philosophy & the work conversation
One environment I served in was challenging (most workplaces are). But what was unique about what I did (interaction and communication) and where I did it (Rock Church in San Diego) is that we did not move from project to project or deadline to deadline. We moved from week to week. Every week, we provided church services for 15,000 people (about 24,000 unique individuals a month). There was no downtime; there was no time off. Either we did or we did not.
My role was both simple and complex. It was simple in explanation: to make sure that the departments, teams, and volunteers that I served executed the plans of the senior pastor and met the needs of the church's ministry. It was complex in dynamics: coordinating the support of over two hundred ministries, hundreds of events, and the people involved (both staff and volunteers). We did not just do church; we did it at scale.
As I was then, I am always looking for tips, tricks, motivation, information, or whatever I can find to challenge, enhance, and push my teams' ability to execute more efficiently with less disruption.
Many conversations floating around the interwebs in this space focus on quick, pithy wit or catchy one-liners. All in the hope of compelling readers to dive deeper into the conversation (but never really getting there). This content takes form in either open critique of concepts (like this from the HBR archives) or "quick tips" articles are written to make you think about things, grab a nugget, and then realize that there is nothing there to help you do anything with the information (I write a few of these from time to time).
To be honest, I love those articles. Not for their content but for the thoughts they provoke (sometimes the thoughts come quickly, sometimes they gestate). In a conversation with my creative director at the church, one such thought occurred to me: the strategy, execution, planning, project management, or any other methodology I employ or seek to employ is secondary to the understanding of how you mean to accomplish things.
Stay with me here.
If we leave the conversation at the level of the semantics behind how one person defines strategy or another defines execution, or another defines projects, then all we are doing is having a conversation about how we view the work we actually do.
Let me tell you a big secret, we all view the work we do differently (this largely depends on your background and disposition).
What occurred to me as I pushed my creative director to justify a decision he made (and it was the right decision); I realized that there was a gap in our understanding. We were operating under a different set of assumptions regarding the nature of our work (not in the why do we do it, but in the how-are-we-supposed-to-go-about-doing-it sense). In short, we had a difference in our philosophy of work.
In walking through the conversation, I took the time to explain the base assumptions that I operate with, identifying where his assumptions differ from mine, building an understanding between him and me, and employing a new way to articulate all of that as a paradigmatic methodology (this was the genesis of a better theory).
Why is this important?
In organizational dynamics, base assumptions are rarely talked about. Culture, artifacts, values, mission, vision, methods, systems, and environment are all discussed. Our understanding of organizational “being” influences those conversations - it becomes our ontology of work. By that, I mean everyone brings into any organization a set of base assumptions about the work itself. Those assumptions (motivational values, worldviews, or epistemological underpinnings) guide how we, both you and I, think about what it means to be a member of an organization and how we are supposed to do work.
This means that whenever you are put in a situation where you find yourself uncomfortable with a decision or do not understand why a decision is made, you are viewing the situation through the lens of your work philosophy. So, when your base assumptions differ from your bosses, coworkers, or clients, there will always be friction when there is a lack of clarity. In the conversation about work and organization, many experts have strong opinions about how work should be done. They may be right, or they may be wrong. Nevertheless, they are all based on the opinion holder's assumptions.
What to do?
This may seem a bit heavy or deep (and it can be), but moving forward is quite simple. Take some time to identify what you believe about work, business, or organizations and the purpose of what you or your organization does. Do not just recite a mission or vision statement or organizational values (even those get interpreted differently based on the assumptions people hold).
The next thing you do is to talk with your boss, your coworkers, or your employees and share the assumptions with them. Find out where your assumptions overlap and diverge - and be honest with them. Finally, when there is ambiguity or a difference of opinion, go back to those assumptions and work through them. When you share the same assumptions about what you are doing, it is easy to focus the conversation on what is at hand, not what you agree with or disagree with .so, instead of having conversations about what the definition of "strategy" or "execution" should be you can have the conversation of where your strategic execution is breaking down and how to fix it.
