In The Chaos Imperative, Ori Brafman and Judah Pollack advocate the need for a modicum of ‘disruptive ideas’ in a structured environment to kickstart change or to deliver superior results.
ery often, one tends to be satisfied with the status quo and, therefore, as a corollary, would not like to shake the applecart. This holds in our own lives, as well as that in the life cycle of organisations. Brafman and Pollack, in their book titled, The Chaos Imperative, argue, as the title suggests, that it is essential to really bring in chaos into our lives so that we do better. It is the beginning of progress. In a way, it is not very dissimilar to the Schumpeterian version of creative destruction, though the authors do not really talk of rebirth from destruction, but focus on the necessity of a certain high modicum of chaos to deliver superior results.
In their world, we need disruptive ideas in organisations to kickstart a change, just like how the plague in the 14th century actually got the continent of Europe to restart life and bring about development of an unparalleled magnitude. So much, that people lost faith in the church and the rich channelled money to educational institutions, which sprung up in Vienna, Florence, Prague and their like rather than the church. This was what one could have called a tipping point. Also, the church recruited priests who were rejected earlier, which, in turn, brought in fresh thinking. Hence the plague created what the authors call ‘white space’, which is essential for organisations to leverage. In fact, in Florence, the Basilica of St Mary had to be completed and redesigned, which gave rise to the likes of da Vinci. The rest, as it is said, is history.
The authors speak of three kinds of ingredients for bringing in what is called contained chaos. They call it contained because chaos would be of a specified order before it turns disruptive. They are ‘white space’, ‘unusual suspects’ and ‘organised serendipity’. Let us see how these work.
Chicago’s 37 Signals actually gives one month off to all employees so that can they go home and recoup and come back rejuvenated with new ideas and thought processes. Having such a scheme is an extreme case where all employees lock the office and leave. They enjoy the freedom for some time, but then regroup among themselves and discuss the way forward with one another, and come back with new zest to not just perform better, but implement their ideas. The idea is to essentially give them space to think and improve their productivity.
In fact, at a more down-to-earth level, they give an example of having two classes in a school where students are tested on their productivity by simply having two kinds of environment in which they operate. One class works continuously with a small break, while the other spends more time in class, but has breaks more often, where students can talk or play or just do nothing. Tests showed that the second class performed better simply because they had time to think and come up with different solutions. It is now accepted that, typically, the human mind cannot concentrate hard for more than, say, 45-60 minutes at a time and by allowing a break, the cells could be recouped. This was white space being provided to the students. Other examples given here are those of Albert Einstein who was not a good student in class, but attained what no one else has ever done. The story of JK Rowling is also narrated where she conceptualised Harry Potter when her train was stuck between London and Manchester, and she saw a boy lost, standing there not knowing from where he had come. Steve Jobs was very good at calligraphy, but used the white space to move into the IT field.
The second case of ‘unusual suspects’ is interesting where the premise is that we can get a lot from people where we least expect. An example given here is that during the Romney-Obama elections, everyone bet it would be Romney who would win. All the polls said exactly that. But there was Nate Silver who was good at predicting baseball games results and he got Obama right. This is the case of an unusual suspect who could deliver even in an organisation. They give the example of Cisco, where employees are moved across departments. The premise is that normally in a normal-structured environment, workers are loyal to their boss and not company. Also, often they may not be doing what they are actually good at. Therefore, such kind of rotation helps not only in personal satisfaction, but also drawing what one can call superior results through such selection of unusual suspects. Here, they show how a real estate worker in the company shows value for Cisco in a stadium where the company can provide links with the scoreboard.
The third way of creating chaos is through ‘organised serendipity’. How does one get people from different backgrounds into a meaningful discussion that generates new ideas and actions? There is an interesting example of how patients in a hospital suffering from a disease called MRSA, posed a threat to the doctors and nurses too, and to avoid infection, they had to wash their hands regularly and also bathe the patients with water. But water was available downstairs, which made it a challenge to maintain hygiene. Getting everyone, including the janitor, to solve the problem helped because the janitor knew where the valve was on the floor as it was covered by shelves. Therefore, a simple solution was not known to the others and by getting in everyone, the problem was addressed.
In fact, top management schools also follow the principle of organised serendipity because there are fixed proportions of seats kept for those who have domain knowledge or experience, another slot for uniquely talented students from, say, the sports domain, yet another block for students with different ethnic or religious backgrounds and the last for people with life experiences. The idea is that they all help to provide perspectives from different sides as they come with varying backgrounds. An owner of a steel mill or a homemaker will add to the quality of discussion in these classrooms. Often parties are a way of organising serendipity. Restructuring offices without cabins creates an open culture and encourages exchange of ideas, and at times could stimulate new outlooks that are helpful for the organisation.
The authors conclude that keeping chaos at bay comes in the way of innovation. The three ways of creating this chaos are quite interesting, and they have used these principles in the US army to motivate the soldiers and get the best from them. That is saying something because in the military, rarely is one really allowed to think for himself, as indoctrination is more towards compliance without questioning. If it worked there, it should certainly help organisations flourish. That is the major take-away from this book.
ery often, one tends to be satisfied with the status quo and, therefore, as a corollary, would not like to shake the applecart. This holds in our own lives, as well as that in the life cycle of organisations. Brafman and Pollack, in their book titled, The Chaos Imperative, argue, as the title suggests, that it is essential to really bring in chaos into our lives so that we do better. It is the beginning of progress. In a way, it is not very dissimilar to the Schumpeterian version of creative destruction, though the authors do not really talk of rebirth from destruction, but focus on the necessity of a certain high modicum of chaos to deliver superior results.
In their world, we need disruptive ideas in organisations to kickstart a change, just like how the plague in the 14th century actually got the continent of Europe to restart life and bring about development of an unparalleled magnitude. So much, that people lost faith in the church and the rich channelled money to educational institutions, which sprung up in Vienna, Florence, Prague and their like rather than the church. This was what one could have called a tipping point. Also, the church recruited priests who were rejected earlier, which, in turn, brought in fresh thinking. Hence the plague created what the authors call ‘white space’, which is essential for organisations to leverage. In fact, in Florence, the Basilica of St Mary had to be completed and redesigned, which gave rise to the likes of da Vinci. The rest, as it is said, is history.
The authors speak of three kinds of ingredients for bringing in what is called contained chaos. They call it contained because chaos would be of a specified order before it turns disruptive. They are ‘white space’, ‘unusual suspects’ and ‘organised serendipity’. Let us see how these work.
Chicago’s 37 Signals actually gives one month off to all employees so that can they go home and recoup and come back rejuvenated with new ideas and thought processes. Having such a scheme is an extreme case where all employees lock the office and leave. They enjoy the freedom for some time, but then regroup among themselves and discuss the way forward with one another, and come back with new zest to not just perform better, but implement their ideas. The idea is to essentially give them space to think and improve their productivity.
In fact, at a more down-to-earth level, they give an example of having two classes in a school where students are tested on their productivity by simply having two kinds of environment in which they operate. One class works continuously with a small break, while the other spends more time in class, but has breaks more often, where students can talk or play or just do nothing. Tests showed that the second class performed better simply because they had time to think and come up with different solutions. It is now accepted that, typically, the human mind cannot concentrate hard for more than, say, 45-60 minutes at a time and by allowing a break, the cells could be recouped. This was white space being provided to the students. Other examples given here are those of Albert Einstein who was not a good student in class, but attained what no one else has ever done. The story of JK Rowling is also narrated where she conceptualised Harry Potter when her train was stuck between London and Manchester, and she saw a boy lost, standing there not knowing from where he had come. Steve Jobs was very good at calligraphy, but used the white space to move into the IT field.
The second case of ‘unusual suspects’ is interesting where the premise is that we can get a lot from people where we least expect. An example given here is that during the Romney-Obama elections, everyone bet it would be Romney who would win. All the polls said exactly that. But there was Nate Silver who was good at predicting baseball games results and he got Obama right. This is the case of an unusual suspect who could deliver even in an organisation. They give the example of Cisco, where employees are moved across departments. The premise is that normally in a normal-structured environment, workers are loyal to their boss and not company. Also, often they may not be doing what they are actually good at. Therefore, such kind of rotation helps not only in personal satisfaction, but also drawing what one can call superior results through such selection of unusual suspects. Here, they show how a real estate worker in the company shows value for Cisco in a stadium where the company can provide links with the scoreboard.
The third way of creating chaos is through ‘organised serendipity’. How does one get people from different backgrounds into a meaningful discussion that generates new ideas and actions? There is an interesting example of how patients in a hospital suffering from a disease called MRSA, posed a threat to the doctors and nurses too, and to avoid infection, they had to wash their hands regularly and also bathe the patients with water. But water was available downstairs, which made it a challenge to maintain hygiene. Getting everyone, including the janitor, to solve the problem helped because the janitor knew where the valve was on the floor as it was covered by shelves. Therefore, a simple solution was not known to the others and by getting in everyone, the problem was addressed.
In fact, top management schools also follow the principle of organised serendipity because there are fixed proportions of seats kept for those who have domain knowledge or experience, another slot for uniquely talented students from, say, the sports domain, yet another block for students with different ethnic or religious backgrounds and the last for people with life experiences. The idea is that they all help to provide perspectives from different sides as they come with varying backgrounds. An owner of a steel mill or a homemaker will add to the quality of discussion in these classrooms. Often parties are a way of organising serendipity. Restructuring offices without cabins creates an open culture and encourages exchange of ideas, and at times could stimulate new outlooks that are helpful for the organisation.
The authors conclude that keeping chaos at bay comes in the way of innovation. The three ways of creating this chaos are quite interesting, and they have used these principles in the US army to motivate the soldiers and get the best from them. That is saying something because in the military, rarely is one really allowed to think for himself, as indoctrination is more towards compliance without questioning. If it worked there, it should certainly help organisations flourish. That is the major take-away from this book.
No comments:
Post a Comment