Making it personal

In my last blog, I made the case for simplicity. But, people* say to me, doesn’t mean that you are applying simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions? No, I retort, not a bit of it, glad that they’ve raised this very issue, as it gives me the opportunity to talk about my approach to research. Again.

Yes, looking for the simplest, biggest picture is a guiding principle of mine. I want to look for the fewest actions that will have the biggest effect on the most people. But the detail of how you do that is crucial.

And that’s where research comes into its own. Specifically the qualitative. Any quantitative that you have done will serve to point you in the right directions. But it is by talking to people, in depth, that you will get to the core of the issue. It is them who will help you to understand what works well, and what can be improved, and suggest what may be introduced.

By asking the open questions that you simply can’t do otherwise, you’ll see where issues are - they’ll be front of mind. But you also see where issue aren’t, what is obviously already satisfactory, or just off-the radar. Dig further into what you uncover and you’re understanding not just, say, that communication is an issue, but whether it’s about frequency, channels, transparency, tone, attitudes, or whatever.

So too, it’s only by speaking to the people in the organisation that you will start to uncover the culture of the business and what works well there. How and why are people most inspired and persuaded? What improves the chances of engaging them and enabling them to perform? 

I want to work with people to find recommendations by them and for them. I do want those simple solutions, but I want ones that absolutely fit the business that they are designed for.

* By “people”, I mostly mean the conversations I’m conducting with myself…

Work’s complicated. Strive for simplicity.

Do people really know what they think about their work? They’re humans after all, and that means that they don’t make rational decisions (especially in the presence of zombies), they have very selective memories (and we’re biased to the negative), they make emotional judgements (which can be affected by cake). And so much of the working experience is tied up in relationships with other humans with all the same faults. That’s always going to be hard to understand.

Then think about the other complicating factors in working life today: understanding your role in a changing strategy, delivering ever-more challenging targets, being always-on, taking more accountability for making customer decisions, probably with less direction. Work is a confusing place to be.

And yet it’s vital to understand what people think about their work, and how well they are dealing with those challenges. This blog puts it well. Fundamentally, very few of us manufacture widgets anymore. The best measures for our capacity to improve aren’t in how many widgets come off the line and how much faster that line can run. The capacity to improve is in the hearts and minds of the people. And if you take as your starting point that people can’t rattle off a rational, complete and objective view of what’s right, wrong and missing from their working lives, then you’re going to have to work hard to get to the real truths.

You need the richest possible mix of qualitative and quantitative work to get a spread of opinion and deep discussion. Those human factors mean that everyone has a highly individual experience; it’s a complex picture and it can be tempting to present that picture. But you must resist and search only for the universal, unifying truths. You must draw them out to see what to celebrate, cultivate or change. That’s where simplicity lies and there’s real comfort in simplicity. In a complicated world, simple is do-able, simple is buyable. Simple happens.

The right hours, not long hours

I felt rather depressed when I read this article about Spain being urged to give up the siesta: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/spain-working-hours-ending-siesta Any holiday-maker, once they’ve got used to everything apart from bars and restaurants closing from 2-4pm, will tell you it’s rather special. For one, it kind of forces you to spend two hours in a bar or restaurant. For another, you’ll see the Spanish on holiday together as extended families, in a way that I don’t think you see in the UK.

What depresses me is the orthodoxy of the solution. At the risk of understatement, there’s some economic problems in Spain. Working hours are too long, but there’s really good evidence for shorter hours being better for health and prosperity: http://www.alternet.org/story/154518/why_we_have_to_go_back_to_a_40-hour_work_week_to_keep_our_sanity

So why do Spain have to conform to everybody else’s idea of what a working day looks like? They can do as they choose with the timezones (and if Franco changed them, that seems like a sound rationale for changing them back). Why not simply start the working day later?

If the siesta can be preserved in some form in the working week, it will surely thrive outside of work. But if you take it away five days a week, will you change your body clock for the other two days? The siesta, and the late-night lifestyle is a key part of the Spanish cultural identity, and that’s very important to people’s feeling of worth and happiness. I think Spain would be poorer, in all senses, without it.

And if the knock-on effects mean that the odd footballer can’t adjust to Spanish life, then sorry Michael, but that’s a price worth paying: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/michael-owen/10263747/Michael-Owen-Real-Madrid-was-a-horror-story-for-me-off-the-pitch-but-Gareth-Bale-will-flourish-if-he-feels-at-home.html

Work hard? No thanks.

On a very long drive to a client, I was, as ever, sustained by Radio 4. Especially a documentary on Internships. Following the death of Moritz Erhardt at Merrill Lynch, they explored the long-working hours for juniors in the City. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b039rqqh/The_Report_Sleepless_in_the_City/

There’s the headlines. “If you’re not working 16 hours a day, and at least 16 hours at weekends, you have capacity”. The “Magic Roundabout” where interns cab home in the early hours, shower, change and get back to work. A one-upmanship culture develops; interns feel they are judged by their hours. Because, if they prove themselves, there’s the big cash prize of a permanent job.

A lot else stood out. Interns don’t do much 9-5, all their work arrives after that, so they just look busy. Pitches involve dozens of conflicting amends. Prescription drugs are abused. Physical and mental health suffers. Creativity, judgement and ethical thinking are soon worn out of people. And, above all, project management might prevent it all. But no, it’s all working hard, never working smart.

Is it worth it? It depends on what motivates this group. I do know that, in part, I stepped out on my own to have greater control over how I work. For me it’s a simple equation: smart work is rewarding, long work is draining. So working smarter produces better thinking, service, products.

And is there a parallel with the economic crisis too? We assumed credit could sustain us forever. It couldn’t. Aren’t many businesses assuming that they can draw forever on the reserves of their employees’ stamina? Isn’t that a recipe for inferior, errored work that requires re-work, that requires yet longer hours? Won’t that bubble burst too?

A lot of the political rhetoric now is about competing with China, India, Brazil, Russia where – we’re lectured - millions willingly toil long and hard. The inherent assumption is that we must match their dedication, hour for hour. I don’t think we can compete like that. I don’t want to. I believe we have to work smarter, not harder.

If we do, wouldn’t we all be happier at work too?