The C* word. It’s not safe for work.
The mention of this word results in a cringe among my work colleagues. Why is this?
The B* word blog was popular among my peers. Perhaps because talking openly about the things that we whisper about is freeing.
The c* word is the latest taboo topic that has them nodding.
There’s an apparent consensus among the Exchange community on the value c*mmittees offer to getting stuff done: they aren’t helpful.
But I’m not convinced it’s necessarily true that c*mmittees can’t be helpful — if they serve an appropriate purpose, or are existing in the right cultural conditions.
In discussing this with the Lab co-leads, we’re very clear: to enable good government we need effectively designed and delivered governance. So while we are challenging the broad use of c*mmittees, it’s only because we’re responding to feedback and aiming to be more effective.
So let’s explore how we might decide when we should avoid that C* word, and start a conversation about how we might express a more effective approach to governance.
Conditions
During my Agile Leadership studies at UBC, I really enjoyed geeking out on all the social science bits. Next to the Cynefin Framework, the Schnieder Culture Model stood out as valuable for navigating the people side of my work.
It doesn’t explain how to change culture; however, I do appreciate the model for its ability to frame some conditions and behaviors. A while ago, I adapted it to layer on some questions I have about what kind of governance might be appropriate, given different conditions:
I also layered on what I believe to be true about complexity.
Culture change is a large part of my work at the Exchange Lab, so being sensitive to the conditions that influence how people are enabled to act or behave is really key.
Control (top right)
When there are clear and effective rules or legislation in place to get things done, it makes sense to have a c*mmittee. They can decide on matters where those rules apply, because a culture of control is appropriate. Sometimes there are grey areas, or prioritization to do, but generally, they don’t need much more than some familiarity with the rule set, and some interrogation of the matter in front of them.
We have a rule set because the matters are not complex: we can categorize and layer hierarchy. Predictability is a reasonable ask.
This might be a little cheeky, but it makes me think of this:
Maybe the committee isn’t accepting circles right now. Good then. Move along.
This culture defines success as “keeping control.”
Collaboration (top left)
Sometimes we are working with clear objectives, and we need people to adopt new behaviours or learn things. We can’t just stuff them in holes. (Sometimes we try to do this, and it doesn’t turn out so well. That c* word gets muttered unhappily.)
We might not need to invent new things, but the world is a bit more complex than in the control quadrant. There is some figuring to do and teamwork is required.
These circumstances require that we tap into diversity and embrace the collaboration culture. Leadership is usually in place to provide constant realignment to the objectives, but it must also be adaptive to the approaches and structures the people need to be productive. A select group, disconnected from the team, meeting once a month with a strict agenda probably ain’t gonna cut it.
Momentum builds with the support of process and rules, but mostly through the enthusiasm of people who trust each other and get results.
This culture defines success through “working together.”
Competence (bottom right)
Sometimes we are more focused on innovation and progress than on rules. We still have clear objectives and experts are required to guide us there. This competence culture space might be a bit of a black box to others, because the work is specific, advancing fast, and usually involves jargon or technical elements.
This culture defines success through “being the best.”
Cultivation (bottom left)
When we are focused on innovation and it’s not clear how we’ll get there, or what good looks like, we need to accept emergence as a principle. This involves a cultivation culture, where we set a vision and enable teams to form around related problems, to experiment, learn and share. The work to do emerges from what we learn. Objectives might be loosely defined as “improve” or “make better” until we embark on discovery, defining and testing hypotheses, with a focus on the experience of the people we seek to serve.
This culture defines success through “growing people who fulfill the vision.”
Models Shmodels
There is lots here with which we could argue (and we can if you’d like!). In particular, many organizations have a variety of these cultural conditions, and there are probably plenty of examples of hybrids, so there’s lots of room for nuance.
My intention in sharing this is to offer a way to ask some critical questions about how we can be more productive. Like, what is the appropriate type of governance given the aims of an organization?
Taking the Exchange as my example, we’re firmly embracing the cultivation culture, with a side of competence culture. We’re innovating and focused on growing people to fulfill the vision. We’re also seeking to support future-proofing a large organization that is full of rules.
We’ve observed that c*mmittees — as they’re typically conceived — unintentionally diminish the value that comes from our culture through delay, arbitrary structure, and unproductive time.
It’s particularly painful to watch a table full of people who are disconnected from the users or the data, try to consume five slides that never do the matter justice… and then feel compelled to argue over what colour a button should be. (Okay, slight exaggeration…)
Meanwhile, people who are more accustomed to c*mmittees might find the cultivation space disorganized or worse, directionless. When we need to work with them, trust is hard to gain because they don’t feel safe. Conflict happens in secret and doesn’t get resolved. There’s work to do here, for all of us.
Meanwhile, we do experience exceptions. For example, our more-recent Lab resident teams have a committee of Executive Directors with responsibility for domains that impact the team. Leaders responsible for things like identity management, web standards, etc. gather regularly to unblock anything within their domains that’s slowing the team without good reason.
The trick here is that they show up in the style of “servant leadership.” It’s core to how we operate, so we offer training on it too.
Example: when you don’t need a C*ommittee
If you are like most of the world in experiencing change, you’re likely experiencing elements of cultivation culture creeping into your organization. You might also notice an inclination to strike c*mmittees, because, well, how else will we keep control of all this new stuff?
Here’s an alternative experience:
You have a competent team that your leaders trust. They learn as they go and they make most of the decisions. When they need support to:
- get aligned to elements beyond their reach,
- acquire resources,
- prioritize what value to deliver,
- get feedback to evaluate quality, or
- remove barriers,
then they will engage those who are competent to contribute in these ways. And they won’t waste the time of people who are not.
But how will we be sure they find those people? If they are focused on delivery, then they will naturally seek the people who help them. You don’t need to control this with the right conditions and signals.
We trust they are capable and motivated. They seek purpose, autonomy and mastery and they value delivery aligned to the public service commitments of accountability and integrity.
But what if they don’t know they need your help? Well, if you want to help and offer value to others, then participate in the community…
Yes, community. That’s the opposite of the C* word.
A productive community doesn’t just exist on its own. It also needs management, but it is very different than how we manage a c*mmittee, which is a controlled, limited and exclusive a group of people.
The community at the Exchange has been built from the ground up and it is inclusive. A small group of people who were aligned in their mission to make government better got started. And others, who were naturally inclined towards the community approach started to pitch in. The community emerged. It has also learned from itself and continues to cultivate value.
For example, to be actively connected and productive, members needed a communication channel other than email. Today there are close to 1000 members in the Rocket.Chat team messaging service. A competent team runs this platform and pays attention to the community that uses it. But more important: the community members contribute to improving the platform, and they host and help each other.
Our community has channels and conventions that guide behaviour and enable members to:
- Find the people they need;
- Discover new tools, methods or problems to solve;
- Feel like they are supported (we have a #kudos channel, and #How-to channels);
- Identify behaviors that are challenging the outcomes we’re collectively aiming to achieve;
- Have fun.
A community develops through vision set by leaders, who are visible within the community (not above it). It is fostered by “bridgers” and “convenors” who enjoy making connections between people within and beyond the network.
No community leads to c*mmittees.
You will be hard pressed to find a broad, inclusive community in an organization that is siloed and cultured towards competition. Unfortunately, competition is actually fostered by c*mmittees, which are typically exclusionary, slow moving, and unproductive, contrary to the missions they ostensibly seek to fulfill.
A very human trait is to want to feel we belong and are contributing to our peers. It’s an evolutionary advantage to be valued by our tribe. Exclusionary structures pit us against each other. Leaders can unknowingly dismantle cooperation when they strike committees… which seems odd, because we are bringing people together.
A committee might feel good as it gets started because when we are sharing ideas and imagining the future it all seems possible.
The challenge is that while the terms of reference might align us towards a goal, committees are not focused full time towards the effort. If we don’t see progress at the pace we can imagine it… this erodes trust and motivation.
Our delivery team structure at the Exchange Lab is also exclusionary. We’re pretty firm on the bounds we establish around the small agile teams who work full time on solving problems. The difference is that these teams are so focused on delivering value quickly, and they have the conditions to do so. They also need responsive peers who can share learning. So, they actively recruit community members to do this.
They are inclined to work with people who show up with the BC public service values of curiosity, courage, teamwork, service, accountability, and passion. So, you might see how this re-enforces a bunch of outcomes we are aiming to achieve.
Leaders swear the most.
Probably because they are sitting in c*mmittes all day…
I’m coming from a place of empathy here: sometimes it’s hard to appreciate the value of the cultivation culture, which is polar opposite to where a lot of leaders are expected to lead from. We’re managing the public dollar and there needs to be appropriate control in place, particularly where our clients need predictability.
So again, I don’t think it can be one or the other when you are dealing with innovation and rules. I do think we need to be mindful of the tensions between these cultures, and actively employ facilitators to help manage and mitigate these tensions to optimize delivery.
What’s your experience?
I’m aware that I find myself working in an interesting bubble at the Exchange Lab, and that the rear view mirror of my prior experience is probably a little distorted. So I’d love to hear your views.
Does this model of culture help explain why c*mmittees are valued or reviled in your organization? Are there other conditions we should be paying attention to? What other behavioural insights might be applied here? How might we better strike the balance between velocity and accountability? How might we best govern our work?
H
