Impulses for organisations – Part 19

In the depths of the internet, there are many impulses that share experiences from professional life and address collaboration within organisations. However, the majority of these little gems are only visible for a short while and then seem to be lost forever. In Part 19 of our series on impulses for organisations, I would once again like to ‘provide a platform’ for the perspectives of experts on the t2informatik Blog. This time, we’ll be looking at monkeys and stories in change management, the contradiction between short-term measures and long-term strategies, critical thinking, and the use of user knowledge in the face of constantly changing parameters.

Let’s get started with the new impulses!

Dr. Juergen Schueppel¹:

Monkeys in change management

The following story is often told in (change) management training courses, based on Michael Michalko’s account. It seems to illustrate how rules and routines can persist even though the original reason for them has actually disappeared:

“Five monkeys are in a cage. Bananas are hanging above a ladder. Every time a monkey climbs the ladder, the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. After just a short time, the monkeys themselves prevent any of them from climbing the ladder. Subsequently, each of the original monkeys is gradually replaced by a new one. Although none of the remaining monkeys has ever been sprayed with water, they continue to attack anyone who approaches the ladder. The story usually ends with the line: “That’s just how we do things here, even though nobody knows why anymore.”

Quite apart from the fact that we aren’t monkeys 🙈:

These kinds of stories, which somehow fit well to “substantiate” a piece of management wisdom, tend to take on a life of their own and, through constant repetition, become accepted as fact. The actual source and/or the statement that can actually be substantiated are forgotten in the process.
In fact, there was an experiment involving monkeys that demonstrated the following: Stephenson trained individual monkeys to avoid a specific object. If they touched it, they received an unpleasant blast of air. These ‘trained’ monkeys were then placed together with ‘naive’ monkeys who had not had this experience.

The key findings:

(1) A social transmission of the ‘unpleasant’ experience took place.

(2) ‘Naive’ monkeys (partially) adopted the avoidance behaviour because a ‘trained’ monkey pulled a ‘naive’ one away from the object or made a threatening gesture.

(3) The transmission was limited.

(4) There was no chain of generations in which new monkeys continually passed on the ‘rule’.

(5) Interestingly, the fear partially disappeared again: in some trials, ‘trained’ monkeys observed that the ‘naive’ ones touched the object without any negative consequences. As a result, the originally ‘trained’ monkeys lost their own avoidance behaviour and began to use the object again.
The scientific observation was therefore that monkeys can adopt behaviour socially, but can also unlearn it when they see that the original danger no longer exists.

And that is actually the most fascinating point: the real-world experiment does not primarily show how traditions are passed down indefinitely, but at the very least also how new experiences can undo old behaviours!

For change management, this is almost the more interesting message: culture is not merely inert, but can be changed by visible counter-examples.

Complexity, productivity or knowledge transfer: the wrong topics at the wrong time, time and again?

I read an article about VW. The central argument: decision-makers didn’t miss the boat on trends; they deliberately prioritised short-term optimisation. The system rewarded behaviour at several levels in exactly this way. Not strategic foresight, but direct, short-term optimisation of shareholder value and decisions that were personally advantageous. This raises an uncomfortable question that affects me directly as a consultant.

My core topics – such as knowledge transfer, complexity resilience, process-integrated learning, etc. – require a long-term perspective and long-term decisions. This is precisely what is lacking in ‘short-term systems’.

Two empirically proven findings from my own research in the energy sector:

1. The classic trigger for knowledge management is not strategic foresight, but the departure of a knowledge holder. The pain comes first, and then perhaps a (belated) reaction.
2. Knowledge management only works if it is integrated into processes – that is, embedded in day-to-day operations – rather than being a separate project run on the side.

Neither of these approaches fits well within systems geared towards quarterly results. This is particularly true of the energy sector: pressure to roll out smart meters, grid transformation, the introduction of AI, and much more. Everywhere, experienced specialists are leaving companies, and their successors are unfamiliar with the established processes.

What is often needed is a regular and consistent focus on strategic issues, rather than day-to-day operational management. The question is not how relevant these (strategic) issues are. The question is when organisations will stop putting them off and start focusing on what really matters.

Vanessa Steffen³:

Critical thinking

“The younger generation can no longer think critically.”

I’ve been reading and hearing this statement remarkably often of late, especially when it comes to AI.

Generation Z is said to accept everything unquestioningly, Generation Alpha is said to be unable to make sense of information, and critical thinking is said to be on the wane. I think that’s too simplistic.

In fact, critical thinking is becoming more important than ever. Anyone who doesn’t question information, simply accepts answers at face value, or outsources decisions entirely to AI will face problems in the long run. Yes, we need to talk about this!

What I do disagree with, however, is the claim that young people fundamentally no longer think critically.

When I look at Generation Z, I see quite the opposite. They question working conditions, hierarchies, social norms, purpose, leadership and entire companies. That is critical thinking – perhaps not always in the ways older generations would expect, but it is there.

At the same time, I observe something different among many older generations. Processes are adopted simply because they’ve always been that way. Meetings take place simply because they’ve always taken place. Decisions aren’t questioned simply because they worked in the past. That, too, is a lack of critical thinking.

So the real problem doesn’t lie with any one generation at all, but in the fact that we simply question different things.

Younger people could learn to scrutinise technologies and information more closely. Older people could learn to question structures, habits and the status quo more frequently.

For me, that is precisely where the real opportunity lies – not in pitting one generation against another, but in asking what we can learn from one another.
In practical terms, this would mean not only asking WHETHER something works, but also WHY.

To scrutinise processes that have existed for years just as critically as new technologies. To discuss with people from other generations rather than about them. To use AI as a thinking partner, not as a substitute for human thought. And to replace the phrase ‘We’ve always done it this way’ more often with ‘Does that still apply today?’.

Critical thinking isn’t disappearing. It’s just shifting its focus.

Gottfried Szing⁴:

Prompt engineering is dead – long live prompt engineering!

Admittedly, it is no longer a profession or a role in its own right, but writing and maintaining prompts will soon (or has it already?) become a standard task for everyone.

And we, as RE/BA, should realise that we already need to ‘engineer’ prompts and treat them as artefacts of our work. That means we must also quality-assure them, document them, have them reviewed, … – just as we do with other artefacts?

After all, why should a prompt be treated any differently from a UML diagram or a UX prototype? Or an SQL prompt that we write for reporting?
So I definitely make a point of ‘saving’ my prompts.

Not only does this allow me to run the prompts again, but I can also find out whether new model versions deliver different, better or worse results.

Impulses and questions

Four topics, four experts, four impulses. Why do we allow ourselves to be dazzled by stories that, on closer inspection and with a deeper understanding, tell us something entirely different? Does short-term optimisation conflict with the long-term sustainability of businesses? Why do we view the behaviour of others critically without recognising our own blind spots? And how do we deal with practical knowledge in the age of AI, which is constantly changing?

Questions upon questions. Perhaps you have some too; brilliant! Then Part 19 of ‘Impulses for organisations’ has worked a treat. Lovely, isn’t it?

Notes:

[1] Dr Juergen Schueppel supports individuals, teams and organisations in shaping change in such a way that it is adaptable, sustainable and effective. You can find information about Dr Schueppel on his LinkedIn profile, the article can be found here in its original form.

On the t2informatik Blog, Dr Schueppel has published two posts: Cultural Hacking. A contribution to culture change? and Managing change and transformation successfully – a misunderstanding?.

[2] Sascha Ruelicke is the managing director of sbc soptim business consult GmbH in Essen, which has been helping companies in the energy sector to put regulatory requirements into practice for almost two decades. You can find information about Mr Ruelicke on his LinkedIn profile, the article can be found here in its original form.

Mr Ruelicke has published several articles on the t2informatik Blog, including From a culture of error to a culture of support and Knowledge management in transition: concepts for the future.

[3] Vanessa Steffen supports companies in the field of agile organisational development and corporate management. You can find information about Vanessa Steffen on her LinkedIn profile, and the post can be found here in its original form.

Vanessa Steffen has published several posts on the t2informatik Blog, including The future belongs to resilient organisations and The art of omitting things.

[4] Gottfried Szing has been working as a freelance business analyst and requirements engineer for over 20 years and acts as a liaison between business departments, development and management. You can find information about Mr Szing on his LinkedIn profile, the article can be found here in its original form.

Gottfried Szing has published several posts on the t2informatik Blog, including Priority rules for requirements and A picture is worth a thousand words.

Would you, as an opinion leader or influencer, like to share these impulses? Then please feel free to share this post within your network.

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