February 27, 2011 § Leave a comment
Do you work in a company or an organization that is merging or has merged excellent smaller units and the management explain and claim that by doing this it becomes possible to improve company efficiency, competitiveness, management, administration, technology, and various processes, to have a better use of the resources and to provide opportunities for profitable synergies? This is what has happened at my own university, University of Helsinki (UH) and the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences (FBS), for example.
In the rhetoric, it is claimed that by combining different units, new strategic strengths are gained: for example, collaboration, communication and interaction between the merged units should create new possibilities, innovations and synergies. Indeed this can happen if the merged units can maintain their core strengths and cultures, or at least build on them, but unfortunately often their most valuable assets are such that the new organization or the other merged units are not able or ready to accept them. In the worst case, like in my own university, the core assets of the units can be destroyed without anyone noticing it and the hidden river of creativity dries up.
A destructive paradox
There is a destructive paradox in such mergers: the more distant the merged units – in their culture, competences, and in the mental models of their people – the more difficult it is to the other units and to those responsible for the merging, to understand, accept and even entertain this diversity. This introduces a strongly experienced internal need for control in the management and administration of the new entity. It can appear as a need for improving the knowledge or enterprise information management. This can destroy just those expected gains that the emerging synergies are expected to offer. I have commented a related management disaster in the Finnish University system in (http://ek.multiedition.fi/oivallus/en/search.php?we_lv_search_0=nyman&we_from_search_0=1). I believe that it is a result of the top-down blindness described here.
What happens is that due to the complexity and multi-valued nature of the merged units, it is difficult to find managers or management frameworks that would understand and master this complexity so that the new organization would really benefit from the fusion. In contrast, weak and narrow or loose top-down management visions inspire stronger and “richer” administrative and management control which in turn introduces centralization, “aligned” performance metrics and almost paranoid ways to follow “what really goes on in the new organization”.
Loss of qualitative resolution
Due to the large scale, the resolution of significant issues and cultural elements are lost, people are forced to orient themselves according to shared process and control systems and what has been aimed at with the fusion is silently destroyed by these disastrous forces. It is difficult to see these developments since the outcome can still be quantitatively and in the short run reasonably good by simply getting rid of the extra overheads. But the qualitative losses are almost impossible to see: who would follow the loss of such a potential and how? Of course, the people in the merged units see these qualitative, differentiating elements in their work and being: this has typically been their main motivating power, line of life, and the source of meaning in their work that they have been proud of.
Signals are weak in the management’s eyes but strong where creativity lives
After the merger, there is scarce place for such views and the signals they send are seen as “weak signals” in the organization. There is a good reason to claim – based on my own experience – that many so called weak signals are only weak to the strategic management, while those generating the signals perceive them as clear and loud – with no sensitive audience.
An analog to this situation is where a large company buys a smaller one but fails to secure the presence of the most skillful and competent personnel in the acquired company. By loosing the core assets the company has no future value.
What can be done? The window of opportunity to correction is extremely narrow since the destroying forces act on people in a few weeks and months. The best brains react first and loosing them physically or psychologically is equally expensive to the organization. At my own university, the quantitative damages could be seen perhaps in 10 years so there is no sense of burning platform there, as of yet although the destructive administrative processes are creating huge problems, loss of time, cynicism in the personnel, and utmost frustration. Brains have been lost in numbers, not physically, but psychologically. Everybody knows this but the real damages will appear only slowly. But it is highly likely that the qualitative losses remain invisible and you can perhaps read of them in the odd blogs like mine.
New challenge for incentive design
A preventive cure to avoid this kind of mistakes is a change management model with a holistic view of the main assets involved. This requires participatory change collaboration where unit differences are taken as starting points, different company cultures are recognized, and the change process is built on the asset base that the units can offer. This is the place to treat “the most valuable asset “ as it really was material capital. It is like building a cathedral.
But who would have incentives to do this and where would be the forum for it? Some suggestions can be given but it is interesting to note how in a large entity like UH or the whole university system in Finland, the forces that initiate these ongoing changes disappear as soon as they have got their processes started and there is no ownership – or responsibility – left. This makes even the most stupid processes like a perpetual motion machine.
When the sick change hits the fan
What to do when the problems are already occurring and there is a risk of loosing the core strengths of the merged units? The first thing to do is to make the whole scene perceptible: describe what are the essential assets in the merged units and what are they based on, what is taking place in the units during the change, what are the attitudes of their personnel, can they perform so that they maintain their best performance level. There are many forces in the administration and in the management system that are against this because it requires the visibility of all the mistakes made.
Managers do not have incentives to deal with what can be attributed to them as a failure, and the administration does not want to take more burden that they already have with the failing system. Very seldom there are people who have the skill and right to present a valid view of the new situation. The young generation (which is the most valuable future asset) does not see what is going on, they do not have that perspective. So, there’s another kind of paradox: the more ambitious the company – the establishment – in its future plans, the more likely it is to loose its main young assets in these change processes.
February 26, 2011 § Leave a comment
Unlike many correlation studies claim and imply – by linking our personal properties with our genes or brains – a great majority of us behave in a way that is different from the average correlation data in these studies. For example, some of us can posses a gene that is linked with a higher probability of being a novelty seeker or have a gene that suggests a tendency to depression but still have no depressive symptoms or have no characteristics of a novelty seeker. I call these people “H0 heroes” (http://www.innovationjournalism.org/archive/INJO-7-8.pdf) because they behave or have characteristics predicted by the null hypothesis, that is, they do not confirm the hypothesis that the scientists claim on the basis of the observed correlations and average differences. They are heroes who symbolically fight and win against the H1-hypothesis (that there should be an effect). Linking the activities of brain areas to specific individual features is no different from these gene stories.
But there is another class of inspiring individuality as well: many of us do not have these interesting genes, like the ones suggesting depression or novelty seeking personality – and still have the depression tendencies and novelty-seeking personality characteristics as predicted by the gene theories and as some of the observed cases with these genes indeed have. I call these model cases “H1 fairies” that display just the right type of behavior or characteristics even without the specified biological background factors.
Typical to many correlational brain and gene studies is that the H0 heroes and the H1 fairies in their material are totally neglected and the scientists do not particularly want to talk about them. We do not learn why H0 heroes and H1 fairies behave in their own and independent way. Such observations would make the generalization of correlations difficult and in fact they offer the scientists the difficult question “What is individuality?”
Of course we are different, but should we believe those who claim to know why it is so, what are the meaningful ways to characterize it, and how we are different? Often it seems that because the question “What is it to be a human?” is too difficult to answer, it has been reformulated into “What do the genes do to us?”, “What is our personality profile?”, “How intelligent are we?” “How are these properties linked with our success, failure, health or diseases?”. In normal life, during significant life events, and in our spiritual development, in the joy of life, these data have very little to offer.
I believe that each of us lives in a psychological space that is under the influence of a continuous interaction with a specific, individual environment, our dynamic inborn base, and our own intuition of ourselves. It will never be possible to map this intimate space by any scientific means. When we willingly interact with scientists and exchange ideas with them, or allow them to record this exchange of this personal space it can take place only in another, situational space that is not the one where we live in. Do I have data to back this claim? No I don’t, but I think it is a really good question what should that data be like and how could we find it.
During the present times of hard science business, competition for visibility, and global pr we are repeatedly led by the media to believe that either the brain sciences, gene technologies or intelligent data mining methods will reveal the ‘objective’ truth about us and solve the mystery of the human nature. “The big five”, “brain imaging” and “gene maps” try to convince us that these problems will soon be solved and that we know what it means to be a “person”.
Professor Horace Barlow from Cambridge, once commented that while physicists works to the accuracy of several decimals in their work biologists just try to get the sign right. The situation appears even worse today. If someone would make a claim that we will soon solve the main problems of the universe, such a person would simply be considered a fool. But there seems to be no such decent criteria for the arguments concerning us as human beings. For example, on 30th December 2010 the Telegraph made the claim, by referring to a study at University College London that “Political views ‘hard-wired’ into your brain”. This and similar studies continue getting the attention of the mainstream media. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html
As can be expected, the story does not tell why the observed correlations between brain anatomy and behavior do not concern all people. What on earth is taking place in the brains of those people who do not have the average properties? Besides, a clear majority of us are not “average”. So what is explained with these findings? They simply throw away all that is essential to human life, our differences, complexities, that is, what really makes us individuals. What is left to explain sounds like robots talking.
If we put the question “What are we like as measured by various indicators?” into another form, for example “How, during our lives and in numerous environments, we will experience the world and ourselves?” or “How and why will we behave in specific ways?” then the answers would have meaning to us and to the society. But these questions are too difficult and not much can be gained in pr by talking them.
True neurology and many other sciences of human biology and pathology are a different story: there the respect for the life of the patients and their demanding and compassionate close ones prevent unethical and stupid speculations what might be happening to them because of their genes or brains. The patients need help and then the criteria are simple: when a biological cause or a correlation is suggested as an explanation, the case has to be waterproof. It is a matter of scientific ethics.
If we ask, can we predict what will happen to us during our lifetime, what kind of life we will lead and how we will experience and share these experiences with others, the only honest response is “no”. It is as difficult a question as the problem of the universe, but we must try to solve it. There is a long way for many brain scientists and psychologists to finding the power of humbleness in front of these inspiring questions of humanity.