{"id":2276,"date":"2012-11-09T08:25:54","date_gmt":"2012-11-09T08:25:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=2276"},"modified":"2012-11-09T08:25:54","modified_gmt":"2012-11-09T08:25:54","slug":"the-four-parts-of-mission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=2276","title":{"rendered":"The Four Parts of Purpose"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Mission Statements are\u00a0often ridiculed and discounted by the very people they are designed for.<\/p>\n

Their intention\u00a0appears positive yet they often seem ineffective and even counter-productive.<\/p>\n

Why is that?<\/p>\n

In essence the Mission Statement is a declaration of the organisations purpose<\/strong> and provides a context for the formulation of strategy.\u00a0\u00a0Very often they are\u00a0ambiguous, emotive and sort of yingy-yangy. More marketing gimmick than management goal.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0output of Improvement Science\u00a0is\u00a0a system designed to deliver\u00a0its value purpose.\u00a0So a clear and realistic purpose is the first\u00a0requirement for an effective system design.<\/p>\n

For example:\u00a0<\/p>\n

Global\u00a0Fast Food Inc\u00a0– “To provide fast-food prepared in the same high-quality manner world-wide that is tasty, reasonably-priced\u00a0and delivered consistently in a low-key d\u00e9cor and friendly atmosphere.”<\/em><\/p>\n

This is a clear purpose\u00a0specification – and it has all the Three Wins\u00ae design elements of quality,\u00a0delivery and money. It is necessary but it is not yet sufficient.<\/p>\n

What is missing?<\/p>\n

\n

First we need to be clear what a poor purpose statement design looks like. They contain the word “best”.\u00a0\u00a0They are poor designs because\u00a0just using the word “best”\u00a0makes them aspirations not specifications. Dreams rather than deliverables.\u00a0 Only one organisation can\u00a0actually be “the best” so\u00a0adopting impossible\u00a0purpose condemns\u00a0the majority of\u00a0organisations\u00a0to failure-to-achieve-their-purpose. And\u00a0everyone in the organisation knows that. So they give up emotionally at the start. They know that achieving the stated purpose is impossible.<\/p>\n

Not having a Statement of Purpose\u00a0(SoP) at all is even worse because the message\u00a0this broadcasts is that the organisation\u00a0cannot articulate its purpose – its reason for existing – where it derives its sense of value and worth.\u00a0Purposeless organisations are chaotic and demotivating places to work in because the emotional vacuum\u00a0is filled with something much more toxic – organisational politics.<\/p>\n

So we do need some form of Statement of Purpose and one reason that the what-we-will-do design feels incomplete is because it only covers a quarter of the requirements for a system purpose specification.\u00a0And it is the\u00a0missing\u00a0three-quarters that causes the problems. They are difficult to articulate but we can feel the gap that we cannot see.<\/p>\n

\n

A statement of purpose is a cultural contract – is operates at the people and psychological level – not at the legal level. It is a collective pledge.\u00a0 It is a statement of expectation.<\/p>\n

So when observed behaviour falls short of expected behaviour then disappointment and anger results. After that comes sadness – for the loss of hope – then fear of what the failure implies and what\u00a0will come next.\u00a0Fear of the rhetoric-reality mismatch; the\u00a0small white lies\u00a0that feed on fear and grow into the big fat porkie-pies;\u00a0the\u00a0secrecy and hoarding of knowledge; the hidden agendas; and the behind-closed door wheeling and dealing; the fait accomplis and the handed down JFDI Policies. All untrustworthy behaviours. And all blindingly obvious to everyone. Trust is eroded, optimism\u00a0turns to\u00a0skepticism and then cynicism. The toxic emotional swamp deepens.\u00a0 Who would want to invest their lifetime there? The savvy sensitive ones escape. The emotionally thick-skinned\u00a0species of employee\u00a0survive.\u00a0\u00a0A few noisy idealists\u00a0may stay out of a misplaced sense of loyality but usually even they fall silent as the toxic swamp overwhelmes them. Not a very rosy picture is it?<\/p>\n

So what does a full Statement of Purpose look like?<\/p>\n

Firstly there are two Acts:<\/p>\n

1. The Acts of Commission – the things that we say we will commit to do.
\n2. The Acts of Omission – the things that we say we will commit NOT to do.<\/p>\n

Both are required.<\/p>\n

These are made explicit using a Pledge.\u00a0 The\u00a0pledge is the output if a formal design exercise – like a blueprint.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Secondly there are the two Defences against Errors.\u00a0 These are made explicit using a Plan. It too requires design.<\/p>\n

\n

When we fail to\u00a0deliver on our commitments as individuals\u00a0(and we all do because we are all human) then we make two different types of error. I- the Error of Commission\u00a0or\u00a0II – the\u00a0Error of Omission.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Error of Commission<\/strong> is when we do the wrong thing (or we try to do the right thing but do it wrong). The first is failure of efficacy the second is failure of effectiveness.\u00a0 So first we need to be able to decide what is the right thing and then we need the capability to deliver it right.\u00a0For that we need to know what to do and how to do it.\u00a0 We need both knowledge and understanding. We need to know what and why.<\/p>\n

Errors erode\u00a0trust. And one of the commonest errors of commission is to assume\u00a0ineffectiveness (or inefficiency) when the actual cause is poor strategic decisions. The\u00a0effect of this error is to add more\u00a0and more bureaucracy. Checking that we have done what we should and done it right. Inspection-and-Correction, Supervision-and-Surveillance, Audits-and-Reports.\u00a0 Waiting for a failure and then sniffing like hounds up the trail of spilt blood and breadcrumbs. Right\u00a0back to the individual who committed the sinof commission\u00a0and then to\u00a0expose and punish them. To weed out the bad apples in the barrel.\u00a0 Bureaucracy is not the solution\u00a0– it is the symptom of\u00a0poor strategic decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And some\u00a0people are naturally drawn to the Inspection, Supervision and Protection roles – the ISP functions – because their temperaments are suited to it.\u00a0 And that is OK so long as the\u00a0Purpose is\u00a0valid.\u00a0 When the Purpose is invalid the ISP\u00a0army will enforce an ineffective strategic plan and the problem will be magnified.\u00a0Invalid purposes are a symptom of a lack of collective strategic wisdom\u00a0– which is why the design of the\u00a0\u00a0Statement of Purpose is critical to long term success.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a>The world is always changing –\u00a0so even when the Purpose is valid and does not change – what was a\u00a0well designed\u00a0Policy a decade ago may easily be\u00a0a poor design\u00a0of\u00a0Policy now.\u00a0 But the role of the Inspectors, Supervisors and Protectors is\u00a0to maintain stability – and that is good. We need\u00a0that. The danger comes silently and slowly as the\u00a0Reality changes and the\u00a0Rhetoric does not. The ISP army grows, the bureaucracy and bullying grows, and the costs escalate. The mismatch is exposed eventually –\u00a0there is a crisis – often of catastrophic proportions. The longer the delay the bigger the catastrophe.\u00a0And the bigger the catastrophe the more people get caught in the cross-fire.<\/p>\n

So the fourth\u00a0part is the Defence against Errors of Omission<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

An Error of Omission is when we do not<\/strong> do something that we should have.\u00a0 When we did not say “That is not OK” when we could clearly see that something was not OK. The Error of Omission is the more dangerous error\u00a0because it is invisible.\u00a0There is nothing to see. There is no blood or breadcrumb trail for the faithful hounds to follow. There is no evidence trail leading to the bad outcome\u00a0so the hounds\u00a0follow any trail that they find and either scapegoat the wrong person or go around in circles and eventually conclude “it was a system problem”. They are correct. It is. A system design problem.<\/p>\n

The individual errors of omission\u00a0are bad enough – the collective errors of omission\u00a0are worse.<\/p>\n

And they\u00a0are driven by two forces.\u00a0 Ignorance and Fear.<\/p>\n

160 years ago in Vienna\u00a0the doctors did not know that not washing\u00a0their hands\u00a0when entering the labour ward was an Error of Omission. They were ignorant of the fact.\u00a0 And as a result\u00a0hundreds\u00a0of young women and their new babies died of Childbed Fever. The people knew\u00a0this and it is said that husbands would rather their wives give birth on the street\u00a0than\u00a0go to hospital when the doctors were on duty for the day.\u00a0At its worse the death rate was 30% per month! Now we do know that to not disinfect our hands between patients is an\u00a0error of omission and we understand\u00a0the reason – we understand how we unintentionally spread invisible germs on our hands.<\/em><\/p>\n

Knowledge is the antidote to ignorance and knowledge needs to be shared to be effective – because we are all ignorant until educated. And we are ignorant of our ignorance. We do not now what we do not know. Tackling our ignorance\u00a0requires humility. The willingness to\u00a0expose our own knowledge gaps. The willingness to learn – continuously – because\u00a0reality is\u00a0always\u00a0evolving.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The more usual driver of the collective\u00a0error of omission\u00a0is fear<\/strong>.\u00a0 Fear of persecution if we break ranks and make ourselves conspicuous by saying “This is not OK”.\u00a0 And the people who perscute us the most are our peers. Their collective fear of their own failures of purpose creates a much greater\u00a0emotional barrier than the fear of an autocratic ISP bully. We also fear the mob. The dangerously unpredictable\u00a0blinded-by-anger mob that becomes collectively enraged by their loss of trust\u00a0and\u00a0who stone-to-death anything that resembles the threat.<\/p>\n

We fear and we\u00a0turn away so we cannot see; we cover our ears so we cannot hear; and we say and do nothing. That is the Collective Error of Omission.<\/p>\n

What then is the way forward?<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a>Fill in the missing pieces.<\/p>\n

Ensure that\u00a0our Statement of Purpose has Four Parts.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

1. What we will<\/strong> do and why. The Intended Acts of Commission.<\/p>\n

2. What we will not<\/strong> do and why. The Intended Acts of Omission.<\/p>\n

3. How we will know we have made an Error of Commission.\u00a0The Defence against Type I Errors.\u00a0<\/p>\n

4. How we will know we have made an Error of Omission. The Defence against Type II Errors.<\/p>\n

The Acts\u00a0are\u00a0designs\u00a0for Trust, the Defences are designs for\u00a0Feedback – the two essential components of an effective value system design.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mission Statements are\u00a0often ridiculed and discounted by the very people they are designed for. Their intention\u00a0appears positive yet they often seem ineffective and even counter-productive. Why is that? In essence the Mission Statement is a declaration of the organisations purpose and provides a context for the formulation of strategy.\u00a0\u00a0Very often they are\u00a0ambiguous, emotive and sort … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The Four Parts of Purpose”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,42,43,45,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reflections","category-how","category-why","category-what","category-trust"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}