Disruption, Potential, Beyond Resilience?
This article sums up the preparation for, and insights arising from a Major Projects Association and Association for Project Management sponsored webinar on 29th May 2020. The webinar focused on human potential and how to shape the best possible ‘new normal’ for projects and organisations.
The original webinar can be viewed here (MPA) and here (APM). Big thanks to Jonathan Norman (MPA) and Merv Wyeth (Mentimeter and APM) for their help in putting the webinar together.
The date is significant, coming in the UK at the end of 10 weeks of ‘lock-down’ at home for all but essential front-line workers, and at a point where restrictions were starting to be slowly lifted amid widely conflicting chatter about the risks that individuals, families, organisations and the country ‘should’ be taking, going forward.
Of course, any conversation about risk that uses the word ‘should’ is doomed from the start. Risk, like love, is in the eye of the beholder, it’s a perception thing – so everyone has their own (valid) perspective – and this is shaped by many different things: rational assessments, subconscious biases and visceral emotions[1].
In preparing for the webinar I was conscious that I, like many, had many questions and few answers. My perspective though was set within a frame of having unending faith in human potential – in our individual and collective ability to be courageous, inventive, resilient and kind. So, as we move forward to live more ‘normally’ with coronavirus thriving across the world, what are can we do to honour our potential in a responsible way?
In this piece I’ll focus on three areas: (1) the nature of the disruption for organisations; (2) how four areas of human potential – economic, e-working, ecological and emotional – call for integrated decision-making in the face of serious uncertainty, and (3) what leaders can do to address this.
The data presented below was relevant on 29th May 2020, the questions and way forward I suggest have a longer shelf-life.
Disruption
To make good choices under uncertainty, there have always been some fundamental things that need to be understood as far as possible: objectives and targets, disruptions now, emergent risks and the ability (willingness, capacity, capability) to change. In the face of major disruption, it might not always be the most sensible choice to hold on to previous objectives, targets and plans. In the face of major disruption that was predicted and predictable, but which many ignored until they could no longer, it seems that we should take a good look at the future and chart a path that acknowledges some different truths.
During the webinar, and using the Mentimeter app[2], of the c.160 people who answered the questions, we discovered that only 11% were expecting organisational strategies, goals and objectives to remain unchanged. A huge majority are expecting marked differences in the personal objectives of colleagues that will inevitably change the underpinning assumptions we’ve previously held about how project-based work is planned and organised.
Considering past practices for planning for uncertain futures, 70% of the people said their organisation did plan for possible futures, either through contingency plans, or investing in additional capacity. 30% reported they still had their ‘head in the sand’ or were relying on heroes to come to the rescue in the face of disruption.
Only 4% said they would not prioritise planning for multiple possible futures going forward.
So, it seems that there is an acknowledgement that things have shifted and we need to do things differently going forward. Where is the potential?
Potential
Our world is a complex, interconnected system and any consideration of the future needs to consider the relationships between, and the relative priorities of multiple competing objectives. This becomes ever more complex when we have tough decisions to make about meeting short term objectives (such as getting our company trading again, safely, after lockdown), medium term objectives (such as creating great products, services and places to work when expectations have shifted) and longer term objectives (such as meeting challenging climate change targets).
Expressing the relationships between our economic, e-working, ecological and emotional potential in a simple Venn diagram, the trade-offs at the intersections are clear and plentiful. For example:
Do we exploit our potential for some people to ‘work from anywhere’ at the expense of massive disruption to real estate, travel and hospitality in cities?
How will we reconcile the benefits of e-working with the downsides for those who need the company of others to remain healthy and effective, and the imperative to be able to bring in new hires and integrate them socially and technically so they can contribute and grow?
How will we build the confidence in markets, so that investment in research and development to ‘move the dial’ on harmful emissions to the environment is funded. It’s clearly understood that we won’t save the world by stopping doing things: we need to do them differently. Telematics in work vehicles is a current example of this. What else will we commit to? Where are the investments that will have complementary outcomes to boost progress?
During the webinar, the majority of the participants said they could work from anywhere but were far from sure if that was the right thing. Most were more committed to meeting climate change targets than previously, despite acknowledging that recovery from recession will be tough.
Cautious optimism perhaps sums up the emotions felt about professional futures.
Beyond resilience
Drawing from Taleb[3], the argument is that we have become more fragile than we sensibly should be (think global connectedness) and that the way out of this is not more ‘padding’ more ‘control’ more ‘regulation’, but greater flexibility and willingness to have a go - to learn and fail. This will require a different sort of leadership than we’ve maybe been used to experiencing - or providing.
In a complex and interconnected world there are no simple answers and no one individual can possibly know what to do. Quoting Taleb (2013) “Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better”.
Maybe the current time, more than any other, highlights that control is an illusion. Resilience in this crisis has produced some amazing heroes but to become more antifragile, maybe we need something else - leaders who aren’t expected to know all the answers and who are willing to try a different approach.
Moving forward there are three things that any organisation can do, be it a country, a corporate, a charity or a church.
1. A different sort of analysis, to understand more about emergent trends and to map the interconnections in the system so the potential to disrupt, or to be disrupted emerges from the data.
2. Big, open, brave and curious conversations about conflicting objectives and what stakeholders are prepared to trade for what.
3. Make choices and plans that communicate an ambitious vision but take smaller incremental steps to achieving that vision; building flexibility, encouraging a ‘succeed or fail fast’ approach; trying, learning, collaborating, trying again.
Quoting Taleb (2013) again, “Difficulties wake up the genius”.
I have unfailing faith in human potential. I believe the potential in each one of us, and in the groups and organisations that we are a part of is huge – a massive energy, just waiting to be unleashed. What will we do with that energy?
Dr Ruth Murray-Webster HonFAPM CMIRM
07974 943443www.potentiality.ukwww.actupondisruption.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ruthmurraywebster/
Unlocking the potential performance from uncertainty and change.
[1] The ‘triple-strand of influences on perception and choice in risky and important situations’ from Hillson, D and Murray-Webster, R (2017) Understanding and Managing Risk Attitude, 2nd edition. Gower: Aldershot.
[2] You can find out more about the Mentimeter app at www.mentimeter.com
[3] Taleb, N. N. (2013) Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder. Penguin Random House: London