On Adaptation
... and the path to change
I am not, it has to be said, much given to introspection. The time that wiser people devote to mature reflection is, in my case, largely occupied by sending emails and contemplating lunch. Nevertheless, on occasion, I can be compelled by circumstances to consider larger personal questions and reflect on my own growth.
At a point in my mid- to late- career I moved to take up a role in government. The opportunity afforded by that role was unmissable and I was committed to making it a success. I anticipated, of course, that this would require some change on my part. I read the classic business book The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting up to Speed Faster and Smarter (available, of course, at an airport bookstore near you) and was ready to ‘avoid pitfalls’, ‘accelerate my learning’ and ‘secure quick wins’.
I was, despite the prospect of change, reasonably confident. I was coming off the back of a period of career achievements, things had worked out well in my previous roles, and I had developed some confidence in my approach to management and leadership. This confidence, however, proved misplaced. Though I made efforts to learn in my new role and worked hard, I failed to make the impact that I so desperately wanted.
The first 90 days passed and, whilst I was oriented to the new setting, I was unable to achieve the required quick wins. Vastly more learning seemed to be necessary, the big goals I sought to achieve appeared to be receding. Then the first 180 ... 270 ... 360 days ... I acquired more technical knowledge, I knew my way around, but the traction I needed eluded me. I told myself that government was big and complex, that the setting in which I found myself would naturally take time to master. Yet, as with all such self-deceptions, I knew deep down that this was neither credible nor sustainable. Ego was a big part of this.
And so I came to about 18 months and I had, well, an epiphany. I came to understand that much of what I thought I knew about how to communicate effectively, how to get things done, where and when to apply effort and use influence, were contingent. That is they were valid only if certain circumstances were true. They worked in academia, and more particularly in the university where I had spent the bulk of my career in, but my unquestionned assumption that my knowledge was universally true and broadly applicable, was sadly false.
I had not actually been learning to this point. I was seeking essentially to map the situation in which I found myself onto my prior model and assumptions. I had to give that up, which meant relearning, I had to set aside what I thought I knew, perhaps even unlearning. I had to feel my way to new strategies and approaches by watching others and setting aside ego. This is the process of adaptation and entails a mindset change. It is a painful process and, though the appreciation that it is necessary can come in a moment of insight, the journey to achieving it is a hard road that can only be walked alone.
I would say that this process took me about another 12 months, with markers of progress and relapses along the way. After this, I was able to achieve much of the success I had aspired to. It did not come easily, and good fortune played a part, but the key was undoubtedly adaptation.
I am now convinced that for all the knowledge and experience a manager or leader can acquire, the capacity for adaptation is the most important. I seek to embody it, but know now that it is elusive, never fully mastered.
Very honest assessment. Thanks for this. It is useful to anybody taking up such roles. Which assumptions should we discard and which should we enforce (and make real firstly)?
Of course, any organisation, whether within a gov dept (or a national operation) or any university, you are battling a large culture of inertia, complacency (we didnt get here by being stategic) that is seeking to avoid creating any new precedents (which might bounce back on the individuals - a "framing problem" surely), of sloping shoulders, and of the various vested interests of the middle management, who are working at their own pace and think there is always another day. The 90-day thing, the "low hanging" fruit, etc, are probably vanity/ gimme effects, enabled by yes-men, given you are within such a culture. Better it is better to clear out (Thatcher's "Them or us") rather than be emasculated by all of the present practices and passive aggressive among your close servants.
But a clear strategy is for bad times as well as good times. When unforeseen events and privations occur it is something of a foothold to push back with. It does even need to be your "real strategy": it could just be the publicly stated strategy. Lol.
Actually, by R Rumelt's excellent definition ("Good Strategy, Bad Strategy", also at most airports), almost all universities (and public sector units) simply do not have any clear R&D (or other) strategy at all: there is no diagnosis, no policy and no actionable coherent actions to implement the policy within the diagnosis. Like the Prime Minister, they are too reactive rather than being proactive. Their strategies are just inclusive and obvious lists of toadying aims, and achievements, either already banked or obviously expected - with few explicit priorities, and far too much spreading out; while their HR strategies are supported by volunteer (activist?) interest groups (rather than the Supreme Court).
So, given that learning, how should things be done differently, next time, by you or by your successors?
Completely agree - and not surprisingly it is also true of the software systems that we embed into the social world. Adaptation is crucial as the social, political and resource environment changes, and as the needs and objectives change.