Thank you (AGAIN in some cases) for the Use of Your Brain
Of course no good deed ever goes unpunished and to that end, the following are the folks who have helped me with the friendly-peer-review. Hopefully I can return the favor in the future. Also, if you are on the list and are logging this as professional development, feel free to refer to this post and notice below.
To whom it may concern, the above individuals were asked to perform a friendly-peer review of an article (2017 – Life Beyond the “Big Honkin’ Binder” ) published in the Financial Management Institute of Canada January, 2017, FMI*IGF eJournal. The estimated time to perform this review was between 2 to 3 hours completed in early September, 2016. All of the above individuals demonstrated a firm grasp of the subject matter and helped to create-net-new original thought and critique through this peer-review which will be reflected in the final article.
Don’t you hate it, you think you have a brilliant original thought and that darn Google shows you that numerous people have thought it before you! Such is the case of one of my Phrankisms, ‘Managed Serendipity‘. In this case, it is okay because through fortunate happenstance I can potentially work on a better definition.
Off the snow track
Definition of Managed Serendipity
The ability to respond to and take advantage of an opportunity in the future. The catch is that you don’t know what attributes will be called on by that opportunity or even if such a chance will occur in the future.
As the name implies, there are two parts to the concept. Managed is what you can actively do to either generate opportunities or capitalize on them as they appear. Serendipity is entirely beyond your control, it is fate, fortune, chance or God’s will. You can only react to serendipity not control it. This is not a new concept by any stretch. Here are three examples:
In the fields of observation chance favors the prepared mind. (translated from Louis Pasteur from: Dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés); source: Wikiquote.
Optionality is the ability to switch from one course of action to another thus taking advantage of uncertainty and changing circumstances (adapted from ‘Antifragile Things That Gain From Disorder’, Nicholas Taleb).
Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans. Attributed to John Lennon but based on a Readers Digest quote from 1957 (courtesy Quote Investigator).
Examples of Managed Serendipity
The best way to foster Managed Serendipity is education. Graduating from High School, College or an apprenticeship gives you more options then dropping out in Grade 10. Beyond formal education, life choices and personal investments are part of Managed Serendipity. This includes having at your disposal a wide variety of skills and experiences that initially seem only relevant in one narrow circumstance.
By way of an example, I did the lay up and editing for the 7th edition of the Waskahegan Trail Guide. That experience gave me a much better appreciation for desktop publishing, layout and production of complex documents – skills that have tipped job interviews in my favour or allowed me to do more complex volunteer activities – such as blogging on Managed Serendipity (yeah)!
Limitations to Managed Serendipity
To start, one’s own health. Being free of self-inflicted health limitations (e.g. excessive weight, poor physical conditioning, mental well-being, etc.) better positions you to seize an opportunity. Certainly family circumstances can impact Managed Serendipity. For example, caring for your young children limits your work opportunities – but also provides you with infinite joy and a core reason for your existence, a very fair trade off. At the same time, being the primary care giver for an aged parent or spouse, shrinks your world (but such are the burdens borne with love).
Notwithstanding family restrictions, people fail to recognize an opportunity when it presents itself. To this, I have four maxims I use in my life so as to recognize Managed Serendipity:
Always answer the door when opportunity knocks.
Remember opportunity typically knocks when you are in the bathtub.
Never negotiate on the other party’s behalf.
Manage to the downside.
Pay yourself now for the future maybes.
Answer When Opportunity knocks
Opportunity is constantly knocking. It may be something as obvious as a head hunter or less straightforward as your daughter’s soccer coach asking if you can edit a newsletter – and therefore learn new software. At least hear what opportunity has to sell before closing the door and …
Opportunity Knocks When You are in the Bath
Opportunity seldom knocks when it is convenient for you. Sometimes Managed Serendipity means leaving a good paying government job on Friday and boarding a plan on Sunday to fly to and work in Munich German for 18 months (hey it happens, trust me). After hearing opportunity out, remember that timing is never convenient or circumstances are easy. Of course you need to balance this against other personal circumstances (young children, aged parents, etc.).
Never negotiate on the other party’s behalf.
It is amazing how often there are circumstances in which a person will not propose an option in negotiations because they think the other party will reject it. For example, you approach your employer and say, ‘hey, can I take a leave of absence and go work in Vienna for year?‘ Your problem ends in asking the question and starts upon hearing the response. Their problem starts on hearing the question and ends formulating the response. Don’t confuse your problems (asking) with their problems (responding).
You may have young children and a chance to work abroad appears. DON’T forego this opportunity because traveling with a six year old is hard. DO eliminate the opportunity if travelling with your precious child is unduly dangerous.
Life, Gravy Lumps and All
When presented with a situation, can you accept the worst case scenario? Finding a new job, accepting rejection or perhaps receiving a ‘no’ answer? If the answer is yes then you have managed to the downside. If you can live with worst case scenario then everything else is gravy. Sometimes the gravy is lumpy, perhaps separating … but heck, it is still GRAVY!
Pay Yourself Now for Future Maybes
Set yourself up for future possibilities by learning, learning and experiencing. Take the opportunity to edit the kids soccer newsletter because in the future you may be building websites with that experience. Learn that new language because you may visit or work there – or for someone you might meet in the classroom. In other words, increase the chances the opportunity will come and knock at your door… but pay yourself while you are doing it.
A new thing learned may lead to something in the future – but probably it will not. Therefore, enjoy what you are doing for its own merits in the here in now. This is paying yourself first. You can’t force the serendipity part – you can only manage it.
Ying, Yang and the Border
Managed Serendipity is like the Asian concept of Ying and Yang. They are complementary, distinct and inter-related. To me the most interesting thing about Ying and Yang is not the two tadpole’esque features – it is border or interface between them. As in any border, there is danger between safety/adventure or risk/opportunity.
I wish I could say that seizing an opportunity is without risk but that is not the case. An aging parent’s health may deteriorate with out your care, your young child may feel displaced between cultures and you may not have a job waiting for you upon your return – risks. Of course you may also feel refreshed and a better care giver upon your return, your child is stronger working through cultural displacement and you landed an even better job – opportunities.
Ying-Yang courtesy of Wikipedia (used via creative commons).
As Stephen Covey talks about in ‘The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People; Powerful Lessons in Personal Change’: Nobody ever laid on their death-bed and wished they had spent more time at the office. In parallel, no one ever laid peacefully in the death-bed content they stayed in the bath tub despite incessant knocking.
On November 7, I attended a session put on by the Canadian Institute called “Government Connects“. All levels of government spoke about digital transformation of their services. One of the speakers was the boss of all Alberta Public Servants, Marcia Nelson. Marcia did a great job discussing what the Government of Alberta is doing in moving its services online. Certainly Digital Government is the nirvana for most governments as they see cyberspace as being a cheaper, faster and more effective way to deliver more services to citizens.
The User as the Product
Marcia, and many of the speakers, talked about the expectations of citizens relative to their other digital experiences. For example the ease to create a Facebook account, the functionality available via a GMail account or how a LinkedIn profile is now almost as important as a resume or a business card. The question from Marcia, and others was ‘how can governments compete with these products?‘.
The other side of these services is a profit motive. Facebook makes it easy to set up a profile so it can target you with advertisements. Gmail wants you as an email client so it can scan your email and target its advertisement. LinkedIn wants you to buy a premium membership or at least get your eyeballs on its advertisements. All of the above are examples of monetizing you as a user into becoming their product. Assuming informed consent, there is nothing wrong with monetization. It is an economic transaction in which a slice of your privacy is exchanged for some really good services (like watching cat videos on Facebook just saying).
The Digital Government Disadvantage
So where does government fit into this? Firstly there is the challenge of resources. A quick scan of the September 2016 quarterly results of Facebook shows they have about $10.6USD Billion in physical and intangible assets*. Included in this number is $5.1USD Billion of network and computer software assets (physical) in addition to $1.7USD Billion in technologies and patents (intangible). In other words, Facebook has excellent technical infrastructure to offer a premium product for free to users. And if they don’t have a good product now, their $30.3USD Billion in current assets (e.g. cash, securities, etc.) can be used to buy that good product.
* Note, for those accounting weenies out there, an interesting item they have on their balance sheet is ‘Acquired users’. I could not readily find a definition for this term but it appears that the users are really the Product!
Pity someone like the Government of Alberta (GoA). A $50 billion a year organization in which an estimated 2.5%, over $1 billion, is spent annually on Information Management and Technology (IMT) (adapted from: GoA IMT Plan, 2016 – 2021, p. 4). From the GoA’s most recent financial statements, they have $4.4CAD Billion (about $3USD Billion) of computer assets – hey not bad – of which 78% of is fully depreciated (e.g. over 5 years old) – YIKES! (adapted from GoA 2015-16 Financial Statements, p. 63).
Beyond relying on old technology, the GoA has to do a lot more than Facebook. While Facebook can focus on social media, the GoA needs to run registry systems (e.g. vital statistics, land titles or drivers licenses), health systems (e.g. immunization, medical records), education (K-12, student finance, apprenticeship certificates), business (collect taxes/royalties/fines) and human social functions (tracking children in foster care, seniors or homelessness).
The above is not a new story but it is worth repeating every now and then that governments do things that no one else wants to with a tiny fraction of the resources of private industry. Governments must also build and run systems that have almost no tolerance for failure.
Risk and Skin in the Game
To the last point, risk, this is where government is at a further disadvantage. The original investors in FaceBook backed a winner. Those who put money in to Myspace, Friendster or DIGG did not fare so well (huh, never heard of some of these, check out the grave yard of failed social media infographic from the Search Engine Journal January 25, 2013). Nicholas Taleb calls investors (win or lose) people with ‘Skin in the Game‘ from his book Anti-Fragile. In contrast, public servants never have skin in the game. We are always spending other people’s money and our fantastically worst case for abject failure is forced retirement or perhaps being fired – maybe.
In other words, governments have both an advantage and disadvantage around risk. The individuals involved do not have personal risk (advantage) but the organizations also lack the mind focusing benefit of the ‘terror of failure’ (disadvantage).
The Monetization Continuum and How Can Governments ‘Compete’
The reality is that Governments can’t and shouldn’t compete with the Facebook’s of the world. Creating a bleeding edge user experience would be an inexcusable use of public funds and without the terror of failure would not likely be successful anyway.
But because thought exercises can lead to innovation, I am proposing the ‘Monetization Continuum‘ for governments; a government simply needs to pick a point on a line. At one end (generally status quo) is ‘Mind and Accept the Gap‘ at the other is ‘Full Monetization‘ with other options falling between these two. Definitions are provided below as well as way points but generally if you are Singapore you may be more comfortable having McDonald’s ads on your obesity website. If you are at the other extreme – well this is where Minding the Gap comes in.
Monetization Continuum
End Points
Definition
Examples
Mind and Accept the Gap
Governments acknowledge that they will lag and explain why to their citizens. Periodically, governments leap-frog into a stronger position.
Status Quo
Monetize
Fund digital government through ad, premium memberships or sponsorship revenue.
The reality is that governments will and should never monetize their services. There is a slippery slope of what is reasonable and in good taste. Governments have something that Facebook or Google does not have – the coercive powers of taxation and legislation. Perhaps governments does not need to build systems when they can force organizations operating in its jurisdictions to offer the services. There is a long tradition of this in the telecommunications world, for example. This would not be monetizing users as products, this would monetizing providers as servants for the public good. Just a thought.
The author reflects on receiving the Edmonton Bicycle and Touring Club’s Volunteer of the Year award for 2016, appreciating the club’s low-drama environment and effective volunteer engagement through purpose, affiliation, and experience. They emphasize the importance of hope in cycling, while suggesting potential improvements to attract diverse community members.
On November 17, 2016, FMI Edmonton hosted: CPAs and the Public Service. Now that CPA Alberta is almost a toddler (16+ months old at time of writing), it is time to ask the question: How Can CPA Alberta help the members who work in the public service?
Nicolas Taleb would have us believe that strategic planning is ‘superstitious babble’ (see Anti-fragile strategic planning). In contrast, Kaplan and Norton make strategic planning a cornerstone of the Balanced Scorecard. The reality is probably in the middle.
This blog however considers the question, how much time should an organization spend on planning? Successful or not, when do you cut your losses for a year or when do you think that you are not doing enough?
How Much Is Enough?
On the one hand, strategic planning can become its own self-sustaining cottage industry. Endless meetings are held and navels are closely examined with little to show for it. On the other hand, the organization is so tied up in operations and ‘crisis du jour‘ that they wake up and discover the world (and even their organization) has completely changed around them.
What rule of thumb or heuristic can be used to know that you are doing enough Strategic Planning without decorating cottages? My proposed answer is somewhere between the 1.0% and 0.1%. Although a full order of magnitude separates these values, a range is important due to the volatility of an environment an organization finds itself in. Governments are likely on the low-end (closer to 0.1%) and tech start-ups on the higher end (1.0%).
For more on the basis for these heuristics, take a read of ‘A Ruling on 80, 90 and 99‘ for my thoughts and a review of such things as Vilfredo Pareto’s legacy and internet lurkers. A recap from this blog is as follows:
Pareto: 20% of an organization’s actions account for 80% of its results.
90 Rule: 1% of the operational decisions are enacted by 9% of the organization affecting the remaining 90%.
99 Rule: 0.1% of the strategic decisions are enacted by 0.9% of the organization which impacts the remaining 99%.
Thus the 99 Rule provides a minimum amount of time for an organization to consider strategic questions while the 90 rule provides a maximum amount of time.
Who Does What and What to Do with Your Time?
Consider a fictional organization of 1,000 people. This is a medium sized business, typical government Ministry or employees of a large town or a small city. Assuming there is about 1,700 productive hours on average per year per employee (e.g. after vacation, training, sick time, etc. see below for my guesstimation on this) this means the organization in total has 1,700,000 hours to allocate. How much of this precious resource should be spent doing strategic planning?
I am recommending no less than 1,700 hours and no more than 17,000 hours in total. In total means involving all people in all aspects of the process. Thus if there is a one hour planning meeting with 20 people in the room, that is 20 hours. To prepare for this meeting, 3 people may have spent 2 full days each – another 3 x 2 x 8-hours or another 48 hours against the above budget.
Measuring what Matters
The point of completing these measurements is to answer four fundamental questions:
Is the organization doing enough strategic planning relative to the environment?
Is the organization doing too much planning?
Are we getting value for the investment of resources?
How do we get better at the activities to reduce this total?
Is the organization doing enough strategic planning relative to the environment?
What happens if you discover you are not doing enough? For example your 1,000 person organization is only spending 100 hours per year doing planning. You may be very good and efficient and if so bravo to you and your planning folks! On the other hand, you may be missing opportunities, blind sided by challenges and mired in the current day’s crisis – in which case maybe a bit more effort is needed.
Is the organization doing too much planning?
The 1,000 person organization may also be in a Ground Hog Day’esque hell of constantly planning with not much to show for it. Perhaps you have a full time planning unit of five people who host dozens of senior management sessions and the best they can is produce an anemic planning document that is quickly forgotten. In this case, measuring the effort of consuming 10 to 20 thousand hours of efforts for nought can lead to better approaches to the effort.
Are we getting value for the investment of resources?
The above two examples demonstrate how a bit of measurement may help you decide that 100 hours is more than sufficient or 20,000 hours was money well spent. The output of the planning process is… well a plan. More importantly it is a culture of monitoring, planning and adapting to changing organizational and environmental circumstances. Thus setting an input target of planning to measure the quality of the output and the impact of the outcomes can answer the question if the planning effort were resources well spent.
How do we get better at the activities to reduce this total?
The advantage of measuring, evaluating and reflecting on the planning efforts is to get better at. Setting a target (be 1.0% or 0.1%) is the first step of this activity and measuring against this target is the next.
Good luck with your planning efforts and let me know how much time your organization spends on its planning initiatives.
* How much Time Do You Have?
How much time does an organization have per annum to do things? The answer is … it depends. Here are two typical organizations. The first is a medium size enterprise that works an 8-hour day, offers 3-weeks vacation per year, in addition to sick days and training (e.g. for safety, regulatory compliance, etc.). On the other hand is a Ministry that offers a 7.25-hour day, 5-weeks of vacation plus sick and training days.
Organization
Medium Size Company
Government Ministry
Hours/day (1)
8 hours
7.25 hours
Work days per year (2)
254
250
Work Hours per year
2,032
1,812.5
Avg Vacation days x work hours (3)
120
(3 weeks)
181.25
(5 weeks)
Avg Sick Days/year x work hours (4)
60
(7.5 days)
54
(7.5 days)
Avg Hours of Learning/year (5)
42
29
Total productive hours/employee
1,810
1,548.25
Few professionals work an 8-hour day let alone a 7.25-hour one. Nevertheless, everyone has non-productive time such as bathroom breaks, filling up on coffee, walking between buildings. So I am leaving the actual average productive hours at 8 and 7.25 respectively.
For a cool site in adding this calculation, see: www.workingdays.ca. Note this includes 3 days of Christmas Closure.
10 days is the minimum number of vacation days required to be given to an employee. The average is a surprisingly difficult number to find (at least to a casual searcher). 15 days is based on an Expedia 2015 survey.
Sources vary. I have chosen the high value for the for-profit organization as they often have stringent regulatory requirements for health and safety training. For government I have chosen a medium value. Sources:
Heuristics or rules of thumb are of great benefit in formulating approximations and quick decisions. They can just as easily lead one astray through over simplification. In thinking about heuristics as they apply to organizations, I have been pondering three: the 80/20 Rule, the 90 Rule, and the 99 Rule.
The 80/20 Rule or Pareto Principle
The Pareto Principle is a heuristic that estimates cause and effect, it is defined as:
Also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity; states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Named after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto (adapted from wikipedia).
While the Pareto Principle has reasonably good statistic evidence of its validity in estimating cause and effect, it does not do so well in predicting effort. In other words, 20% of your future actions will yield 80% of the future value. Which of the four out of five things will you do that will have no or limited impact on the 80%?
The 90 Rule
This rule is based on the observation of contributions to social media sites.
In Internet culture, the 1% rule is a rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk (adapted from Wikipedia).
It may seem strange to invoke an internet rule but compare this to an organizational structure. What is the relative proportion of shop floor workers to middle to senior managers? Typically there is about a 1:10 ratio of doers versus managers.
Consider an organization of 1,000 people; a reasonable sized government ministry or medium-sized enterprise. Within such an organization, there would be about 10 senior leaders (Assistant/Deputy Ministers, CEOs, Vice Presidents), 90 middle level managers (Directors, Managers, Assistant Managers) and 900 shop floor staff and immediate supervisors (clerks, sales people, workers, supervisors, etc.).
In other words the 90 rule is a reasonable heuristic to predict the allocation of resources and effort. 1% or the allocated resources will have a disproportionate effect on the next 9% which in turns controls or influences the final 90% of an organization.
The 99/0.9/0.1 Rule
A more lean view of the 90 rule is that 99 rule. The 90 rule is accurate in the allocation of operational resources but I believe underestimates the effect of more strategic or exceptional events. The CEO’s decision to close an unprofitable factory is not made by 10 people in the above fictional organization, but instead by 1 person. Certainly the other 9 people support and (hopefully) validate the decision but the impact is then disproportionate to the remaining 990 individuals in an organization.
The 99 rule is a better tool to estimate strategic decisions within an organization.
Recap of the Rules
Pareto: 20% of an organization’s actions account for 80% of its results.
90 Rule: 1% of the operational decisions are enacted by 9% of the organization affecting the remaining 90%.
99 Rule: 0.1% of the strategic decisions are enacted by 0.9% of the organization which impacts the remaining 99%.
What are your thoughts? Are the above heuristics reasonable and valuable tool when allocating organizational resources? Is there too much variability and the rules are a meaningless average? Do you have any anecdotal experience with any of the above rules in either their cause or effect?
Early season snow storms are dangerous things. Not only for driving but also when you take a long walk and your brain slips into thought experiments. For example, when you are walking along and your brain says – hey you could potentially retire in a few years and do something outside the public service where you currently work.
In other words the snow and my brain conspired to ponder the question, ‘How do you monetize your career as a public servant?’.
Monetizing the Problem
First a definition, what is monetization? There are a swack of definitions but they all generally boil down to trying to convert something to ready cash. The following extract from Wikipedia’s definition provides a good example:
… attempting to make money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable or had been considered to have the potential to earn profits.
So, what exactly are we monetizing in this context? How to have a career post public service that commands a similar level of pay, respect and respect. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but public servants have a (not)/justifiable reputation of being unemployable post government.
The Obvious Methods
So, after a career of say 25, 30 or more years, how do you convert that experience into a second career or even part-time income? The obvious answers that came to me include:
Maximize a Public Sector Pension and/or Semi-Retirement
Gain Unique Experience of Value to Someone
Retire from a Senior Position that has Cache and Contacts
Keep Your Toe in the Real World
Maximize a Public Sector Pension and/or Semi-Retirement
This is the most obvious method is that you enjoy the government backed annuity otherwise known as a public sector pension. Sure, maybe you will do some greeting at Wal-Mart or try to convert a hobby into a paying proposition – but generally you don’t monetize the experience.
There is of course a cliché here that public servants have gold-plated pensions and to certain extent it is true (to learn more about this subject, see the post-conference notes on public sector retirement by the FMI). The other side of this cliché of course is the lack of stock options, bonus and other non-monetary factors related to be a public servant. Nevertheless, a thirty-five year pension is a pretty sweet bit of monetization!
Gain Unique Experience of Value to Someone
The fellow who spent his career as a spot-mountain-frog-lip-taster-technician may discover that he has a very unique skill set. Governments do things that business and organizations don’t so this is definitely a consideration for monetization – assuming there is a market for the specialization – and there is the rub. No other organization may want to pay for (thus monetize) frog-lip-tasting. However there are some less obvious examples of converting experience into post-retirement careers.
If you work in an administrative function, likely the experience can be monetized – to a point. A human resource consultant, accounting clerk or procurement specialist can find (if they want) post-retirement employment. Unfortunately, the more senior the public sector experience the less likely of making a lateral leap. As an accountant, I have managed to avoid dealing with taxes, shareholder accounting and the like because I have focused on budgets, systems and governance. As a result, most controller roles are closed to me because I lack this basic for-profit experience. The same examples can be made for other administrative functions in human resources, procurement, etc.
Retire from a Senior Position that has Cache
Retiring as a Deputy Minister or City Manager may open up future opportunities. Think of the senior politicians, for example, who have gone back into law firms or think tanks. Alas often the value you can bring to an organization are the contacts and systems knowledge of the recently departed government. This knowledge is perishable in the extreme, particularly if there is a subsequent change in government or significant re-organization.
Mandatory cooling off periods may further diminish the relative value of recent experience if one needs to wait six to twenty-four months before cashing in. Nevertheless, if you got to be a senior civil servant, you probably have skills of value beyond a government context.
Keep Your Toe in the Real World
One method of ensuring the ability to work in the real world post public service is to not really ever leave it. A toe in may range from owning real estate property, working part-time (e.g. doing taxes if you are an accountant) or teaching courses. In this way you have non-government experience to point to. A further upside is having additional income of doing some or all of these things. A downside is working more than one job during your career.
Monetization May Mean More than Money
If you are willing to stretch the definition of monetization, there is more to life than a second (third, fourth or fifth) career. You can also use your experience in a volunteer capacity helping our or other societies. For example Canadian Executive Services Overseas takes retired executives and places them globally and here at home (e.g helping first nation communities). Churches, non-profit boards and community leagues are other potential beneficiaries of a life time in the service of the public.
Not all of these will pay the bills if one’s pension is not fully maximized. However if money is not a primary driver (hey, you did take a government job after all), then you may be paid in post-retirement experiences!
Thank you snow storm for helping me clear my thoughts whilst walking… now back to work because I am not quite at the point of being able to start monetizing….
Giulia Enders has written a delightful book on our Guts. If the title was not sufficient the sub-title describes it all: Gut: The Inside Story of Our Bodys Most Underrated Organ.
Gut is a good read for anyone who digests food (which pretty much covers everyone living) and is a potential lesson for organizations that there is more complexity in a system then we can ever imagine.
Have Some Guts, Read Gut
Gut is a pretty easy read. Enders presents the physiology of the Gut in a very accessible manner and explains the key functions of the major organs (e.g. stomach, small/large intestines, liver, etc.). Originally published in German, the English translation has great cheek and humour. In fact, Gut would make an excellent text-book for junior or senior high school biology given its easy accessibility.
As a microbiologist, Enders delves into the other organ of our body, the microbiota of the gut. Based on current research, Enders makes the case that the dividing line between where our cells start and bacteria and other germs end is not as clear cut as we may think. For example:
Children born via Caesarean section are not endowed with the bugs found within their mothers’ birth canal. As a result they must source their bugs from the environment and these may not be the most beneficial. These children take months or years to develop a healthy gut microbiota. They are also at a risk of developing asthma or allergies.
Breast feeding has a similar impact on allergies and the like. Mothers milk not only feeds the baby but also contains nutrients galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) to feed the child’s gut.
The gut’s bacteria helps to train our immune system to not only recognize threats but to also not over-react to them. As a result, this reduces allergies, asthma and potentially juvenile diabetes.
We periodically wipe out all or portions of our microbiota through the use of antibiotics, poor diet and stress. When the good bugs depart their spots can be replaced by the less than desirable who then can be difficult to displace.
The appendix is not a slacker who does not realize its time has passed. Current research indicates that the appendix is a store house of good bacteria that can repopulate the gut if the intestines have been flushed due to diarrhea.
Organization’s Need Guts
Ender has not only written a very accessible book that discusses such delicate matters as what our poop should look like, she has reminded us that perceptions of systems are based on best available information at a point in time. For the gut, bacteria are necessary to not only break down food but to also stress the immune system so it does not over or under react. Structures such as appendices may appear useless but turn out to be vital to our long term health.
The gut can be used as an analog for organizations. Poop jokes aside, a healthy organization is more complex and mysterious then it first appears. While we may be inclined to oversimplify them, organizations have interactions and systems that may not be immediately apparent.
Elevators are Like Guts – They Mix and Separate
Here is one small example: riding elevators. In my building a new system has replaced the traditional ‘up’ button with destination buttons. Rather then jumping on the first elevator going up, you select your floor and proceed to that lift going exactly to that floor plus perhaps a few floors above and below yours.
This system has dramatically improved the speed by which people are carried to their floors – and it has cut the accidental and random interactions of people. Previously who you got on with was chance. As a result, there was an opportunity to interact with a variety of people who you may only see intermittently. Now the elevator ride is much more homogenous – you ride with people from one floor above or below.
More efficient, yes – beneficial to the organization – not necessarily. In as much as good bacteria trains our immune system and a diverse flora is better for us, random interactions and non-sterile organizational mixing is also of value. Good organizations need slight agitation, a diverse culture and some randomness to be effective and healthy – just like a good gut. In addition, organizations should recognize that individuals who may not seem to be part of a main structures may in fact have a disproportionate impact on the health of the culture. Introducing the occasional disruptive employees/contractors, the mail room clerk who is a clearing house of information across many floors or a cafeteria that promotes chance encounters vertically and horizontally across the organization.
Embrace your Internal and Organizational Micro-biota
The gut is more complex than we ever imagined and has a stronger influence well beyond converting food to energy and nutrition. In the same way, organizations are more complex then we can imagine and elements we may think of being without use can turn out to be instrumental to its health. Enjoy Enders’ gut and good luck with your biotas – both the micro and organizational varieties.
On September 21, 2016, the Edmonton FMI Chapter hosted the following session (detailed description found below in the ‘blog-annex’: Fostering Innovation in the Public Service When Money is Tight. Part of the conference was a game entitled ‘Innovation Bingo’. The objectives of the game were as follows:
Help participants assimilate knowledge about innovation.
Assist in networking with other participants, particularly those outside of ones normal circle of associates.
Win some prizes.
How the Game was Played
As part of the pre-conference notes and as a physical hand out, each participant was given a bingo card (see the last two pages of the pre-conference notes: FMI-2016-09-21-Innovation-PreNotes or download Innovation Bingo.
Instructions were provided on the card, informally at each table by event leader and then en masse at the start of the session.
The card was alluded to a few times by the moderator and during the conference.
The card had two sides:
Personal Information: name, birth month, interests, and needs.
Bingo card proper.
At the end, prizes were distributed but only if the individual was willing to share the results of their card.
Assessment of the Game
The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the game:
The game itself provided a reasonable ice breaker at table.
Individuals did not actively use the card outside of their table and there was limited interaction or discussion with the card.
The room itself however appeared to be well engaged and networked suggesting that the card and game provide some social license that eased initial conversations.
Conclusions and Future Use of Innovation Bingo
An en masse ice breaker game can work at the table level.
Room level coordination requires greater coordination which would detract from the program.
Conclusion: ‘Bingo’ games of varying forms can be used in other FMI events but should be downplayed and use for fun things such as prize distribution.
Blog Annex – FMI Event Description:
Fostering Innovation in the Public Service When Money is Tight.
Public servants are expected to be innovative while working in a risk averse environment. This inherent conundrum is compounded during times of fiscal restraint when ideas are solicited but resources to execute few. This session will investigate innovation in the public services from a number of facets.
What is innovation, how do you get it, how do you keep it and when should you ignore it? Next, how to propose, implement and sustain an innovative idea or culture in an environment that is less than ideal. Finally, thoughts and strategies of making the case for innovation during times of fiscal restraint; after all, never let a good crisis go to waste.
Organizational Biology 