What causes a change?

During a discussion on the new advancements in technology, a friend asked: — What is the common denominator of these advancements? Obviously one answer can be: the maturity of technology that allows for certain solutions to become affordable. But I strongly believe that it is the people who make the advancement happen.

So, I started thinking what are the key characteristics of the companies or organizations that are the new kids on the block these days. I don’t want to say any truisms here but my conclusion boiled down to the culture of these organizations. More specifically to the three major points: agency, purpose and embracing uncertainty.

Agency

You can name it in many fashionable ways: be it agile, Design Thinking, turquoise organization — any of these management styles are about agency. Giving the people the opportunity to exercise their skills, their interests, their passions. Letting them excel in what they are good at. It is sort of obvious when you look at developers or designers — these professions showed that when given the space to execute their talents, they can bring the business to the next level. But I strongly believe the agency is the approach that is equally applicable to any other profession: recruitment, HR, accounting, mechanics. Giving people the freedom and trust brings what’s best in them. Makes them feel responsible for their work. Makes them want to grow and evolve rather than stick to the safe waters of status quo.

Obviously, this is not the case with everyone. There are people who exploit the trust. Who see the agency as the opportunity to be lazy. But more often than not they either change their attitude when they see others acting according to the different set of rules or leave because it is just too much work to hold on to the position they would like to see themselves at.

Purpose

The goal of the organization needs to be a conscious and deliberate act of questioning status quo. Blockchain was not created because someone saw a chance to build an alternative banking system. It was an act against the banking system. Other solutions might not have been the proactive rebellion against something that is presently rotten but an act to fill a void that was not filled it before (like Basecamp or Trello). Or a way to show the extent to which some solutions can be rethought and changed to serve their users (like Slack or Zoom).

What many these organizations also share is that the purpose is not about the money. Or at least it is more than money. Money (if at all in the picture) is a side effect of a job well done. As soon as the company becomes to be about the money (or the power) it immediately starts to solidify the status quo. It does it because now it is part of the status quo. It stops being the rebel.

Embracing uncertainty

Many organizations mistake risk with uncertainty. Risk is something you can assess. Measure. Compare. If it is March on the north hemisphere, the weather forecast tells that it will rain and you see the sky drawn with clouds, you are able to asses the risk of getting soaked if you decide to go for a run. If you create a product that does not exist on the market, you cannot do that. The only thing you can do is to embrace uncertainty. Let yourself feel tense. I keep on telling my students (based on acute personal experience) that only when you fell your butt squeeze, you are onto something new. If you feel relaxed about your idea, you are embracing status quo. Risk is about comparing and weighing the chances of success versus failure. Uncertainty is about knowing that you simply don't know. Organizations that are good at bringing the change know how to dance with uncertainty. And they don’t mistake it for a risk.

Is then a way to remain a rebel?

I am sure there must be. For once a company might decide to quit the race to keep on growing. This race makes many organizations focus on playing the old tricks over and over again. They worked in the past. So why shouldn’t they work in the future? Yet playing the same tricks makes the organization stop learning. Brings laziness to the way of thinking. Makes the work about influence and politics not about the purpose, agency and embracing uncertainty.

How about public administration?

It seems like everything I just wrote should apply to public administration as well, shouldn’t it? Yet so often the opposite is true. Public administration sucks at embracing uncertainty. They tend to see everything it terms of risk assessment. So they keep on creating more and more rules and control mechanisms to avoid risks. Not realizing that this is not about risk in the first place. This is uncertainty. About knowing where you want to go and finding the optimal way to get there. By enabling people to be at their best in what they do.

I’ve heard opinions that people in public administration are bureaucrats not artists (an artist being a creative and independent person). I wonder whether this is true. Is it that the people choosing the public service are not looking for a space to express their values and their talents? Or is it that the organization that envelops them leaves no space for agency, purpose and embracing uncertainty.

Am I missing something here? What are your thoughts?