PrintThe Designer as a Leader*
In the world of enterprise-wide spatial systems, there is no checklist to work through that will guarantee a designer is thinking in a way that will capture the big picture or identify root causes of difficult design problems. However, experience shows that focus needs to be on the vision of what the system will accomplish, not on the processes and procedures of a bureaucratic entity. This means that designers need to think in terms of behavior of the whole system, in preference to thinking about component parts. They need to think in term of strategic objectives, and to measure success in terms of achieving strategic objectives. Here activity is not a measure of success; busyness and excessive focus on the short term interfere with system development. Designers must see what is actually happening, not just what they want to see happen. Designers of large enterprise spatial system need to think of themselves as leaders of a living system that attunes the mind to the important aspects of organizational behavior and allows one to understand what keeps the system alive in terms of ongoing development and support. I will suggest that there is a framework of three key areas that can be identified:
1. Thinking
Albert Einstein argued that "problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” The coming of the Industrial Age with complex processes and ever-larger organizations led to the development of management as a profession. In the Information Age of the present day, spatial organizations are increasingly networked, and leadership has evolved the task-focused "matrix organization". With spatial organizations, our challenge is to facilitate teaming techniques, and to evolve another level of leadership. The assignment of oversight to outside and high level panels, boards, or ad hoc groups expands the insight and impact of the leader --- it raises problems above the level in which they arise. Additionally, this high level and “parallel thinking” provides unconstrained thought unbound by routine processes, and introduces different perspectives, ensures objective analysis, and enhances the credibility of results.
With “parallel thinking” all parties are thinking in parallel in the same direction. There is co-operative and coordinated thinking. The direction itself can be changed in order to give a full scan of the situation. But at every moment each thinker is thinking in parallel with all the other thinkers. There does not have to be agreement. Statements or thoughts which are contradictory are not argued out but laid down in parallel. In the final stage the way forward is 'designed' from the parallel thoughts that have been laid out.
2. Vision and Climate
A Leader with a clear vision creates a climate that encourages and recognizes viable innovation when it emerges, while allowing the freedom to make mistakes. Throughout the system’s life-cycle, an effective leader maintains focus on the behavior system as a whole, and on the roles it plays and functions it performs in terms of the overall purpose of the system. Few would disagree, in principle, that the effective leader should see not only the parts, but also the big picture. But, why is maintaining a consistent vision so difficult in spatial system development? One reason is because many leaders are so immersed in the myriad day-to-day nuts-and-bolts technology management details it is easy for them to lose sight of the bigger picture. We all know the saying that “Fighting off the alligators takes precedence over draining the swamp.” The problem of “busyness” often compounds the problem of beating off the alligators since it seems as though officials work excessive hours as a matter of pride. This crisis management combined with a culture of busyness has resulted in decision makers who favor short-term view to long-term problems without taking time to think about the actual impact of the fix or the emergent patterns.
A vision needs to be tempered with reality. In his book Why Smart Executives Fail, Sydney Finkelstein examined some of the world’s most notorious business failures. His analysis indicated that in almost every case, the failures were not attributable to stupidity or lack of attention. On the contrary, the leaders were exceptionally bright, energetic, and deeply involved in the operation of their businesses. Up to the point of massive corporate failure, they were all extremely successful. In most instances, the executives failed to see or accept what was actually happening. In some cases, they were blinded by their own prior successes; in other cases, they inexplicably held tenaciously to a vision despite plenty of evidence that the chosen strategic direction was ill-advised.
Mistakes are learning tools that are inevitable in an era of change and advancement, and leadership needs to create an environment whereadmitting to a mistake is a sign of strength. The paradigm that mistakes are bad; they ought to be avoided at all cost; and never admit a mistake needs to be changed. The Leader's pragmatic focus on determining what is actually happening serves as a preventative to self-delusional thinking. Seeing and accepting what is really happening is the hardest part of the job. The continuous assessment process, brought about by broad-based governance, is characteristic of systems thinking and is essential in a volatile, rapidly changing environment. It takes time and good habits of critical reflection to engage in this kind of learning, both for individuals and organizations. A systemic approach to learning from failure is more likely to result in effective long-term solutions. While inspired leadership can make a difference under the worst of conditions, we might ask just how heroic we expect our leaders to be on a regular basis. When a system is so obviously stacked against our leaders, there is a moral imperative to change the system.
3. The Whole and the Parts
Effective leaders are systems thinkers. They see things in terms of loops and patterns, and are aided by constant assessment of what is happening and the changing relationships between elements, rather than flow charts and final output. Peter Senge submits, in The Fifth Discipline, that systems thinking provides just the type of discipline and toolset needed to encourage the seeing of “interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshots'.” Senge argues that this shift of mind is necessary to deal with the complexities of dynamic social systems. He suggests that we think in terms of feedback loops as a substitute for simple cause-and-effect relationships.
Leadership in Spatial System Design Is Often the Antithesis of Good Management Practice
As I said, there is no checklist to work through that will guarantee a successful spatial system. However, there is a basic concept that can be very helpful when considering the development of a spatial system. This is to focus on the broader purpose for which the system is being created, NOT to focus on the processes and procedures of a bureaucratic entity. A recent Wall Street Journal article by Terry Leap, “Keys to Spotting a Flawed CEO-Before It's Too Late,” suggests avoiding leaders “with a fondness for rules and numbers that overshadows or ignores a broader vision.” This is sage advice when building a large enterprise-wide spatial system.
* Much of this is drawn from an article I wrote with Dennis Bellafiore and David Arctur about spatial data infrastructure development. Here is a link to the entire article.