of each other. There will be new problems when you do this … problems of inconsistencies, costs that are too high, inefficiencies …
- So you need to work on those tradeoffs
- But that is typically not done … we escalate or we give in
  - We let them have it … or we let the people above uw decided
    - So the real problem of option 1 is that the problem is NOT solved anymore in cooperation
  - So that we may miss crucial knowledge from one of the 2 parties in the solution
  - So that we may miss important knowledge if the decisions are made at higher levels where there is less information to make that decision, and less time to make the decision

So how does problem distribution work?

Define a relevant problem & team that will need to create more cooperation to solve it
Start a specific process … to keep the problem solving optimal and at the same place
- Avoiding that the problem gets solved elsewhere or without the relevant contribution of every party in the solution
- Managing optimum knowledge growth and cooperation to do so
Drivers: communication, autonomy, transparency, flow and group flow

What are the obstacles for it to work well ?

Problems can be taken away from those teams and solved elsewhere
Timing may be too short for optimum knowledge growth to kick in
No facilitation in the teams when it’s need for more balanced and aligned knowledge creation

Pactify has a specific approach for "distributed problem solving"

A platform
- A single one
- With transparency on problems, how they relate to each other and what solutions are being developed for them
A process with a facilitator
A hierarchy that is willing to use power to keep the process going and not stop somewhere half way
- … willing to “keep the problem solving down into the organisation”

For more info, please visit: www.pactifymanagement.com

Emergence is a complex property of a physical system. A physical system can be anything from a bunch of atoms& molecules interacting together, up to organisations where people act and interact together as a system.

In the case of organisations, the components of the system can be roughly divided into

The people (and their competences, talent, personalities, ...)
The rules of how to work together (e.g. the objectives& goals, governance: who decides what, roles & responsibilities, reporting and metrics, ...)

Now, what are the kinds of emergent properties over time ?

The knowledge that is created among those people (i.e. to achieve a goal or solve a specific problem)
The behaviour that is exhibited to create that knowledge

Why is this relevant and interesting (for managers) ?

The emergent phenomena (knowledge and behaviour) are the ones that determine success or failure !
But they cannot be understood/ explained/ predicted/ affected through only focussing on the components (the people & the rules to work together) !

For more info, please visit: www.pactifymanagement.com

What software platform to use for your implementation program?

You have 2 types of populations in a transformation program:

The high level people: who need aggregated, consolidated views on progress of the transformation (to make decisions)
The low level people: people in project teams executing the work, who need detail, structure and clarity in their tasks and progress

The question is: How do we organise reporting/ transparency in both populations, through what kinds of software platforms ?

As always: happy to hear comments and criticism ;-)

Enjoy

Bart

For more info, please visit: www.pactifymanagement.com

How do we know what we know? And why is that relevant for organisations?

In this episode I touch upon a aspect of epistemology (the theories about how we create knowledge, grow knowledge and spread knowledge), namely the different potential sources of knowledge:

1) Authorities

2) Faith

3) Observations

4) A problem you start from

Happy to hear your criticism

Enjoy !

For more info, please visit: www.pactifymanagement.com

Episode 4: People don't understand things by merely communicating or showing example behaviour

About the fallacy of "the bucket theory of knowledge"

For more info, please visit: www.pactifymanagement.com

So now for a controversial claim: ciriticism leads to the deepest form of cooperation ...

For more info, please visit: www.pactifymanagement.com

First episode is on the question that has interested me for the last 20 years already: "Can you increase productivity and engagement simultaneously ?"

For more info, please visit: www.pactifymanagement.com

Hello,

This is the intro episode of a podcast I am starting up about management, behaviour and knowedge creation.

Hope you like it

Cheers

Bart

For more info, please visit: www.pactifymanagement.com