On social construction, the organisational ‘be’, and innovation
The current social construction of how organisations (& education) ‘should be’, is based in decades of masculine and capitalist ideals and ideas. This, coupled with a Tayloristic approach of measure, record and refine, bases in hierarchy, compliance, and transaction ways of working has led to a complex and an increasingly, contextually, mis-aligned version of organisational behaviour.
The 1930’s saw a recognition that workers had a social life and are an integral part of the organisations social network, and more recent theory has moved towards motivation theory, and ‘total reward’ (O’Neill), which steps beyond monetary rewards and into a more holistic reward approach. This includes any non-financial reward, including flexible working, hybrid working and holidays; and what started with fruit in the office and gym memberships, has moved on (in the great places to work) apace. For example, Timpsons bold ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity pays for staff to fulfil a dream (they’re an example that will run & run, have you looked at Timpson’s?) and Lanes Drains introduced the ‘Wellcrowd’ app for a daily check-in with all their people. This has resulted in a turnaround in retention and recruitment, and has seen them providing food, and even a flight home for a welfare visit. These are exceptional, but thankfully organisations are starting to recognise that there are humans in their midst, and treating them like, well… humans, can provide multiple benefits which were unexpected.
The biggest kicker to the workplace came with Covid. The anticipated tech working revolution expected around 2030 hit us all overnight, with no planning or preparation and many organisations are either still not ready for it, or haven’t started a retrospective to see what works and what doesn’t for their organisaton. I would urge them to look beyond the cost and into the personal and social benefits of working together (face to face). Despite all this change, in some organisations the draw of Taylorist principles is too strong to let go (I believe they will wither); in many larger organisations and a goodly handful of SMEs, there is a disinclination to empower their people, or consider how ESG principles can be practically applied by them. For example, Elon Musk’s notorious takeover of Twitter and brand change to X (now amusingly named ‘X, formally known as Twitter’, ah the irony!), and what George Ritzer calls McDonaldisation — highlighting the de-skilling of some job roles.
I believe that there is also a risk aversion borne of this outdated construct, which rewards validation of existing knowledge, and avoids risky changes and innovation. A recent paper by the President of the Santa Fe Institute talks about the “economics of risk aversion”, and I wonder what the cost of risk aversion has been to science, education, innovation, organisational and governmental change. While we have been measuring performance and looking for savings in our existing processes, using standard measures, I wonder what amazing ideas have been swept aside because they didn’t fit with current thinking — I am reminded of the Harry Chapin song, ‘Flowers are Red’ and wonder how long it will be before we see a revolution in thinking about this… I think it’s on its way.
How could we hope to estimate, or measure, the cost of new ideas which have not been pursued because of a risk averse approach within an organisation, or Department. Innovation lost in its meandering wake.
It is increasingly clear that customers, stakeholders, investors and employees are seeking organisations that are ‘great places to work’. Organisations state that they want their people to collaborate, and be innovative in their solutions, but this goes beyond saying ‘be creative’ or writing ‘we are innovative’ on a wall! Innovation is more prevalent in those organisations who are flexible in their routes to strategic targets, where people feel trusted and trust the leadership, where they can freely challenge and feel heard, and where collaboration and co-creation are the way of working.
How can institutions encourage failure, trial & error, blue sky thinking; just because we haven’t heard of it doesn’t mean it can’t exist, just because it’s a new way of doing things does not mean it will not work. How will we ever know if such thought is nipped in the bud?
I believe that the social constructions of organisations, and work, are changing, through a series of changes in perspectives brought about from some strategic shocks, and a lot of thinking, theory, and a change to societies considerations of what work and organisations should be. Fuelled by several movements and thinkers, such as the BCorps movement. the Better Business Act and the increase in interest in an organisation’s Environmental, Social and Governance credentials — you need to be doing, not just say you do!
Your actions must equal your words.
