Futocracy case study — part 5

Cobra Development
By Dr. Reg Butterfield
17 minutes read.

Welcome back to our “Cobra Development” case study. Today, we continue the induction process for June our new colleague in the team. In our last session with June, we discussed how we have replaced job descriptions, and the structures of functions and divisions to assist in creating new thinking about what work means. We also mentioned the importance of creating new neural pathways in our brains if we want to start thinking and behaving differently.

Thinking differently also applies to how organisations approach bringing about changes in the way that they work and/or behave. We raised the risk of trying to think differently and bring change into an organisation that is designed for stability without change, which accounts for most traditional designs such as the well-used hierarchical approach and why organisations need to be designed for change.

Today we are continuing June’s induction by explaining how Cobra Development is using its emerging new beliefs system as a tool for bringing about change as part of the daily work across the organisation.

[Those of you who have been following the Futocracy approach to organisations will know that it is built on five foundational principles (see newsletter 2 April 2023). These are then reinforced by additional subject related principles such as the one for change described last week. For more detail about the principle-driven approach to organisational design and management read our newsletters 13, 20, and 27 November 2022]

Continuing June’s induction

Good afternoon June. I want us to continue our discussion where we left off last time and pick up the subject of change again.

There is a lot of folklore around the subject of organisational change, most of which is not very positive. As change is a continuing process in one form or another, we at Cobra Development agreed that it was better if during the development of our new organisation we grasped the opportunity to rethink how we approached change. It was an important decision and was made during our workshops with our coaches Reg, Ross, and Silvia at an early stage of our organisational design discussions.

We decided that we would work and organise ourselves on the basis that change is part of our daily work for most cases and only in exceptional situations, such as corporate-wide changes, would we treat change as something special and use some form of project or another approach. Since then, we have found our new approach works very well and fits our distributed authority and decision-making principle nicely.

Let me tell you how it works. To do so, once again I will explain how we worked before and how this has altered in ways that have enabled change to become part of our daily work.

Looking back

In the past, we had complex processes for the different types of change. For example, if a customer wanted to change part of their product specification, or if a supplier had difficulty sourcing materials and wanted to use a different material or source, and even if a function or division wanted to change how they approached their work. The processes took a long time, involved many people, and required senior managers at almost every stage to authorise the next stage and so it went on. Little wonder that we all tried to avoid changing anything.

When a change was finally agreed upon and the process owners had made the changes to their processes and tools, numerous approaches were taken to let everybody know about the changes. However, people often ignored the changes and did things as they always had done before the changes were implemented. We had many cases of brand-new expensive software tools and systems being installed, people trained on how to use them, and then ignored because people continued to use their tried and trusted Excel sheets.

Discussing our new focus being on the work itself as opposed to how work was controlled, our coaches encouraged us to re-think how we could approach change. We realised that the hierarchical approach with functions and divisions, that we discussed last week, would not support what we needed.

Going forward

The other day, I mentioned to you that we work with a network of networks as our basic organisational foundation. It is important to understand what we mean by a network.

We were taught by our coaches that there are some very important aspects of networks that make them ideal for organisational designs that break away from the traditional hierarchical forms. As you know from your previous experiences, hierarchical forms are typically top-down in the way that they work, whereas networks are horizontal flat structures loosely controlled through multiple ways for collaboration without formal mechanisms for command and control.

We have learnt from our recent experience that networks are ideal for meaningfully integrating a wide diversity of people (or organisations) in an equitable and transparent manner. This means that we need to be flexible and agile enough to capture and benefit from the emergence that arises from our diversity and the interconnections that we have and develop across our networks.

This implies that the members of our network are important because without members, there is no network. A bit like if there is no formal organisation of work, there can be no informal organisation in the normal sense of the term because the informal organisation ensures that the formal work is done; no formal work to do, no informal work network is required (see newsletter 24 and 31 July 2022).

At the same time the complexity of our membership is matched by a clear understanding of how our complex network operates. Whereas in traditional organisations the “so-called” simple structures of hierarchy and associated divisions and functions create a need for un-written complexity in relationships to overcome the divisiveness of the hierarchal silos.

This reinforces a major important point about using a network approach in organisations, they operate differently to other forms of organisation. Networks such as ours seek to harness the collective skills and intelligence within them without typical forms of leadership; they use distributed or dispersed authority and decision-making, which we discussed the other day if you remember (26 March 2023 newsletter). Our team members rely on stimulating one another to develop and undertake the activities needed to deliver an outcome(s) for the network. At the end of the day, our PaT and network weaver do not directly implement and deliver outcomes, rather they support and facilitate our teams to achieve these.

As you know we work in small teams which vary in size of typically five to eight people. Each team has a defined outcome that they must achieve within a planned timeframe. In most cases each team is part of a larger group of teams that form a network. This means that each network contains a variable number of teams that together achieve a defined project outcome. Figure 1 provides an example of five engineering teams making up an engineering network.

Figure 1: a graphical view of a team-based network

“How did you arrive at the variable of between five and eight people?” That’s a great question June, which our coaches helped us to resolve. They pointed out that the different types and groups of people who have varying forms of relationships have remained pretty constant across hundreds if not thousands of years, millions of years when you look at the world through the lens of biology.

One theory that helps us here is the “social brain hypothesis” (Dunbar, 1992; Camilleri, et al 2023), which we can discuss in detail over coffee later if you are interested. Suffice to say now that depending on what people are trying to achieve and to a large extent the environment that they are in determines the group size to achieve their desired outcome. Hence, it is important to match the size of the group to the task at hand, although organisations seldom do this. When the PaT sets up our teams, they take great care to ensure that they are setting them up to succeed and not to fail, hence the group size is important for them to determine. I believe that they do this using a combination of used cases and the type of skills required using our dear friend and ally drone, albeit I have not been involved in this decision process in detail.

Group sizes example — Camilleri, et al 2023.

The size of between 4 and 8 has come up time again in modern research into success of groups. Camilleri et al use the following examples of group size to assist in determining optimal performance, albeit nothing is guaranteed:

· Making decisions fast — such as in crisis situations: five is a good number.

· Making complex decisions — 12 to 15 as it provides more perspectives.

· Work groups — six to 12 provided each person knows their role and the agenda is clear.

· Information sharing meeting — 50 if there is a clear leader and fixed agenda.

· Community of practice — 50 if it is to be run along simple democratic lines without a formal management system in place.

In organisational terms, there is a “special number” after which ‘weird stuff seems to happen’. Chris Cox, former chief product officer at Facebook, Patty McCord, former chief talent officer at Netflix amongst others talk about this, what they call “stand on the chair” number. If you stand on a chair and shout and people still can’t hear you, then you know you are in the realm of “weird stuff” starting to happen. You need to rethink how you are organised.

In an earlier newsletter (11 September 2022) we mentioned the company W.L. Gore and Associates, which was started by Wilbert Gore and his wife Genevieve in 1958. He limited the size of his plants to 150 because of prior experience and seeing the problems that happen when the size gets bigger. The Mars family also fanatically ensured that their HQ was capped at 50 because of what happened when it went above that number in their case; today Wrigley who now owns Mars has raised the size of the HQ to 100. Maybe the environment and work are different and so the “weird stuff” is not so early as in the past!

Teams and networks in change

Before I explain a change process it’s important to remind ourselves of the communication and support system that we have which is called drone. This support system is very important here because it contains a significant amount of information and processes to assist us in all forms of change. Over the years we have developed complex algorithms that enable drone to help us avoid costly mistakes.

So, let’s explore a simple change that is requested by a customer for engineering to make. The customer is currently working with us on a major project for a new product that they wish to start producing within the next year. The customer’s marketing department has asked that the engineers create a different shape and colour for the main module so that it fits better in their product portfolio. So, let’s log on to drone and go through the process together.

Okay, click on the change process icon, and let’s see what the menu has to offer. Click on the engineering section and from the drop-down menu click on packaging change. As you can see there are many options for the package change and so you just click on the parts that you wish to change. Straight away there is a warning sign. Drone will not let you go further until you answer some questions. Click on the answers that are there or if none of them suit the situation then type in a suitable response. The AI in drone will then respond accordingly.

I think from this very small example you can get a feel for how the drone works and supports you in the process. We will not go further using drone today as I can explain the process without having to use the time and detail it takes using drone, albeit the drone is actually very quick once you have used it a couple of times and are used to the type of information that it needs. It is important for you to understand that drone only needs the necessary information to support you achieve your task, and management information is automatically formed as you go along; there is no additional work for statistics or other management information.

In this example, to change the shape and colour of the packaging is not a big issue for the engineers because it will not affect the actual content and the operation of the product itself. However, it is important for people who will be involved in the various aspects of the packaging to be either consulted and/or involved in the decision-making. Just a couple of examples to help you here. If the packaging design changes then we must consider what impact that may have on production as they will have already started the process of design or modification of the production robots and other equipment. It may also mean that the supply chain management needs to consider different materials, volumes, timing of deliveries, cost implications of the change and so on that may result in an adverse knock-on effect for the suppliers. These considerations and many more will be highlighted for you by drone as well as from your own experience.

If the decision to say yes or no to the customer can be made by the team receiving the request, the process is more about informing others and asking them about potential impacts of your decision at their end. Because the drone also has the decision-making rights for team members and individuals within the system, it will automatically check to see if the person initiating the change process has the appropriate decision-making rights. While traditional hierarchical organisations focus on explicit delegation of authority, we look to guidelines supporting our principles to guide decision-making. This gives Cobra the ability to quickly react to new situations that do not fit within routine work processes. With very few exceptions each team can make the necessary decisions unless such a decision is likely to have an impact on one of the subjects that need to be dealt with by the PaT or CEO. For example, if the decision is likely to affect any contract relationships, legal liabilities, or finance outside of the team’s own budget.

The change procedure that is set up using drone has the advantage that all affected people are informed that the change procedure is in progress. In this section of the procedure, you can also invite people to meetings, online discussions, or request other activities to assist in making decisions as well as modifying any necessary processes or procedures. On a personal note, I also try to talk directly to people as far as possible so that we can continually develop our relationships and collaboration.

Because the procedure is documented within drone, everybody who needs it can gain information at any time. This means that the PaT members, including our network weaver, receive exception reports and updates when changes are being made. This not only helps their oversight of the business, but also enables them to bring in their broader expertise if necessary to support the change initiators.

In summary, when a team is involved in change, irrespective of the type or complexity, they use drone as their change tool. In doing so, all parties across the organisation who either need to be involved or informed are aware of the situation immediately. When the information is made available to individuals and teams, it is done so using a priority system so that they are not overwhelmed by minor issues that are already being managed.

In Figure 2, the diagram indicates a change being received by our engineering network from an outside source. The right-hand side indicates the drone at the centre and active participation by other networks with engineering. The PaT has a dotted line to indicate that drone keeps the team informed “below the waterline”. (The role of the PaT is discussed in our 12 February 2023 newsletter).

Figure 2: Simple Change Procedure

Change is not always as simple as the example above. Yet change is often overcomplicated because of the way it is dealt with from the beginning and a lack of transparency and communication. At Cobra Development we have set up a central support and communication system of procedures based on algorithms. It ensures that everybody can bring about change that benefits the organisation and its customers within the limits of their experience and ability. The network weaver is kept up to date with events and is both proactive and reactive to provide coaching or other support for those involved without taking away the person or team’s responsibility. This supportive environment is a good example of the organisation being built for change as a continuing activity in a way that also continually develops its people.

A major benefit is that the people, irrespective of their tasks, now feel valued and able to take affordable risks. This is a big change in their belief systems when compared to the past. Nobody is afraid of change, and everybody enjoys bringing opportunities forward to keep Cobra Development ahead of its competitors and remaining a leading-edge business.

Next week we will bring our short story to a conclusion. As in any induction process, June had many questions, which were answered during the induction process sessions, although not all have been repeated in this story. Simple questions and short answers will be our focus next week.

If you have any questions about Futocracy such as how it operates, how does a traditional organisation transition to a Futocractic way of working, or anything else that interests or concerns you about Futocracy, please use the remarks below and we will answer them.

References:

Camilleri, T., Rockey, S., and Dunbar R. (2023) “The Social Brain: The Psychology of Successful Groups”, Penguin

Dunbar R. (1992) “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates”, Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 22, Issue 6,