Partnership.

You want to make a Widget. 

I like the Widget.

I can help you to make it.  

It can be Ours.

Let's call it Employment.  

We'll define the Widget.

We'll agree what each will do by when.

Let's call it a Contract.  

I'm not serving you. You're not controlling me. We're equals.

Creating the Widget.  

There will be uncertainties during construction. One or both of us may feel anxious. That may be difficult. It will demand effort from each of us to resolve it to the satisfaction of the Widget. It will be hard.

Let's call it Work.  

Theory.

'Whether you think you do or not, you do have a theory of human behaviour. The only choice is in deciding which theory you will use. And the choice is an important one. It will determine how you see people, how you treat them, your assumptions about them - including yourself. It will affect your values, your views about motivation, the quality of your interactions and your leadership.'

- Elliott Jaques

Requisite Organization: A Total System for Effective Managerial Organization

Dr Elliott Jaques was a psychoanalyst by profession. He believed that you don't change organisations by changing people, you change people by changing organisations. Or perhaps you free people to become who they are, by changing organisations.

He had a lot to say about decision making in his book Requisite Organisation. Here is a selection.

'Retrievals and calculations are often confused with decision-making, a confusion which weakens our understanding of true decision-making.'

'All human thinking, and therefore all human work, is a continual and powerful interplay between non-verbal mental processes and the knowledge which we use to direct and focus those processes.'

'The work which you experience as the effort in decision-making is the effort in giving energy and direction to the non-verbal mental processing and bringing or allowing the outcomes into verbalisable awareness, so that they an become part of your knowledge and available for conscious use in problem-solving.'

'Decision-making has to do with human uncertainty:

• It is precisely the uncertainty inherent in human work, the feeling of never being quite sure, that makes you close your eyes and agonise over decisions.
• You do not have all the words, and as you agonise you get hold of raw ideas, clothe them inwards, and dig them from the unverbalised recesses of your mind.
• If you are given tasks of complexity beyond your capability in a role with too long a time-span you become anxious and eventually confused - there is a longer run of uncertainty and more variables than you can cope with.'

'Decision-making and action call for judgement and discretion based upon non-verbal mental work. I term our ability to do this our complexity of mental processing.'

'But never forget, at the actual moment of choice, the choice or decision just gets made, as though on its own, and we become aware of what we have chosen only after we have committed ourselves to some specific particular choice.'

'Skilled knowledge helps to organise and simplify work by enabling a person to carry out parts of a problem-solving activity without having to think about them, thus freeing discretion and judgment which would  be otherwise engaged.'

'The important thing is not to confuse the skilled knowledge with the work.

• Skilled knowledge you do not have to think about: work is the part you have to attend to, think about, and make decisions about.
• When you are skilled at touch-typing you no longer have to think about which keys you are seeking - that is automatic: but you do have to think about whatever it is that you are using the typewriter to record.'

'The art of the good society and of the good organisation is to ensure opportunity for the use of their full potential by all of its people.'

'My whole orientation is towards the performance of individuals in carrying out purposeful goal-directed activities.'

'What we all really yearn for is to have work at a level consistent with our current potential and for progression in line with our maturation, and the chance to get the necessary education and training. That is the true democratic dream.'

'What is more, subordinates yearn for someone above them to sit down with them and discuss their careers and opportunities: and this includes not only those with growth in potential ahead of them but also those who know that they have matured to full potential and seek assurance of continued opportunity to work at that level.'

'You have no idea of the positive galvanising effect upon your people of having their intuitive awareness of their own true potential confirmed by understanding managers-once-removed who have been charged with this duty. Indifference is annulled and a flow of creative energy is released.'

'Manifest Organisation: the organisation structure as it is represented on the official organisation chart: at best a very rough approximation to what is actually going on, if you can even make sense of it.

Assumed Organisation: the structure as different people assume it really works; likely to have as many variations as you have people, and produces confusion.

Extant Organisation: the system as it actually functions, as demonstrated by systemic study. It will always be an approximate picture. It requires that you dig in and find who is actually being held acceptable for what, and what authority they are in fact able to exercise in relation to whom and toward what.'

'If you want each and very one of your managers - at all levels and in any and every function - to be able to be held accountable for deciding what outputs each of their immediate subordinates is producing...then you must ensure not only that they have the following minimum authority but also that they have been taught that they have it and have been instructed in how to use it:

• Veto any new appointment
• Decide types of work assignment
• Decide effectiveness appraisal
• Decide removal from role.'

'To ask a manager about specific tasks which she/he assigns to a subordinate comes as an unfamiliar experience for most - and the managers find replying equally strange and awkward until they get used to it.'

'There is a very important point to be noted here, which will save a lot of susbsquent confusion if taken into account.

• Work (and its complexity and difficulty) is not the traversing of known paths.
• The work is to choose pathways or construct new ones, and to adapt them as you encounter unanticipated difficulties in traversing them.
• Obeying known rules and regulations is not work: it does not constitute a problem: deciding how best to obey under particular circumstances may do so, for rules and regulations set boundaries (prescribed limits) within which your choice of pathways is constrained.'

Debate.

The boss is busy. He's important. He's got so many important things to worry about. Meetings to attend. Emails to write. Reports to read. It's unreasonable to expect him to have time to spend consulting with you. Anyway, his matters are lofty and serious. He doesn't have to explain himself to you. You wouldn't understand anyway because it's very complicated. He knows what he's doing because he's the boss. It's serious work being a boss. Don't waste his time and just get your work done so he can do his. The boss is busy.

In mid-1942 Prime Minister Winston Churchill rose to address the House of Commons. The Second World War was in its third year and the British Army was in full retreat in North Africa. The German Afrika Corps was forty miles from Alexandria and eighty from Cairo. Prime Minister Churchill was debating a vote of no confidence in his leadership. He was being accused of allowing the Axis forces of Germany and Japan to conquer and enslave the remaining free world.

Churchill did not use fighting a World War as an excuse for not preparing for and engaging in open debate on his decision making. On the contrary, 'What a remarkable example it has been of the unbridled freedom of our Parliamentary institutions in time of war,' he said.

The boss can't be expected to know everything that's going on. How can he be responsible for something that was done two or three levels below him?

'The question of whether Tobruk could be held or not is difficult and disputable. It is one of those questions which are more easy to decide after the event than before it...But those who are responsible for carrying on the war have no such easy options open. They have to decide beforehand. The decision to hold Tobruk and the dispositions made for that purpose were taken by General Auchinleck, but I should like to say that we, the War Cabinet and our professional advisers, thoroughly agreed with General Auchinleck beforehand, and, although in tactical matters the Commander-in-Chief in any war theatre is supreme and his decision is final, we consider that, if he was wrong, we were wrong too, and I am very ready on behalf of His Majesty's Government to take my full share of responsibility.'

Why can't someone just make a decision? Everything takes so long. There is so much bureaucracy. Ask anyone what needs to be done and they will tell you. The boss is useless. 

'Complaint has been made that the newspapers have been full of information of a very rosy character. Several Hon. Members have referred to that in the Debate, and that the Government have declared themselves less fully informed than newspapers...The war correspondents have nothing to do except to collect information, write their despatches and get them through the censor. On the other hand, the generals who are conducting the battle have other preoccupations. They have to fight the enemy.'

The boss wants to be briefed. He wants to have everything run past him. He wants to approve every decision. He wants papers. He wants meetings. He wants pre-meeting meetings. He wants updates. He wants to step in if necessary.

'Although we have always asked that they should keep us informed as much as possible, our policy has been not to worry them but to leave them alone to do their job. Now and then I send messages of encouragement and sometimes a query or a suggestion, but it is absolutely impossible to fight battles from Westminster or Whitehall. The less one interferes the better, and certainly I do not want generals in close battle, and these desert battles are close, prolonged and often peculiarly indeterminate, to burden themselves by writing full stories on matters upon which, in the nature of things, the home Government is not called upon to give any decision...Therefore, the Government are more accurately, but less speedily, less fully and less colourfully informed than the newspapers.'

The boss likes people who work late. Who show how much they care by the number of furrows in their brow.

'Some people assume too readily that, because a Government keeps cool and has steady nerves under reverses, its members do not feel the public misfortunes as keenly as do independent critics. On the contrary, I doubt whether anyone feels greater sorrow or pain than those who are responsible for the general conduct of our affairs.'

The boss wants to know why the plan went wrong.

 'Sir, I do not know what actually happened in the fighting of that day. I am only concerned to give the facts to the House, and it is for the House to decide whether these facts result from the faulty central direction of the war, for which of course I take responsibility, or whether they resulted from the terrible hazards and unforeseeable accidents of battle.'

The boss wants to scrutinise every decision. He won't approve anything until he's absolutely certain that it is perfect.

'How do you make a tank? People design it, they argue about it, they plan it and make it, and then you take the tank and test and re-test it. When you have got it absolutely settled you go into production, and only then do you go into production. But we have never been able to indulge in the luxury of that precise and leisurely process. We have had to take it straight off the drawing board and go into full production, and take the chance of the many errors which the construction will show coming out after hundreds and thousands of them have been made.'

The boss has a serious job. He's a serious man making very, very serious and important decisions. Don't mock the boss. He deserves our respect.

'This tank, the A.22, was ordered off the drawing board, and large numbers went into production very quickly. As might be expected, it had many defects and teething troubles, and when these became apparent the tank was appropriately re-christened the "Churchill."'

The boss doesn't like mistakes. He wants the job done right the first time. If not, he'll lay the blame where it belongs. He can't be held responsible for what others do.

'I cannot pretend to form a judgment upon what has happened in this battle. I like commanders on land and sea and in the air to feel that between them and all forms of public criticism the Government stand like a strong bulkhead. They ought to have a fair chance, and more than one chance. Men may make mistakes and learn from their mistakes. Men may have bad luck, and their luck may change. But anyhow you will not get generals to run risks unless they feel they have behind them a strong Government. They will not run risks unless they feel that they need not look over their shoulders or worry about what is happening at home, unless they feel they can concentrate their gaze upon the enemy.'

It's a serious business being a boss. It's no laughing matter. He's engaged in important things.

'I have stuck hard to my blood, toil, tears and sweat, to which I have added muddle and mismanagement...'

The boss acts on instinct. He makes decisions and expects his authority to be carried out. No questions. If something goes wrong, let's spin ourselves out of it. Don't admit anything.

'Nearly all my work has been done in writing, and a complete record exists of all the directions I have given, the inquiries I have made and the telegrams I have drafted. I shall be perfectly content to be judged by them.'

CC.

If your email is about me and I'm not copied in - why not?

If your meeting is about me and I'm not invited - why not? 

If the new employee will work with me and I'm not consulted - why not? 

If your decision is about me and I'm not heard - why not? 

Look at each reason. Now search for any of the following capitalised nouns in your values, codes, policies, mission, speeches, website, LinkedIn page:

Transparent. Committed. Team. Collaborate. Engage. Learn. Accountable. People. Loyal. Inclusive. Serve. Innovative. Creative. Trust. Courage. Excellence.

Integrity.  

Leader. 

God.

Amend either deed or noun as appropriate. 

Or delete 'Integrity'. 

Or sack me. [I obviously can't be trusted.]

Or quit. [You can't trust yourself.]

Reality.

The decision maker resolves this by:

Declaration: 'Three'

Coercion: 'It's Three or you're fired.'

Intuition: 'I'll tell you when I think you need to know.'

Exclusion: 'It's not Four.'

Whim: 'It's Three today.'

Submission: 'I checked with the boss and she says Three'.

Delegation: 'HR told me Three.'

Committee: 'The ayes have it - Three.'

Bias: 'I hate Four. It's Three.'

Fear: 'Four is up to something. So Three.'

Psychoanalysis: 'You say Four but Your Myers-Briggs Type says you really think Three so I'm going to say Three.'

Avoidance: 'Let's have an off site team building day to create cross-functional capacity in conversations about numeracy.'

Spite: 'As you counted Three without running it by me first you've left me with no choice other than to put you on a warning'

Omission:  'You choose and I'll see what happens next.'

Going.

'No man can know where he is going unless he knows exactly where he has been and exactly how he arrived at his present place.'

- Maya Angelou

Good decision making does not lead you from error.

It does not lead you from conflict.

It does not lead you to the Answer.

It leads you to where you want to be.

It leads you to who you are.

If you turn around and someone is following your steps -

- through error and conflict and with no Answer in sight - 

That's Leadership.

Advocate.

"The real hell of life is everyone has his reasons."

 - Jean Renoir

The Premier of Western Australia Mr Colin Barnett has not supported a push to remove one of his party members who continues to criticise his government, including calling for Mr Barnett to resign.

Another example of a leader who is on top of his game.

Allowing a critic to remain within the ranks is the sign of a confident leader. And not because of her ego blinding her to the criticism.

The good leader knows that there is wisdom in testing arguments and positions inside the tent before they are released into the wild.

As Dr Tim McDonald says: 'Private honesty. Public loyalty.' 

Mr Barnett's accommodation of a dissenting view is also his compliment to the community he serves. He assumes of us what he is demonstrating himself: the maturity to accept that difference is not to be feared.

Mr Barnett is not afraid that the voting public may assume that his party's internal dissent calls into question the ability of his government to run our hospitals and schools and keep our streets safe.

This is what leaders do. They create a space that invites us in to see the version of ourselves that we want to become. 'See?' Mr Barnett says to us. 'I can run an entire State amidst criticism from one of my own. I'm not fleeing. I'm not fighting. I'm smiling. Try it in your own family, workplace, community.'

Very, very few people or organisations can do this. Basically, we don't know how. We don't have the skills. We haven't practised accommodating dissonance. We actively discourage dissent - often quashing it under cover of a breach of 'values' or 'code of conduct'. We drive the our critics to the fringes - until they have to scream so loudly that any merit in their shouted message is dismissed with labels such as 'vexatious'. 

If you want to test the maturity and confidence of an organisation or person - say 'complaint'.

Mature people and organisations will seek out dissenters to join their decision making process to kick the tyres.

If they can't find such a critic, they will appoint one. The 'devil's advocate' was someone appointed by the Catholic Church to argue against the canonisation of a person into sainthood.

The mature organisation knows that a dissenter is one of the ways to avoid the trap of groupthink.

The critic - whether internal or external - demands that we explain ourselves - rather than just declare, or even be satisfied by giving reasons for a decision.

A recent study showed that people who were asked to give reasons for an opinion remained convinced of its rightness. While other people who were asked to give a step by step explanation of how they arrived at their opinion were more likely to recognise an error in their thinking and start reviewing their assumptions.

(Herein lies the value of the Five Steps to a Good Decision.)

Therein also lies both the solution and the problem.

Better to cling on to the flawed certainty of our understanding of the world than to expose ourselves to the panic of finding out that we've been wrong.

It's a rare person who can accommodate the distraction in time and energy of a critic.

Which is why we need leaders like Mr Barnett who have the confidence to show us that whether we label it criticism, dissent, disloyalty, or even treason, it's just information.

Another opportunity for us to measure how we're going with our Widget.

Good leaders are rare.

Important.

'It's only in our decisions that we are important.'

- Sartre

Next time you're bored in a meeting, try this.

A Decision will be made.

It can be now. In a few seconds. Later today. Tomorrow. Next year.

One absolute certainty is that a Decision will be made. (Even by default.)

You don't know what the decision will be - you know there will be one. Thus it's almost irrelevant.

Use this certainty as a reference point to work out who are the managers and who are the leaders in the meeting.

The managers will be the ones assembling their dot points for their post-mortem speeches in case the Decision goes wrong. (Most likely to be delivered in hushed tones and with eye rolls in the tea room. 'I tried to tell them that....but they...')

The leader will be holding the space. (She may not be the person at the head of the table by the way.)

She's allowing for the Five Steps - the deliberate process of inquiry - to run its course.

She knows that if she makes a decision that advances her towards where she wants to be - that she cannot make a bad decision.

Her wisdom about the answer liberates her to focus on others.

Watch the leader bravely hold the space. She listens. Asks questions. Listens. Questions. Listens. Listens.

Listens.

Watch the managers and others compete to fling the most words, statements, fears, challenges, complaints, criticisms, and egos within and against the boundaries of that safe space being held for them by the leader.

Spot the manager promoted one or more steps above his competence. You can tell him by his confident assertions. His aim is to declare his opinion rather than to allow it to be tested by the evidence. (That would be too risky.) He wants to be seen as decisive. Sure. Stable. Knowledgeable. Courageous. He does so with the luxury of knowing that he doesn't have to make the decision.

The real bravery in the room is in the leader. Risking being seen as weak. Indecisive. Uncommunicative. As she's talked over. As she holds the space. As she listens.

As she serves everyone else.

Including you. Learning from her as you watch, safe in the space she's created for you. (Guess what - she knows you're watching.)

Regardless of whether it's her decision that is made or followed, she's a leader. Because she created the space and invited you to enter and become who you are.

Allowed you to advance towards your Widget on the way to building hers.

Decisions don't make us important.

The Deciding does.

[Never spotted a leader in a meeting? Of course not. Good leaders are rare.]

Resolved.

It's rare to hear someone reflect on a conflict in a former workplace and say:

'My life is worse because of it.'

Many people believe that the goal of conflict management is to make everybody happy.

Yet when you ask those people 'What are the chances of that happening?', they shake their heads and say 'It's almost impossible.'

We need to have some reference point as to when a conflict is resolved.

Universal happiness - complainant, respondent, boss, customer, widget - is not a realistic one.

Resolving conflict so that people can get back to the widget has benefits beyond the widget.

It lets them think 'Well, whether I like it or not, it has been resolved and I now need to make choices based upon that.'

It's rare in life to have an umpire who resolves something for us and says 'Here's what's going to happen.'

That's what a good boss does when she resolves a conflict.

We may not like it. We may not agree with it. It may not be what we wanted. Yet it provides a reference point for our decisions about our life and our happiness. We regain control in an environment where we may have felt as though we'd lost it. 

What might seem like a loss in the world of my cubicle, can be a win for personal growth, creativity, and realisations about where I want to be in the world of my life.

Murmuring.

St Benedict stated in his Rule for monks that there is no greater evil in a community than 'murmuring'. That sixth century behaviour translates as gossiping or underhanded and hidden criticism of someone in an organisation - usually in authority.

The character of Don Draper has very little in common with the monastic life. However, he quickly and effectively dealt with murmuring in Season 7 of Mad Men. 

He receives a letter purporting to terminate his partnership in the firm. After a moment of reflection (Step 1 - Step Back), he summonses all the decision makers who may have conspired against him out of their offices and into the open plan - where they could each see and be seen by Don, each other, and the other non-decision making staff.

Don: 'Hey! Get out here!' I just got a breach letter with your name on the bottom.'

Roger: 'What?'

Don: 'Joan! Get out here! Joan! Could you get Cooper out here?

Joan: 'What's going on?'

Don: 'Find Pete. No-one knows about this?'

Joan: 'I saw it.'

Don: 'Then why did you say 'What's going on?''

Cooper: 'I want you to calm down. I just called Jim, we're going to get the bottom of this.'

Pete: 'Is there a meeting?'

Don: 'Have you seen this?'

Pete: 'This is outrageous! You know we're going to be at Burger Chef on Monday!'

Roger: 'I vote against this. Right now.'

Jim: 'It's not subject to a vote. The contract is very clear.'

Don: 'You want to play parliamentary procedure? Let's play. Everyone who wants to get rid of me - raise your hand.'

Jim: 'Fine. I have Ted's proxy.'

Cooper: 'You had no right to put my name on that!'

Don: 'Anyone else?... All opposed?...Motion denied!'

Pete: 'That's a very sensitive piece of horse flesh. He shouldn't be rattled!' 

- Mad Men Season 7 'Waterloo'.

Good decision making draws the decision maker out of his office into a neutral space of inquiry and invites those who may be affected by it to contribute in full view of each other.

Value.

[Inspired by Hugh McCleod's 'Value Curve'.]

Job.

The entertainment reporter Michael Idato gave us a rare and brilliant example of the relationship between Widget Thinking and Defining Moments in the workplace wild.

A leaked two year old internal email from the former executive producer of the 'Sunrise' television programme to Network management proposed replacing two presenters and the newsreader.

The leak led the 'Sunrise' presenters who remain on air to not just dismiss it, but to ridicule it and cite their continued tenure as evidence that the former producer was wrong and the email was meaningless.

Yet as Michael Idato observed:

'Sunrise's former executive producer....would not have been doing his job if, at every turn, he was not considering alternatives, lest the happy Sunrise family he had assembled passed their use-by date and started to creak with age. His first loyalty is not to them, it is to his employer, and the promise that he will deliver them an enduring hit.

'The same could be said for the Nine Network's management, who would not be delivering value for their stakeholders if they were not examining the on-air performance of their entire talent stable in minute detail, regularly, and willing to do whatever it takes - or sack and replace whoever they need to - to win.

'It was that attitude that saw Jessica Rowe wrenched from the Today line-up several years ago. Make no mistake it was appallingly handled at the time, but it was a brutal and vivid demonstration of the business of television and the very small role that human decency has to play in it.'

Amidst the denials and damage control rose the refreshing voice of Karl Stefanovic, host of the Sunrise rival, 'Today', who said (in a text book use of the three most powerful words in the English language - I Don't Care):

'I know that [network management] is actively planning to get rid of me, and I like it, I embrace it, I don't care....It's best to go, 'it's TV, eventually they will [get rid of me],' so I'm just gonna have a great time and sail on into the sunset.''

A similarly healthy response to the email came from former Sunrise co-host Melissa Doyle, who was one of the three presenters that the email suggested changing:

'It was one view....Television, radio, newspaper executives the world over are probably discussing staff, columnists, et cetera, all the time....I figure that's the nature of the job. It's television. If they didn't have that conversation then you would probably wonder.'

The producer who wrote the email was doing his job - deciding to give his best advice to ensure the success of the Widget - albeit at the public cost of three people's jobs.

The management did its job - deciding to reject the advice as not serving the Widget.

The three current presenters did their jobs - deciding to reassure viewers that they are one big-happy-family, which protects ratings, which dictate the price of advertising which brings in revenue which buoys the stock price which is their boss's Widget.

Three different decisions that may look in conflict on the surface but each serving the Widget.

Perhaps it's Karl and Mel who are the best examples of a healthy shrug at the inevitable clanging of our professional and personal Widgets.
 

Competing.

'In review tribunal proceedings there is no necessary conflict between the interests of the applicant and of the government agency. Tribunals and other administrative decision making processes are not intended to identify the winner from two competing parties. The public interest `wins' just as much as the successful applicant because correct or preferable decision making contributes, through its normative effect, to correct and fair administration and to the jurisprudence and policy in the particular area.'

- Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System.

The complaint arrives.

Step 1: Step Back and feel the offence, indignation, anger, fear, fatigue or betrayal well up inside you - then allow seconds, minutes, hours, days for it to ebb away. [I'm human.]

Step 2:What's my Widget and what does this complaint teach me about it? ['The first job of a leader is to define reality.']

Step 3: Do I seek other information to help me to learn about this complaint and my Widget?

Step 4: Is there anything clouding my vision about how this complaint serves my Widget? ['A leader serves.']

Step 5: Is there anyone who might be affected by a decision I may make?

Thank you complainant for testing my Widget. ['The last job of a leader is to say 'Thank you.'']

It's rare to find anyone with this wisdom.

Because Leaders are rare.

Our Justice System is precious.

Follow.

Interviewer: 'We are supposed to do the right things...'

Retired US Navy SEAL: 'Do you know what the right thing is?'

Interviewer: 'Well...not to kill innocent civilians...'

Retired SEAL: 'You don't have any idea. Not to be rude or anything, but one person's...what they think is the right idea is, is completely opposite from what the other one is. That's why we have to solely focus on our Leadership, our Admirals, who have been around and have been through all of this and they make the calls and it flows all the way down to us and we follow our orders to the T. Being in the SEAL teams we're outside of the box thinkers. We're not idiots. Most SEALS have their degrees and a lot of them have their Masters and we've been in this game for a very, very long time. So the thing that we ask - not out loud - we hope and pray that the American public has enough trust and faith in us to do and make the right decision....It's war and there is no right or wrong answer...'

To dismiss this response as the predictably military gung-ho blind 'We just follow orders' is to ignore some powerful insights into good decision making in the most extreme circumstances that also translates to the every day.

Navigating a good decision requires a fixed north - the Widget.

The Widget is designated by the Leader.

The decision maker accepts the Widget as the creation of a person who they trust - even if that trust is that there will be money in their bank account each fortnight.

Implicit in the dynamic between Widget, Leader and decision maker is that the decision maker continues to choose the Widget.

If I sneer at this equation it's either because my Leaders are managers or I choose not to choose.

'Right' and 'Wrong' are irrelevant.

It's all about the Widget.

(It's not about the Widget.)

Stream.

'Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.'

W.H. Murray

Start with the Widget. 

Save your energy arguing Widget Thinking is dehumanising for more creative battles ahead .

(Yawn.)

Remember - the Widget doesn't care.

Surrender to the cool, indifference of it. Accept its objectivity. A gift from your boss.

Make good decisions and feel Providence stir.

Promise.

'We've just listened to you explain how you went about doing what you did,' the Plaintiff's barrister asks the Respondent Promise Maker in cross-examination.

In courts and tribunals today, the same exchange will occur in some form.

'Yes,' the Promiser answers.

'Can I ask you to look at this document?'

'Yes.'

'Do you recognise it?'

'Yes. It's the Contract of Employment/Agreement/Thing I Promised To Do.'

'I'll take you through your Promise and make you say out loud the things you Promised to do'

'I'll then take you through the laws that you also Promised to follow by virtue of being a citizen' 

'I'll call five witnesses to produce forty two documents that will prove what you actually did.

'I'll then summarise in excruciating detail the gap between your Promise and what you did.'

Sit in the public gallery or read any transcript or reasons for judgment online, and this is the story arc that will almost always unfold. A journey from Expectation to Reality.

In the year that I asked more than 500 new employees at each induction session how many had read their employment agreement - the Promises made between them and their employer - only one said that they had. Among those new staff would have been new managers.

When organisational conflict arises we call HR to show them the pieces of Promises we've laid out and they show us the picture on the lid as we nod and smile and tell ourselves they match.

Good decision making is honouring our Promises.

Structures.

The job of a manager is to balance enforcing structure while allowing creativity through good decision making.

In a recent interview with Lord David Owen, the former British Foreign Secretary who helped bring peace to Bosnia in the 1990s, this tension can be seen at the level of sovereign states.

He was asked how he began negotiating an end to the fighting between the Serbs and the Muslims:

'All this time, you're trying to form structures which can give people a measure of security and, to some extent, decentralised power. And then on top of it, you're trying to construct an overarching organisation for the whole country.'

Lord Owen was talking about the situation as he found it in 1992. The war ended in December 1995.

Simple. Create some governance in your nation or workplace that makes people feel safe. Delegate decision-making power downwards. People will respond by laying down their AK47s, dropping their bullying complaints, and living and working together in productive harmony. A triumph of diplomacy, reason, and our better angels. Sack the lawyers and spend the savings on vision statement coffee mugs, running fun team building days and bean bags in the common rooms.

Then the interviewer asked:

'Do you accept, ultimately, that in the case of Bosnia, what ended the war was the use of military force from outside?'

Boo! Hiss! Of course not! Structures! Power-sharing! Human reason! Self-organising system!

Yet Lord Owen, career politician, diplomat, negotiator, peacemaker said:

'Oh, absolutely. I argued for force. I wanted to enforce the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, as it was called in May 1993. And had we done so, we'd have brought the war to an end two years earlier...'

Sometimes you have to drop bombs. As the Director of Values said in one organisation: 'People should be given the freedom to perform their duties defined by clear boundaries. If they cross them they should be shot.'

Most organisations have the structures of an old Hollywood movie set. They are the out-of-focus backdrop to the main action. Come up against them and they'll randomly either fall away or crush you.

All workplace conflict would be quickly resolved if the consequences were clear, timely and as promised on the label. It's best for all in the long term.

It's called Integrity - doing what you say you're going to do.

Cranky.

This is how Linda -  an educator - explained the painting:

'I don't know exactly what direct experience Scarlett has had with "the cranky man," but she certainly knows the truth of him. She explained to me that he figure in her drawing was "a cranky man"  so I had to ask her why he was cranky. The truth according the Scarlett came down to this:

'He is a cranky man because he doesn't like his house. It's not got any bathroom, kitchen bedroom or anything to eat.'(Enough to make anyone cranky, but the real truth followed)  'He doesn't know what he wants because he is a cranky person and he's always a cranky person who says he doesn't know!'

I felt in the moment that she was sharing this meaning with me that I was being given a great insight into what makes someone cranky, not knowing what you want and the consequences of that...

Widget Thinking. From the mouth of a three-nearly-four year old.

Arrows.

'You could always tell the scout on a wagon train because he was the one with all the arrows in him. Any time that you try to go to new ground. Any time that you try to go to territory that you've not been in before, you're going to have resistance.

But there's a whole line of people behind you that are kind of hoping that you make it. There are people who are waiting to get permission to think that way. To get permission to love that way.'

- Dr Joel Hunter

Conflict.

There are two types of workplace conflict:

-    You Conflict: I don't like you.
-    Widget Conflict: I don't like your Widget.

If only workplace disputes were all Widget Conflict.

Creative.
Passionate.
Focussed on better Widgets.

Instead – and despite how we usually argue our position -  most workplace conflict is us feeling frustrated that our boss isn’t helping us to produce our Weekend Widget.

If it really was about our Weekday Widget…then who cares more about that our boss?

Never care more about something than the boss does.