16
Bimodal Beginnings
Our transition from strategic decision-making to operational execution ought not be too dissimilar to how we shift from optionality to experimentation. If we are attuned to dissociated metacognition and have the ability to reflect on our own individual and collective decisions, progress and leadership, then everything becomes an experiment to progress and learn from.
But not everyone readily shares this philosophy and awareness. And besides, everyone is busy, and we still have the Curse of Efficiency to contend with.
We can't force change across a whole enterprise.[1] If we are to make headway and break new ground, we need to get bimodal.
WORKING ACROSS TWO MODES
Bimodal is a statistical term denoting a continuous probability distribution within two different modes. It's also a term IT research and advisory firm Gartner introduced to describe a scenario in which an enterprise splits its IT function into two distinct modes. Bimodal IT, they call it — where one mode could be described as traditional, emphasising safety, accuracy and predictability, and the other could be described as agile, emphasising agility, speed and efficacy.
Both modes need to work in tandem. Trouble starts when we try to bring the thinking of the old (established) mode into the territory of the new (explorative) one.
I'm sure you can see the similarities here. What Gartner is essentially proposing is that we run with default modes while also creating space to build and grow more pioneering modes.
This approach can be extended throughout any part of your enterprise.
Some of the clusters/nodes/silos/hubs in your enterprise will need to stay focused on the default/established/conventional/traditional modes of business.[2] These may be the types of activities that allow very little tolerance for error or failure — such as manufacturing, distribution and workplace safety.[3] And so we let them do their thing, all safe, predictable and efficient-like.
But that same thinking cannot be applied to the more pioneering elements of your enterprise strategy. In order to progress and execute these elements, we need a different kind of team that works in a different kind of way.
NEW TEAMS
One of your early challenges will be identifying a small team — one that shares a similar strategic focus — and giving them more authority and autonomy to progress a key element of pioneering strategy.
Naturally, you'll want to assess their willingness and aptitude for pioneering work first. Don't choose a bunch of tyre-kickers and digital laggards; at the same time, however, don't underestimate people's ability to adapt to new ways of working.
The formation (or mini ‘re-organisation') of this team might involve the inclusion of new talent — folks who have worked in startups outside the enterprise. Such folks won't have been indoctrinated into existing cultural norms, and will bring a fresh perspective that may mitigate the inclination to return to the now ‘old' (default) ways of doing things. At the same time, the savvy folks who have been with your enterprise for a while will have enough understanding of the wider enterprise ecology to ensure that work is progressed effectively. They'll know what channels are most effective to pursue, and which stakeholders to be most mindful of.
Our intention here is to embrace (and lead) a new way of working.[4]
FINITE GAMES
The infinite game we're playing includes leading a new way of working (within the bigger infinite context of enduring value and relevance). New teams should be aware of this — this is the bigger, pioneering purpose they serve.
And yet, at the same time giving new teams a finite game to play is useful — that is, giving them a tighter focus that serves to capture and distribute new value to the enterprise. The tension between exploration and execution is something that new teams will need to dance within, because we do not want to become lost in either.
In The Game Changer I introduced a simple definition for games that can be applied here. All games are the interplay of goals, rules and feedback. A good game is a goal-driven, challenge-intense and feedback-rich experience geared towards progress. These three components correlate to modern elements of intrinsic motivation — the motivation inherent within the work itself (as distinct from extrinsic or internal drivers). These elements are purpose, mastery and autonomy.[5]
Goals link to purpose, and serve as a focal point for our efforts. But, within this new way of working, our goals are lightly held. We don't anchor them down with specific incentives, and as such we can adapt them to serve the greater purpose as our learning grows.
Rules link to mastery. We need parameters in order to focus our efforts. By actively anticipating constraints, we enhance our creativity and ability to create more relevant and meaningful progress. The reason many people choose to play board games, sport games or video games is because of the inherent challenge within them. We could all be very efficient at the game of golf if we wanted to — we could simply walk up to the hole and drop the ball directly into it, thereby ‘winning' without even taking a shot. But, of course, games don't work like this — they have rules to make them difficult. People don't play games to avoid work but to engage in well-designed work. With new ways of working, we have a chance to continually design and redesign the way we work, to ensure that the rules we play by are keeping us challenged and on track for meaningful progress.
Feedback links to autonomy. If the latency between our effort and meaningful feedback is minimal, we are more likely to continue to invest effort into things. What this means for our new ways of working is that we need to keep feedback loops tight. Experimentation ought to be progressed rapidly, with updates occurring regularly (see chapter 21). Whereas in traditional business units people may find a sense of progress by referring to default measures, in new ways of working the ‘default' is always shifting. Our reference point comes from conversation and shared learning with the team, which works because of how tightly clustered and connected the team is (see chapter 17).
Essentially, by creating new ways of working, you're creating a new game. You're directly answering the question, ‘If we were to start again from scratch today, what would we do differently?'
And you're doing it — initially, at a small and considered scale, and attached to a focused new stream of value for the enterprise. Why? Because, much like with the experimentation to establish the viability of different options, here you are establishing the viability of new ways of working.[6]
PROTECT AGAINST INFECTION
These new ways of working will likely be an affront to other, more conservative elements and people within your enterprise — at least initially.
And, like the white blood cells in our immune system that protect us from infections and foreign invaders, elements within the larger enterprise system will seek to protect it from foreign (new) ways of working.
Well — two can play at that.
As a pioneering leader, one of the most important roles you will play is in the defence of new ways of working. The last thing you want to see happen is this new way of working becoming contaminated with old things like heavily weighted scorecards, ridiculously tokenistic compliance measures from HR, or anything that detracts the new team from their mission, meaningful progress and the bigger purpose they serve.
By reducing the cascade of rubbish defaults and the admin burden a new team might otherwise endure, you're ensuring they can better focus on new thinking and generating meaningful progress.
DIAL UP DIVERSITY
Given that you're looking to keep things small at first, the initial team needs to have a diverse enough set of multidisciplinary skills and talent density to proceed with autonomy.
But, inevitably, gaps in skills and capabilities will become apparent as time progresses. If you're distributing authority well, this new team will function much like an embedded startup. Therefore, if they need talent, they will have the authority to hire it (just like a startup would). In this instance, you'll have another opportunity to protect the team from unnecessary admin burden — preserving their ability to be self-sufficient.
MAKE PROGRESS VISIBLE
At this stage, other teams working in more traditional modes likely become jealous of this new team. Why do they get to have all the fun? What are these cowboys doing? It's not fair. How come they get to eat pizza in the office? They're a bunch of loose cannons, and a threat to the business. And so on.[7]
Stories can get out of hand, and our intention here is not to create an ‘us and them' mentality[8] but, rather, to demonstrate the benefits of this new mode of working. This means that progress needs to be visible and shared frequently.
Depending upon the work this new team is undertaking, this sharing may be challenging — but some novel ways are available. In addition to standard communication pieces (like posting updates, articles and reports onto shared communication platforms) new teams can invite key stakeholders in to work with them. This honours the expertise and work of people from outside their team, and ensures that their efforts remain connected to the wider enterprise.
New teams can also host casual learning events — inviting folks from other teams along to participate in a shared update on work completed, and the new things learned (see chapter 21). This provides a chance for other teams to see the contribution this new team is making. As a result, everyone learns more, and new teams endear themselves further to the enterprise by demonstrating the value of their work.
SPREAD THE INFLUENCE
Much like our experimentations in part IV, the adoption of new ways of working is something that can scale. Rather than force other business units and teams to adopt these new ways, we simply demonstrate the value of them, and allow them to make the shift themselves. When more teams in the enterprise are comfortable with this new way of working, and when they see the results, appetite for this kind of pioneering progress and change may greatly increase. The learning from all the mistakes made with the first new team can also be incorporated — which should serve to smooth out some of the kinks in the process as other teams switch from the old mode to a new mode of working.
Don't force it, don't rush it. But by all means accelerate, catalyse and promote it. By starting with a bimodal approach — a new mode working alongside the old modes — we can begin to unlock meaningful progress relatively quickly and safely.