Mavericks and Stalwarts — Functional Stupidity and Innovation
This is a GAI experiment using techniques and research to generate new methods based on my experience and expertise in creating vibrant teams and companies that innovate predictabley. Using a ChatGPT session, I discovered an interesting theory called “Functional Stupidity". After reading the research and some articles about it, I applied the ideas in order to generate a description of how to balance conservative practices with innovation in software. I generated a one-shot article and then used another chain-of-thought prompt to make a story that illuminates the idea… with a bit of brainstorming, I developed a new 10%-Time Innovation Program (TIP) that companies can implement to do things differently. I think the discussion of getting Mavericks and Stalwarts to work together is a great challenge in the software companies moving through scaling, and passing $20M in revenue.
The “stability sprint" that was generated is a money idea. It is easy to implement, simple to explain and would be a popular sprint in enterprise organizations.
Here is the generation. My prompt notes and ChatGPT session are at the end.
It’s only taken me 40 years to come to this kind of creation….the hard part will be to find out if it’s useful.
Functional stupidity is a term used to describe when people in an organization do exactly what is expected of them uncritically, without pausing for thought. It can be based on three main elements:
- Lack of reflexivity
- Lack of substantive reasoning
- Missing the big picture
Functional stupidity can be catastrophic and can cause organizational collapse, financial meltdown, and technical disaster. However, a dose of stupidity can be useful and produce good, short-term results, when applied at the right time. It can nurture harmony,.increase focus, and encourage people to get on with the job, and drive success.
Software Navigation and Balancing Act: The Role of Functional Stupidity in Organizational Design
In an era of rapid digitization, where knowledge evolves as quickly as the latest software update or new LLM, the concept of 'functional stupidity' may sound like a counterproductive idea. The theory, introduced by Mats Alvesson and André Spicer in 2012, offers an intriguing perspective on organizational behavior that, when balanced correctly, can foster both productivity and innovation.
Functional stupidity is defined as the conscious restriction of cognitive ability – the deliberate avoidance of critical reflection or refraining from asking potentially disruptive questions in a work environment. This selective ignorance, paradoxically, can contribute to smooth operations, avert unnecessary conflict, and function as a cohesive element within an organization.
Consider the software development environment. In this context, developers often adhere to established coding conventions and practices without questioning their efficacy. An individual developer may observe that a particular coding practice appears outdated or inefficient but refrains from questioning it because such disruption could potentially introduce bugs or delays in the development cycle.
However, an overemphasis on functional stupidity can be detrimental, as it can suppress creativity and innovation—key drivers of success in the software industry. If developers never question the status quo, the software may stagnate, leading to a loss of competitive edge in an ever-evolving tech landscape.
Alvesson and Spicer explored how organizations manage uncertainty and conflict. They discovered that, in certain situations, it can be beneficial to promote a culture where employees do not overthink or challenge the status quo, allowing organizations to stay focused on their core objectives without getting derailed by constant questioning or discord.
Critics may argue that functional stupidity nurtures ignorance, limiting organizational growth. However, the theory does not promote an uncritical workforce; instead, it suggests that a degree of functional stupidity can provide stability, particularly crucial in high-pressure, rapidly changing environments like software development.
Recognizing this balance allows organizational designers to ensure the right mix of stability and innovation. Developers should be encouraged to follow established protocols and conventions to maintain efficiency and prevent errors, while also providing them with avenues to voice their ideas or concerns, fostering a culture that values both stability and creativity.
For example, Facebook's regular hackathons allow developers to step out of their day-to-day work and create something new, fostering innovation while maintaining operational efficiency. This approach has led to notable Facebook features, such as the "Like" button and Facebook Chat.
As an organizational designer, understanding and applying functional stupidity requires careful consideration. Here are actionable steps to help:
1. Establish Clear Protocols: Define standard procedures and ensure they are followed to maintain stability and efficiency.
2. Encourage Critical Thinking: Foster an environment where employees can question and challenge these protocols at designated times or platforms, like hackathons or innovation labs.
3. Provide Constructive Feedback: Reinforce the importance of both adherence to established protocols and innovative thinking through regular feedback and recognition.
4. Document your work and agree in writing. Track results.
In conclusion, assessing functional stupidity in an organization can be achieved through regular reviews of operational efficiency and innovative outputs. Balancing functional stupidity and creativity can drive long-term success by maintaining stability while nurturing innovation. Navigating this dichotomy effectively allows leaders to reap the benefits of functional stupidity without curtailing creative thinking and growth. This delicate balance paves the way for building resilient and adaptable organizations ready to face future challenges.
How to make innovation work in and conserve process that’s effective
A Byte of Functional Stupidity: Rob 'The Builder’s Organizational Transformation at ByteWare
As Rob 'The Builder’, the renowned organizational strategist, walked through the lively office of ByteWare, he marveled at the hive of activity. With 35 years in building companies, a lot of familiar patterns were evident.
ByteWare was a vibrant software company, brimming with talent and innovative energy, and buoyed by a new series C financing, yet recently, it seemed to be grappling with balancing stability and creativity. Rob’s challenge was to help ByteWare foster the balance between functional stupidity and innovation.
ByteWare was a melting pot of the best traits of successful tech companies - the unyielding drive of OpenAI, the imaginative spirit of Google, and Amazon’s rigorous development standards. Yet, ByteWare was experiencing a slowdown in innovation and productivity - an issue that Rob was brought in to address.
ByteWare’s teams had personalities as distinct as the people leading them. Rob named the groups. There were the Mavericks, led by the vibrant Sara, were always pushing boundaries, while The Stalwarts, guided by seasoned developer David, were responsible for the reliability and stability of ByteWare’s software.
The task before Rob was to strike a balance between these two different teams and work approaches. He wanted to create a company culture that would value both the stability offered by established process protocols and the creative thinking and myth-busting ideas that brought about innovation.
Rob knew from his extensive experience that successful organizational change is often gradual and transparent. He started by initiating weekly 'Protocol & Innovation' meetings. The teams were encouraged to challenge existing protocols in a structured environment, opening up dialogues that would often reveal areas for improvement.
In these meetings, The Mavericks and their product owners freely suggested unconventional ideas that The Stalwarts often saw as disrupting their trusted protocols. Yet, Rob adeptly moderated these discussions, emphasizing the importance of balance between questioning and adhering to established procedures.
Over time, these meetings became a vital platform for change, where innovative ideas coexisted with established protocols. One such meeting led to a Maverick’s suggestion of a new coding convention being cautiously yet successfully incorporated into the existing development process, leading to notable efficiency gains using a fine-tuned variant of Microsoft Codex.
In addition to this, Rob introduced a new concept: the 'Stability Sprint’. For a specific period, everyone in the company would focus purely on following established protocols to maximize efficiency, Innovation was focused on the how and the details. The Stalwarts reveled in this time, while The Mavericks learned the importance of procedural stability.
Recognizing Google's "20% time" project was eventually phased out due to its lack of structure, Rob decided to modify the concept and introduce 'Innovation Time'. Employees were encouraged to devote 10% of their work time to pursuing creative projects, coupled with a competitive element. The result of this time would be showcased in monthly contests, where the most promising project would be recognized company-wide and given resources for development.
The introduction of 'Innovation Time' ignited a surge of creativity among ByteWare employees. It led to new software features and improved existing protocols. The contests bred a healthy competitive spirit, fostering a culture of innovation and excitement that was contagious.
Six months into Rob's strategic intervention, ByteWare began to witness a marked transformation. Both The Mavericks and The Stalwarts had developed a deeper appreciation for the balance between functional stupidity and innovation. ByteWare's productivity soared, and the company was buzzing with innovative ideas once again.
Rob 'The Builder's strategic and incremental changes demonstrated that maintaining the delicate balance between functional stupidity and innovation could be achieved transparently and effectively. It showed how an organization could leverage functional stupidity without stifling creativity, leading to a resilient, adaptable, and successful software company. Through Rob's journey at ByteWare, we learn that functional stupidity, when balanced with innovation, can indeed be a recipe for success.
//end
Notes: https://chat.openai.com/share/db3fdb82-ac09-49b9-8dd2-5fd13d26339b
Background Research:
https://chat.openai.com/share/4aae786d-d03e-49a2-9362-b4a2555fa033
