Impulses for organisations – Part 17

I was recently asked: ‘You now have over a thousand followers on LinkedIn. Is a company page even worth it?’ ‘For us, yes,’ I replied, “but the more important question is whether it’s worth it for the followers. It’s worth it if people find impulses there that helps them in their work. And it’s worth it for us if our content sparks conversation. That doesn’t happen on a large scale, but if a post reaches three people and helps them, I’m satisfied.”

Speaking of helping, here is the seventeenth instalment of our impulses for organisations. This time, it’s about ‘more of the same’ and optimising functions, feedback and deceleration, as well as dealing with goals in a professional, reflective manner.

Let’s get started:

Stephanie Borgert¹:

‘If the door is closed, stop pressing the handle!’

What do you do when you walk up to a door with gusto, press the handle firmly and realise that the door won’t open?

A: I wait at the door until it opens.
B: I press the handle again… and again… and again.

Most of us would have to tick answer B. It’s a phenomenon we’re all familiar with – our first (and sometimes only) solution strategy is ‘more of the same’. If the dog doesn’t listen, the owner calls its name once, twice, three times, four times. The only thing that changes is the volume. If the remote control doesn’t change the channel as expected when we press it, we just press it again, and again, and again. That’s human nature.

And we find this strategy in our working lives too. Requirements change, so we need more budget, more resources, more time, even more budget, even more resources, even more time, and so on. The project is running out of the magic triangle, so we need more controlling, even more controlling and even more controlling.

If what you’re doing isn’t working, then do something else.

Whether in the change process or outside it: when we reach a point where our previous behaviour no longer works, we try to achieve the desired result with more energy – we switch to ‘more of the same’.

This is called function optimisation. It is a good strategy for small to medium-sized changes, but its success is limited. After initially strong effects, this method eventually reaches its limits. It then takes a lot of energy to achieve even small effects. If the performance increase is to be very high or something new is required, we need a different approach. What we need then is a change of order. We have to change the pattern and do something different.

There are many often-cited examples of this in sport. It’s all about higher, faster, further. In shot put, for example, Alexander Baryshnikov introduced the spin technique in 1976 as an alternative to the previous glide technique and was the first to reach the 22-metre mark. In the high jump, Dick Fosbury set a milestone in 1965 with his Fosbury Flop and changed the jumping technique forever.

In short: if you want to generate innovation with your change, if a project is stuck or if you want to motivate your team to perform at their best, then you need a change in the system. But be warned, changing patterns always means relearning and changing behaviour, because fundamental patterns and routines are being renewed. This can shake up hierarchies and challenge power relations.

The next time you find yourself standing in front of a closed door, it’s good to have another strategy.

Ralf Lanwehr²:

The blind spot in feedback: Nobody talks about it, but many fail because of it

Most organisations are obsessed with speed. Feedback today, implementation tomorrow, next OKRs immediately afterwards, please. But this can prevent people from truly growing.

Feedback does not work like a software update. You cannot install it. You have to let it mature.

🔍 What does the research say about this?

In this context, science refers to systematic reflection. It has been shown that feedback without a pause for reflection remains superficial. Slowing down is the key.

At the same time, we know that boredom, euphemistically called a ‘narrative pause’, promotes creativity and insight. Not busyness. Not hustle. Not speed. Boredom. And this is where the real art begins. Maturation requires slowing down.

💭 Would you like some examples?

It’s a bit like brewing beer. After the hops, there is no action, only rest. Without fermentation, you end up with bitter brew instead of good beer. The decisive step does not happen in doing, but in not doing.

Incidentally, this is exactly how many Olympians train. 90% of their sessions consist of monotonous repetition. Not spectacular, not energetic, not ‘peak performance’. Top performances are not achieved through continuous fire, but through patient, boring groundwork.

👉 What does that mean in concrete terms?

If you take feedback seriously, you need to have the courage to leave gaps.

If you want development, you have to create spaces where nothing happens.

The decisive moments occur

• when looking at the car park,
• on the bus on the way home,
• while brushing your teeth,
• in the shower,
• in a mental mini-escape from everyday life.

That’s where ideas come together in new ways. That’s where insight arises instead of a sense of duty. That’s where behaviour grows instead of performance theatre.

💬 I have a favourite saying about this:

‘You can only lead people to insight, you can’t beat them into implementation.’

🎯 Conclusion:

Slowing down is not the opposite of performance. Slowing down is the breeding ground on which real development flourishes, just like good beer and sustainable peak performance.

Sources:

Ellis, S., Carette, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2014). Systematic reflection: Implications for learning from failures and successes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 67-72.

Van Tilburg, W. A., & Igou, E. R. (2017). Can boredom help? Increased prosocial intentions in response to boredom. Self and Identity, 16(1), 82-96

Kai-Marian Pukall³:

‘We need clear goals, otherwise where else can we find direction?’

I am constantly struck by how thoughtlessly certain mechanisms and tools are used in organisations. People are dissatisfied with something, take the next best idea that looks like a solution and throw it at the problem. If that doesn’t work, the problem is personified – you have the ‘wrong people’. It reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson from ‘Top Gear’ who mistreats the engine of his broken-down car with a hammer, damaging it further, and then decides he bought the wrong car.

Unfortunately, the statement ‘We need goals’ leads to strange conclusions. Are more goals better than fewer? Are precise goals better than vague ones? I’m not sure. A professional approach to goals (and organisational structures in general) would start with understanding what they are for and what they achieve. When it comes to goals, two effects come to mind in particular:

• Discussing and negotiating goals helps to clarify expectations.
• Deciding on or agreeing on goals reinforces the behaviour of those involved.

Clarifying expectations is usually a good thing. Not always – there are situations in which unclear expectations allow for solutions that fixed positions would not permit. But in most cases, talking about expectations promotes cooperation.

Rigid behaviour, on the other hand, can be good or bad, depending on the context. By ‘rigid behaviour’ I mean that people maintain their priorities, resources and attention on a topic even when confronted with new insights or opportunities. This can be a great thing. Anyone who has big plans needs to be able to do this. A three-week trekking tour through Patagonia or a complex website relaunch don’t happen by accident.

But this also means that we are not working on what seems important to us today, but on what we thought was important weeks or months ago. It’s obvious that this is not always a good thing. Added to this are ‘good enough’ effects: why should you keep working hard when you’ve already achieved your goal? It’s difficult to strike and maintain the right balance of motivation between what is possible and what is unlikely – because both need a good goal.

Goals must therefore be used in a targeted manner and their impact must be continuously reflected upon. And I often find that both are lacking.

Impulses and questions

Three topics, three experts, three impulses. Why do we regularly repeat things even though we know they don’t work? And how can we change our patterns? How can we manage to not only focus on speed, but also consciously slow down when working? And what prevents us from regularly reflecting on our goals in order to actually achieve the things that are desirable today and not those that we found desirable months ago?

Questions upon questions. Perhaps you have some too; great! Then Part 17 of ‘Impulses for Organisations’ has worked its magic. Thank you.

Notes:

Would you like to follow us on LinkedIn as well? Click here for the t2informatik Company Page.

[1] Stephanie Borgert deals with the management of complexity and essential aspects such as leadership, management, communication, mindfulness and systemic. You can find information about Stephanie Borgert in her LinkedIn profile, the impulse can be found here in the original on LinkedIn.

Stephanie Borgert has published several articles in the t2informatik Blog – for example, Change resistance in a team or ‘We need training!’ or Power and self-exploitation.

[2] Ralf Lanwehr has been working as an expert and consultant for evidence-based leadership, culture and change for over 20 years and has held a professorship in management since 2008. Information about Ralf Lanwehr can be found in his LinkedIn profile, the impulse can be found here in the original on LinkedIn.

Ralf Lanwehr has published an article on Authentic leadership is nonsense! on the t2informatik Blog.

[3] Kai-Marian Pukall works as an organisational developer for Seibert Group GmbH. He has been supporting agile teams for many years, always with the aim of making collaboration valuable and professional, simple and people-friendly. You can find information about Kai-Marian Pukall on his LinkedIn profile, and the original post can be found here on LinkedIn.

Kai-Marian Pukall has published several articles on the t2informatik blog, including Leadership is about directing attention and What parameters does self-organisation need or Using conflicts in the team productively.

Would you like to share these ideas as an opinion leader? Then feel free to share this article within your network.

Here you will find a selection of further impulses on the t2informatik Blog: