Your organization's mental software may be obsolete

“The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” Albert Einstein

It would be ludicrous to try to use computer software designed decades ago to do the kind of computing work we do today, but this is equivalent to what most organizations are doing in the realm of mental software -- and I believe the costs to them are enormous!

By "mental software", I mean ways of looking at and thinking about work -- the mental structures that guide the way we think about work-related issues. We all possess such structures, and use them to guide our analyses, strategizing and action planning. They consist of the distinctions, working theory, mental models, frameworks and tools that we have assimilated over time. It is very important to note that these structures are largely invisible, and rarely examined -- yet determine how effectively we do virtually everything we do, from planning and executing tasks, conducting meetings, dealing with conflict, designing organizations, leading others, and learning from our experience.

Today's increasingly complex, dynamic and demanding business environment requires new ways of thinking -- that is, new or updated "mental software" for getting work done effectively. Yet people in organizations everywhere are struggling to do the work of the present, using mental software that was designed to do the work of eras long past. Methods which have been considered ultra-high performance, and provided a competitive advantage for a few elite organizations, will soon become a requirement for meeting expected performance levels, and will become a requirement for survival in the foreseeable future.

The table below contrasts the kind of world we used to live in only a few decades ago (for which most of the mental software used by people in organizations today was designed), with the kind of world we live in today.

The problem of outdated mental software is so widespread that most of the time its symptoms are commonly accepted as "just the way things are" in organizations. The table below provides some examples.

Why is this important? Even a cursory examination of this list of symptoms reveals many serious barriers to getting work done effectively. So, what people are able to accomplish under these conditions is very often in spite of themselves. The magnitude of the problem is hard to appreciate -- until you actually observe how effective people can be in an organization that has eliminated these barriers. Performance improvements of 100%, 200% and more have been achieved, sustained and continuously improved upon, in leading organizations like DuPont, Clorox and Procter & Gamble that have done so. I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to research and participate in such efforts.

I was the Corporate Director of Organization Effectiveness at Crown Zellerbach, a Fortune 100 company, during its corporate transformation effort. A comprehensive set of mental software was introduced into the company, and used extensively at all levels to improve the business. As a result, the company skyrocketed from 24th out of 24 in its industry to near the top in about two years. Scott Paper, one of its competitors, used the same process and went from 23rd to near the top during the same period. The things we were able to conceive of, and then do at CZ, in terms of "impossible" operational improvements, strategic repositioning in key businesses, forming union-management partnerships and creating a unifying and empowering culture -- were then beyond my wildest dreams of what could be done in an organization.

So what can you do to close the mental software gap and reap the benefits of much improved thinking and action across your organization?

I recommend as a first step that you engage with, understand, and internalize, the basic premise underlying this approach to improving performance, and that is that: Thinking drives Action which drives Results. This means that the source of action and results is thinking, and that therefore, thinking is the factor that has the greatest leverage in improving results. The more you improve your thinking, the more options you have, and the more powerful those options can be.

For most people, thinking is a black box phenomenon: you don't think about it, you just do it; some people can do it well, some can't. So they are unsure of what to do with this notion. A model that has been very useful to people in further understanding and taking advantage of this basic premise, is this:

This model breaks "Thinking" down into (1) the Thoughts you have that drive your actions, (2) the Thought Processes that you use to produce your Thoughts, and (3) the Thinking Capability you have to use Thought Processes. This means that the way to improve your thinking is to improve your thought processes, and your capability to use them.

Using improved mental software is a means of improving your Thought Processes. Training in the use of mental software is a means of improving your Thinking Capability.

People who have undergone this type of training have experienced major shifts in the quality of their thinking and the results of their actions. Some of the differences are summarized below:

So the next step is to introduce improved mental software into the organization -- and build the capability to use it. This is usually done in the form of interactive workshops, in which people are provided simple but powerful tools, which are learned by applying them, with coaching, to real business issues. The greatest returns usually are gained when the conditions for transferring what is learned to the job are provided for, including learning together with work associates, and ongoing leadership and coaching.

The initial focus is typically on applying the tools to get immediate and significant improvements in performance. However, the greatest long-term benefits can result from shifting the focus, over time, from using tools to developing the more fundamental thinking capabilities that can be learned by conscious use of these tools. These more fundamental capabilities include the ones that enable the use of the High Performance Thought Processes in the table above, e.g., conscious and systemic thinking.

These tools can also provide the practical means to operationalize many of the practices that are now only attractive concepts in most organizations, e.g.: empowerment, learning organization, virtual teams, remote management, community-building, innovation, continuous improvement. Shifting the focus to implementing these practices can also bring large payoffs.

These mental tools are solidly based in general systems theory. They are derived from a comprehensive set of systemic models, each of which is a way of viewing a whole system from a particular perspective, in terms of the few essential elements that determine its success in a particular kind of work. This makes the tools particularly useful in dealing with the complexity in today's work systems. They guide people in working with complex situations, addressing only those factors that are absolutely essential -- necessary and sufficient to deal with it effectively. This ensures that everything necessary is included and anything unnecessary is excluded, saving precious time and energy.

Interestingly enough, the way you learn to use the tools, and use them over time, turns out to be the deciding factor in their level of impact. If the tools are delivered in a traditional teacher-student process, the result, as is the case in most of our learning institutions, tends to be passive, conforming, dependent, mechanical users. If they are delivered in a challenging, Socratic, self-discovery process, the result tends to be proactive, diverse, independent creative users. Though most learners are unfamiliar with this type of learning, and struggle with it at first, they soon come to see the value. You know they get it when they say, "Don't tell me they answer, I want to figure it out for myself!"

I have not found much in the business literature about this approach to organization performance, though the importance of disciplined thinking and action were highlighted in the best sellers, Good to Great and Built to Last . Also, a study reported in the Harvard Business Review described the use of common disciplines (for planning, problem-solving, meetings, project management, etc.) in a number of leading companies. The study showed how that practice brings them a level of professionalism, in the way work is done, of the sort that we normally associate with professional disciplines like medicine or engineering. It also greatly reduces the need for hierarchical and bureaucratic control, while enabling competitive advantage through innovation, agility and unified action. Last but not least, it provides the tools for creating a workplace where people are engaged and want to stay.

Here is how one of my clients, an OD Director at Hewlett Packard described his company's experience with this approach: “Brian Yost introduced HP to a new way of thinking, teaming and leading, made up of a wide array of profound and transformational concepts, processes and tools. We applied them to a number of challenging issues and opportunities, from facility closures to business turnarounds, with great success. These are the most useful methods and materials I have found in my 20 years of training and organization development work. I use them virtually every day myself. I would strongly recommend them to anyone who wants to improve their own and their organization’s performance.”

How many tools are needed? By looking at the vast array of training programs and materials that are available to organizations today, you might conclude that there would need to be a large number of tools that people would need to master in order to get the benefits of this approach. However, it turns out that there is a relatively small number of recurring challenges in organizations, and that the number of tools that are absolutely essential, is also relatively small -- at least to get started, and significantly improve performance. What is a relatively small number? About eight for all organization members, another eight for leaders, and another eight for internal consultants. The types of tools are those necessary for moving to the high end of the scales in the assessment surveys I mentioned, e.g., planning and executing tasks. (Of course, there are many increasingly sophisticated tools that have been developed for achieving increasingly significant results.)

Who are the providers of these tools? A small but growing network of consultants who support organization change work. These consultants have discovered the tools, and the larger body of organization technology that contains them, in their search for the most powerful ways of helping organizations fulfill their purposes. Having realized the power of this technology, they are gradually making the tools available to organizations other than the select few who have profited enormously from their use, and kept them a competitive secret.

One brief description of a mental tool for task planning and execution, the "Process Cycle", can be seen at this link: sites.google.com/site/yostassociates/yost-associates-mental-tool-samples. Some of the kinds of significant discoveries commonly made by using it can be seen at this same link.

If you are curious about the state of your organization's mental software, surveys are available that can enable you to make a rough assessment of the gap between where it is, and where it could be. Yours will be a very rare organization if it is not found to be on the low end of the scales. When doing your assessment, it may be useful for you to know that people frequently overrate themselves on these scales, until they find out what it means to really be on the high end of the scales.

A survey entitled Common Problems in Organizations..., that can enable you to assess the degree to which your organization has adopted the mental software needed to perform at the highest levels is at this link: sites.google.com/site/yostassociates/self-assessment-tools.