Impulses for organisations – Part 20

Every day, we come across fascinating ideas, experiences and perspectives online relating to collaboration, leadership and life within organisations. Much of this appears briefly in our own feeds, gives us food for thought, and then disappears from view again shortly afterwards.

With our series ‘Impulses for organisations’, we aim to capture some of these thoughts and give the people who expressed them a platform on the t2informatik blog. Part 20 focuses on answers we know but tend to overlook, the ongoing preoccupation with AI and the neglect of numerous truths, as well as peak performance, which seemingly can be achieved with enough hard work.

Here are the latest impulses!

Pamela Klein¹:

Then I asked her to change seats

Two chairs. That was all it took.

I’d placed them opposite each other in the room; my client was sitting on one of them at first.
We talked about a decision she was facing.
A decision she’d been putting off for weeks.

Then I asked her to change seats.

From the second chair, she was no longer to speak from the position of someone who hesitates, weighs things up, or is afraid of doing something wrong.
Instead, she was to speak from the position of the woman she wants to be in ten years’ time.
More experienced, clearer-minded, and having already been through what she’s currently facing.

I asked her what she would say to her younger self.

It took a moment, but then the answer came.
Completely calm and almost as a matter of course.

She’d known the answer all along.
She’d just never looked at her situation from that perspective.

That happens more often than you might think.
We seek advice from all sorts of places – friends, books, mentors – whilst overlooking the fact that we’ve long carried a wiser version of ourselves within us.
One that’s already further along.
One that has already faced a similar situation and found a way through.

That inner voice doesn’t disappear.
It just grows quieter the more we function rather than feel.

Perhaps you don’t need two chairs to hear it.
Sometimes, all it takes is the question:
What would the version of me who’s already mastered this say?

Daniel Dubbel²:

I’d love to see the first conference without AI on the agenda!

AI is one of the most interesting technological developments of recent years. That’s why I’m becoming increasingly sceptical about the way we talk about it in so many contexts.

For months now, events, panels and LinkedIn posts have been revolving around the same questions: what AI can do and how we can use it to boost productivity. That’s all well and good, but what questions have we stopped asking for months now, simply because AI is getting so much attention?

Whilst we talk about prompts, agents and efficiency gains, we hardly discuss the real problems facing this country anymore. An economy that is stagnating, whilst energy costs and bureaucracy are paralysing entire sectors. An increasingly unaffordable housing market. An ageing society that is putting pressure on the social security system, unable to find jobs whilst there is a shortage of skilled workers. A public administration that has failed to implement digitalisation for years.

AI can help with some of these problems; bureaucracy could be streamlined, at least in theory. But an ageing society won’t become any younger as a result, and the skills shortage won’t disappear just because software manages it more efficiently.

I’m seeing this fallacy a lot at the moment. Innovation comes from people who use AI, in organisations that actually allow experimentation. Those who ‘optimise away’ dissent will not become more innovative with AI; they will simply do the same things faster.

This has been evident in bureaucracy for some time. We’ve been digitising forms for years, and yet many still end up being printed out, manually processed and stamped on a desk. Unclear lines of responsibility are already holding back even basic digitisation; AI won’t change that.

This fallacy is also convenient. Those who focus on AI appear more forward-looking than those dealing with cutting red tape or pension reform. So problems we’ve known about for years remain unresolved. Yet it is precisely these that need to be sorted out first, so that AI works towards a goal that is more than just efficiency and profit at the expense of those who are already bearing the costs.

And what is increasingly concerning me is this: AI does not merely change the speed at which organisations operate. It also changes who benefits from this speed. Those who already have capital, education and access use the new tools as leverage. Those who do not continue to fall further behind. AI does not narrow the gap between rich and poor; it widens it further.

AI is no substitute for strategy, leadership or functioning institutions. It is an amplifier that makes good systems better, whilst also accelerating everything that is already failing within our systems today – including social inequality.

We constantly talk about what AI makes faster and better. We hardly ever discuss who it leaves behind, or what fundamental problems we need to solve first. How much longer do we intend to gloss over this?

Dr Juergen Schueppel³:

The 10,000-hour rule

10,000 hours of practice leads to peak performance! Really?

10,000 hours.

A ‘magic’ number that has everything a good piece of management wisdom needs: it is specific, easy to remember and somehow also promises a sense of control. If you practise long enough, you’ll eventually become really good. And there is, after all, a source for it.

The figure gained popularity through Gladwell’s book *Outliers*. It was based on a study by Ericsson et al. from 1993. Among other things, the researchers compared violin students with varying levels of success, as well as professional and amateur pianists. Looking back, the higher-performing groups reported significantly more hours of practice. However, a threshold of 10,000 hours was not proven. The figure emerged as an approximate order of magnitude based on the retrospective accounts of specific groups of musicians.

The “study” did not examine other, or indeed many different, fields of activity, nor did it feature a representative sample of people. Ericsson et al. did not refer to “practice” either, but rather to “deliberate practice”, or “targeted practice”. This involves clear goals, immediate feedback, repeated correction and tasks that lie just beyond what has already been mastered. In this respect, the 10,000-hour rule is a typical oversimplification of a somewhat more complex relationship.

A more appropriate statement would be: targeted practice can improve performance. The extent to which it contributes to this and how much practice is required depends on the individual, the task and the context. Top-level performance does not result from the number of hours alone. It develops from the interplay of the quality and volume of practice, individual aptitudes, coaching, feedback, motivation, resources and actual learning opportunities.

For the HR community, and particularly for people development, this has a very practical implication: training hours and completed programmes are not predictors of competence.

It is more important to check:

(1) What exactly is being practised?
(2) How high-quality (and, in particular, how nuanced) is the feedback?
(3) Does the level of difficulty increase as the practice progresses?
(4) Can what has been learnt be applied (promptly)?
(5) And finally: does the relevant performance actually improve (during training and, in particular, in practice)?

Impulses and questions

Three topics, three experts, three insights. Why do we ask people for advice when we already know the answer ourselves? What can we do, rather than just talking about artificial intelligence, to address other key issues that shape how we live together in society – and within organisations – just as significantly? And why do we allow ourselves to be guided by simple truths, when even a brief look at the details shows that the underlying knowledge is actually quite different?

Questions upon questions. Perhaps you have some too; brilliant! That means Part 20 of ‘Impulses for organisations’ has worked a treat. Great, isn’t it?

Notes:

[1] Pamela Klein is a qualified psychologist and systemic coach for female executives who wish to lead with heart, poise and confidence – making clear decisions, building strong relationships and staying connected to themselves. You can find out more about Ms Klein on her LinkedIn profile, the article itself can be found here in the original.

[2] As a practitioner with a strong theoretical grounding, Daniel Dubbel combines leadership experience with a deep understanding of organisation and collaboration to bring about effective, sustainable change in leadership, structure and culture. You can find more information about Daniel Dubbel on his LinkedIn profile, and the original post can be found here in the original.

Daniel Dubbel has also published an article on the t2informatik Blog: Stop your agile transformation.

[3] 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?.

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

Here you will find a selection of further impulses in the t2informatik blog: