Working from home is waning quickly  & the “future of work” prognosis about the office-less organization are dissipating.

Attesting to this, grotesque traffic jams have returned. One of my commutes takes me 2-3 hours each direction for a 70 km commute twice a week! And that is the easier commute.

Why have people returned to work? I will attempt to provide my understanding of this nasty development in this short post.

Every organization has what I call a “purely political dimension”, that is a limited domain in which power is unequally distributed. Some people have positions of power and tell others what do. Other people do what they are told. Power has visible manifestations and symbols. These symbols of power and position create a clear pecking order, even if subtle. For example office size, parking slots, who has a conference room, brand of laptop. These symbols of power are emphasized by various titles, charts, work flow and ceremonies.

The Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman discusses the term “status degradation ceremony” in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. The status degradation ceremony  transforms  the identity or status of an individual into an identity/status lower down an organization’s hierarchy. In other words, it is a political (power related) tool that stratifies an organization. The status degredation ceremony is best played out “in situ”, on site, and not on Zoom or Teams because the degredation ceremony has many visual components.

Let me digress a moment and discuss the almost religious hype created around remote work-which made it into an ideology instead of a tragedy.

Media and especially social media create illusions that sometimes exist in parallel to reality (every country needs to do its part in climate control*; soon we will all be driving electric cars) and sometimes create a false reality (Zalensky is a hero, and not an idiot**).

Working for home became a serious topic of academic research on one hand. Unfortunately, it also became a hot topic on social media, which created the illusion that working from home is the future of work-peace in our time. Social media tends to ignore unpleasant truths. We all have bad breath in the morning;we all fart from time to time and politics is far more dominant in determining the future of work than Rob or Rachel from Twitter think.

So yes, social media created a positive hype about working from home, making it into the “new tomorrow”. Nonsense.  A false prophet. A Zalensky, if you were, hailed by social media as his country goes to shit.

Management may not have  lost control during the pandemic, but they certainly did lose the feeling of control, and lost some of the little “status degredation ceremonies” at their disposal. This loss of power was unbearable, as most people do not give away power easily.

And thus, as the pandemic crawls to an end for the time being, people are forced back to work where they will sit opposite their computers, attend a few meetings, and be at the beck and call of management who will assert their superiority from time to time via various degredation ceremonies. 

*Some countries need to do a lot about climate control; others’ contributions are meaningless.

**If you live next to a bear, don’t poke him in the ribs.

In this post, I want to define what constitutes very very aggressive goals, run though their upsides and downsides for both managers and employees, and finally  discuss the practical implications for consultants who deal with organizations which have very very aggressive goals.

For the sake of this post, a very very aggressive goal is a goal which requires very hard work (often but not always) over a protracted period of time within a rigid and non-negotiable set of stringent budget, performance and quality requirements. Very very aggressive goals are often not achievable without some “slippage” or retreat , especially schedule, budget or “scope retreat”.

Why do organizations set very very aggressive goals?

1) To promise a key client something that they are demanding. Example: upgrade your last release or we will uninstall your software from our system.

2) To help build the career of a key decision maker. Example: Colonel Yair wants to use his unit to take out the enemy, because he is up for promotion in a few months.

3) In order to survive. Example: Ghetto Warsaw uprising. Or competitor emerges with prices that will destroy your market share. Or life saving medicine in a pandemic.

4) To gain huge strategic advantage in a very short time. Example: an application in the area of cyber security in a state under constant immediate threat.

Now let’s look at very very aggressive goals’ impact of various populations:

1 Employees

Newer employees and fresh meat can be very motivated by very very aggressive goals because of the platform it provides to shine quickly and get ahead without the tedious process of seniority slowly down the runway to promotion.

Veteran employees, who have seen this all before, take out their protective armor which includes making the “right” promises, “apparently agreeing”, prepare excuses and think who can be blamed when the shit hits the fan. “I did my piece but the specs we got were not accurate”, or “the client doesn’t know his ass from his elbow”.

I cannot overstate the protective armor that staff develops against very very aggressive goals. Example, “I won’t start working hard yet, because when the pressure really comes, I will already have ruined my family life”.

As Bangalore based OD guru Dr Joseph George points out in his comments below,  “sustainable achievements require a psychologically safe work environment in which one can attend to challenges as they occur, and deal with the stress of taking on initiatives that look promising, before they are completed”. The veteran recognizes the threat; the newcomers sees only the opportunity.

2 Managers

Middle managers are in a real quandary.  To maintain the trust with their employees, they need to listen to and factor in all the constraints and problems that surface to them, which often force them to ask the men in charge for more time and resources. The middle manager is often very aware that some goals are undoable, but cannot say so freely.

The senior managers at first often whip their horses more often than they plan to. Then, they pooh pooh away constraints, they show disdain for defeatism, they eventually start to hear only what they want to. They show little fear when they see cracks in the wall, but rather anger at the “incompetence of the troops”. Finally, senior managers craft stories about why the goals were not achieved: “circumstance changed”; the market changed-and/or they chop off a head or two and or pull off  a reorg which buys time from the board or key stakeholders. In other words, they provide a context that paints the failure as a non-failure, pushing forward doomsday to a later date.

3) OD consultants

I have been falsely accused of explaining how not to do OD,  and not focusing on what needs to done. Anyone who reads this blog knows what this is not true. I have  written many posts on how to deal with over-commitments and I will provide a few links. Like this. And this.

Now,  some practical tips on how to consult with companies whose goals are very very  aggressive:

The key to understand how to do successful consulting in such a situation is to understand how the organization will eventually de commit. (Goffman calls this process  “cooling the mark”.)

The first step and the most critical is bridging between what the managers say and what the employees know. 

De-commitment from the initial commitment may look like this:-

1. Wow wow wow-we can do it.
2. We are doing our best.
3. There are some difficulties but we are confident
4. There are some features we want to improve and this will take time,
5. We will do “phased delivery”,
6. We have a crisis!
7. Renegotiation.

My experience is that the OD consultant needs to initially try two or three tricks that are known a priori will not be fully effective, yet will allow the gradual breaking of very bad news to the CEO. Interventions may include “coaching” for the head of R&D or one of his teams, various team building sessions or whatever. Within a month of two of OD being commissioned, “things are in process and while there is some improvement”, this change is not fast enough; then the management team can stop perfuming the pig both internally and with the client and come clean.

My experience also has taught me never to lose the trust of the programmers/first line employees. I once consulted on a project which management thought was “almost all done” while proof of design was severely flawed. I resisted all attempts to consult  people to “manage their priorities better-aka work even harder”. The moment that a Dilbert  feels that a consultant is there to apply pressure, the Dilbert  starts lying to you as well.

My experience has also taught me in situations of severe over commitment, people who “step up to the plate” and try to “make the impossible happen” may be very opportunistic and looking for a short term PR win. There are no fast fixes when the gap between the commitment and reality are too large. The OD consultant must be wary of factoring in commitment from these heroes-in-waiting.

Finally, 5 things you may not know about very very aggressive  commitments.

1 Culture counts. Risk tolerant cultures accept very very aggressive commitments because they are more tolerant about failure.

2 Very very aggressive commitments can be achieved especially when the winds of luck blow in the right direction.

3  Truth and facts die in an organization whose OS (operating system)  is based on constant very very aggressive goals. No one ends up knowing what is doable.

4 There are some very successful organizations which over commit and under deliver. In the real world of course, not in OD text books.

5 Very very aggressive commitments do breed positive by products in the short term– such as short cuts, risk taking and in-house innovation.

This is a highly specialized article about doing a post merger OD intervention in a situation whereby a less successful  company with fewer competencies acquires a more successful and competent company and/or when a large, rigid behemoth acquires an innovative company, as illustrated by consultant Terry Seamon in his comments to this post.

First of all, let’s talk about what not to do:

• don’t focus on creating one culture or merging the two, which cannot be done in any case.
• don’t initially focus on the interfaces.
• don’t work on cultural differences.

The initial focus should be on:

• structure that accommodates as much autonomy as possible for the short term as well as minimizing interfaces where the gaps in competency are overwhelming.
• short-term decision making forums based on parity, i.e. an equal number of decision makers from both sides, if at all possible. It’s not perfect but it’s probably the best that can be done.
• preservation of competencies in the acquired company. 
• reputation management with the client base with special attention to account managers
• as much relocation as possible for as long as possible; this can be used to mitigate impact of less successful layers and augment the impact of more competent if done properly
• creation of a House of Lords in order to relocate members of the acquiring company who need to be moved aside elegantly

For a cookbook on how to choke an innovative company to death, here is a link.

The way that people lead and manage is a function of the economic system in which they serve. Years ago (1961), David Granick illustrated this ever so skilfully in his book the Red Executive.

Of course, the present “capitalism-on-steroids ” develops a certain brand of leaders as well. Leaders and managers do some pretty awful things to get to the top, and  to stay there. As consultant Robin Cook points out in his comments to this post, this is due in part to the ‘instant gratification’ culture (served by)management…most decision making has been short term (and is) based on tomorrow’s stock price &/or next quarter’s earnings statement”.

First, I shall provide a few examples of managerial behaviours which serve the system -after which we will have a look at what all this means for OD practitioners in our practical consulting work.

• They say contradictory things to different audiences. Not just different emphasis! Different things altogether. 
• They promise things that cannot be done, and then, slowly decommit, or recommit to yet another unachievable set of goals.
• They allocate blame ensuring that very little “sticks” to them.
• They please certain powerful stakeholders to the detriment of others. 
• They set deadlines and apply pressure that endanger people’s mental health.
• They pay as little as possible to get as much as possible, especially in labour intensive industries.
• They scheme to crush organized labour. 

These activities are practised not only by poisonous and “loser”  managers, but also by very good and effective managers. Yes, management is a real-world activity-with a bright side and a darker side. A very dark side.

So what does this mean for OD and the people who train managers? Well, I’ll tell you what it has meant for me in my 45 years of practice with some pretty senior people. I always talk about things as they are-discussing all the possibilities and the trade offs.

• “Yes, you can fire the present R&D manager to take the blame for the delay-but let’s examine what that means for your positioning  with the team, who knows you force fed these crazy deadlines.”
• “The re-org you are proposing will buy time, but the shit will hit the fan anyway. If you take appropriate corrective action now, you know what you are facing. If you delay action by a bogus re-org, you will deal with the devil you don’t know.”
• I avoid discussing the role of the leader as do most OD people, ie as a super hero and passionate visionary who walks on water, inspiring people by dint of his (or hers, or its) personality, charisma or  whatever. Leadership and management just do not work like that. Sugar-coating the art of management ruins your credibility.

Before you start reading this post, please note that I am not politically correct, nor do I use gender pronouns as is currently popular. And while all comments are welcome, I ignore comments that relate to my PC compatibility . Now let’s get down to a case study.

Fred, aged 48, has worked as Deputy CFO at large and well known international law firm, for whom he has been working 20 years. Fred’s boss, Harold, is 58 years old and has been with the firm since day one. Harold focuses on relations with tax lobbyists, PR in the financial community, and ensuring that he is involved in large new contracts to ensure profitability. Fred, on the other hand, does all the grunt work, at which he is very very good: thorough and meticulous.

Fred’s wife, Joselin, thinks it’s time that Fred take a crack at a CFO job and leave the law firm where “you will never get promoted till Harold kicks the bucket”. Joselin feels that the law firm takes Fred for granted, although he is very well paid. But, the company doesn’t allow Fred to travel first class to Japan (5 times a year) whilst Harold does have that privilege. And Harold has purchased a flat for his 4 kids, while Fred and Joselin can be generous, but not that generous.

Joselin also thinks that her husband needs to start to play “major leagues”, and not “plod on like a run-of-the mill ‘comptable’ (accountant in French)”.

It’s November now and the firm is planning its review process. Joselin has been pouring it on very thick lately, and Fred has even acquiesced to meeting a few young entrepreneurs who want a CFO to build the company, raise money, keep the firm on track, and join all negotiations. And the start ups are offering huge options and fat salaries.

No one on Fred’s firm knows too much about Joselin except that she is French (Canadian), the Head of The Physics Department at a local (very well known) university, dresses well and appears to be an excellent supportive partner to Fred as well as a devoted mother.

Fred is about to get the regular feedback -“huge asset to company; what would we do without you; 15% salary raise; one day the CFO job is yours; you need to trust your people more”. Joselin, in the meantime, is turning the screws, and Fred is torn.

It’s easy to claim that there is a separation between family life and work. But this is not always true. In many cultures, it is never true, especially in Middle eastern cultures and family businesses. In Western cultures, there is separation barrier, but a weak one.

But one thing is sure-the impact of the spouse on decisions that an employee makes are critical-and those who take the separation barrier to be very rigid, do so at their peril.

I emerged dejected from a cordial meeting of very smart people on OD’s relevance in face of the massive change and crisis we are all experiencing.

I felt at times like I was in a group of Latin speakers, discussing how to further inculcate the use of Latin in written passports and diplomacy.

Now I have way of being in people’s face and speaking my mind, but I did try to behave until I heard words like “permanency” and “awareness”. Thankfully, one colleague from Missouri noted that the language we used during the meeting was somewhat out of sync. I felt, “thank god I’m not alone”

I decided to try to be positive today about the whole matter. I am recovering from a 3rd corona shot (which is no easy task) and it’s so hot that I dare not venture outside except for taking George outside to “relieve” himself. So I pondered-“what can be done”.

What  OD needs to do now to become relevant. (like yesterday!)

1. Speed as strategy; whatever we need to do, it needs to be fast. 
2. Work with clients to ensure that expertise is well positioned and empowered, even if it means less emphasis on teamwork.
3. Similar to other professions, we need to intervene in order to diagnose. “Take this pill, if it works, then your symptoms are depression. Install this software, and we’ll test it down the road”. Diagnose, intervene measure; freeze unfreeze-are irrelevant. Eg, X is incompetent. Outsource the capability NOW.
4. Stop standing on the shoulders of the founding fathers. They are old, dead and partially irrelevant. Show respect by breaking with tradition, as they did.
5. In the army, I learnt that OD is done best before a battle and after. So when necessary, mitigate overdosing on reflection, awareness and activities that hinder short term survival. Yes, short term.
6. Political survival of key figures, aka-what’s in this for me, becomes a dominant theme in extreme crisis. Factor this into your understanding of what is/needs to be done.

Budgets, sales forecasts, dates of product releases, product quality: these are all issues that organizations lie about in order to ensure their existence in turbulent times. False data is fed to the market, to customers, to investors, to boards and often to competitors. 

Very often, without these fibs, the liar would have become a goner.

Example: The present budget for the new IT system is 4 million euro, claims the CEO to the Board, which oks the investment with great difficulty. Eight months later and 3 months before project completion, the CEO announces that 7 more months and 2 million additional Euros are needed to complete the project. The board caves in. Of course the CEO  knew in advance that this is the only way he could have pried out the money from the board, which eventually will cost 9 million Euro and 4 years to complete.

What are the main dangers posed by this “prologue” of initially lying? Well, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Within the organization, people need to pretend: fake goals; fake KPIs; fake updates; a culture of blaming someone else for the delay/quality/price. 

Or perhaps there is a double set of books! Like what we mean and what we say.

Or what we learn not to say.

And what happens to nay-sayers who challenge the fibs? Who thrives and who drowns in such a culture?

It all really becomes one big fucking lie. But the organization survives.

And of course we need to ask, what type of OD is done is such a context. Does OD help perfume the pig, as it were, stirring up the troops to do their level best to “make it happen”? Rah-rah; wow wow!

Or does OD unravel the web of lies, which poses short term existential threats which may cost the OD consultant his, or her, job. Yes, his or her. 

I have been fired 3 times for unravelling lies. I even consulted a company that had missed a delivery date by 3 years on a minor software release, on which no one was even working, albeit that the end customer was paying for its development.

Of course OD also has it little white lies, to say the least. Is what we do actually good for business always? Do the latest trends that OD practitioners push really add value? Like “love in the workplace” or “hire for neuro-diversity”. Is wellness achieved at work, for God’s sake?  Does teamwork pay off? Is process and value alignment necessary, or do the conflicting demands between the two create the necessary tension needed to get the job done? Can we strengthen middle management; Does it do any good? 

I suggest that before we attempt to undo the fibs and lies of our clients, we deal with our own shit. If you get my drift.