Do you know Margaret Douglas? Not just any Margaret Douglas but THE Margaret Douglas, Adam Smith’s mother?
Yes, I’m talking about THE Adam Smith, the one who wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, or as it is generally known, The Wealth of Nations.
Don’t know Margaret? She was probably the most important woman in Adam’s life. He never married and she took care of his household until she passed away at the age of 84. I don’t know if Adam relied on her advice – it might have been just the opposite. He might have fought against being dependent on her. Some people even suggest reading The Wealth of Nations with the idea of the invisible hand as a way to solve the question of social dependency in economic terms.
Smith uses the metaphor of the invisible hand to describe unintended social benefits that result from actions that pursue only individual advantage. We will never know for sure, but it seems to be a good guess that his mother influenced Adam. At least my mother influenced me, although I’m not like Adam Smith in any way and I haven’t written any classics – yet. The last time my mother influenced me was when she learned that I became President of ISPI.
“Why do you do this?” was her question. I was astonished. What a question! Doesn’t everybody want to become ISPI President? Except me, perhaps. I have to confess that I was reluctant when I was asked. There were people who warned me not to do this to myself. But I forgot to consult my mother and finally ran for the Presidency. The result was her astonishing question.
After I had recovered from the surprise, it made me think. Why do we do it? I mean: Why do we, all ISPIers, do performance improvement work? We act as if it was clear what performance is and as if there was no alternative but to continuously improve it. But behind performance lingers the question of what purpose it serves. We have been improving performance for decades and some of the undesirable results we now face are climate change, exploited resources, and incredible differences between rich and poor.
Have we been improving performance without purpose? And are these global challenges the result? The longer I thought, the more I became convinced that there has been little discussion about the purpose of performance improvement. Not conversing about it at all leaves us with a considerable gap. We have single voices that raise ethical questions and still do not have a systematic discussion.
There is a second reason why clarifying purpose is important. People that follow a clear purpose often develop incredible passion and creativity – something any society cannot have enough of. Did Margaret ask Adam about purpose also? An interesting idea—and his answer would be even more interesting. Or did your mother ask you? Did she give you any advice? Or what advice would she give ISPI? I’d like to learn about your ideas. Please leave your ideas and comments below and let’s open a fruitful discussion.
Thank you Klaus for a good post and a necessary question. Worth reflecting on. With our brains, with our hearts. And then asking ourselves how what we think and what we stand for reflects on our day to day practice. What do we do, for instance, to ensure a proper balance when considering different stockholders’ needs and contributions in complex performance systems? How this is concretely reflect on our practice?
All the best to you Klaus.
Thanks, Klaus! As other folks have said, quite a few NSPI/ISPI “thought leaders” argued often and well for taking a long view–at least strategic–about what would be an “improvement” for any performance improvement project. Alas, without much discernible impact on the “thoughts” of the vast majority of members.
And, as Rummler and Harless and a few others can’t tell you, I have to say: I’m glad you decided to run for President. Good luck and best wishes!
Dale
Nice post, Klaus. Sure to stimulate some thinking. I don’t know that ISPI has ever come to grips with the issues related to the ends to which performance technology is applied beyond ensuring that we can clone the mythical master performer or successfully address just about any issue related to individual performance. But performance writ large? Really large? I think Roger Kaufman has pushed a lot in that direction and some have taken heed but, as a society, I don’t know that we’ve zeroed in on the really big issues. I am also of the view that far too many ISPIers view politics with distaste yet, to tackle those really big issues, politics will very much come into play. If we can’t play that game, and play it well, high-minded purposes will likely go unrealized. On the other hand. . .
Interesting questions, particularly “why do we do performance improvement.” The discussion reminds me of why we have a Code of Ethics. We should keep an eye on the idea of improving performance on pursuits of noble purpose, and we need to establish outcomes before trying to engineer performance. That way, we can all contribute to business success and making the world a better place.
Thank you for asking these important questions. For those of us who learned our craft at the feet of Tom Gilbert and Joe Harless, these questions are the foundation of how we approach performance analysis and the subsequent development of performance interventions. Of course, like any question, the answers have layers of meaning and application. But, two layers that immediately come to mind are the my personal purpose for refusing to abandon a ‘performance thinking’ approach is awakening provided by the dynamic duo, Gilbert and Harless. Once the veil of confusion was lifted from my thinking, I became a disciple for life. There is no going back or, even backsliding. I deeply want to empower all of my project associates with the same vision of the power of mission-focused performance. Through their guidance, I discovered that every piece of equipment, every individual performer or team of performers, or higher organizational element has a mission. Once you uncover the essence of that mission, you can accurately build a sequence of performance events that has a high possibility of achieving those layered missions. It is magic. The second layer is organizational performance and the mission or missions that drive the decisions. This is a more difficult nut to crack because it is driven by egos, money, and politics. I have found that there are a few insightful leaders who immediately see the value and are sufficiently mission focused to eagerly adopt the ‘performance thinking’ approach. I have seen such leaders achieve immediate and significant success. But, sustaining that ‘performance thinking’ success beyond their tenure is not guaranteed and, if fact, is highly perishable. So, my personal mission is continue the quest to have impact on both levels. It is easier for me to achieve success on the first level because Gilbert and Harless gave us the tools to do so. I think it is ISPI’s responsibility to show the same unrelenting zeal to seek converts at the organizational level and create an ubiquitous atmosphere of performance thinking throughout academia, business, and the military. It will make my job easier.
Klaus asks, “Why do we, all ISPIers, do performance improvement work? ”
I think that I use the HPT lens, and do performance improvement work to make an impact to the world. As Roger Kaufman has shared, we are doing PI to make an impact at the individual level, the work level, the organization level, and then at the mega level. We sometimes forget that we are making the world better by taking a systems view.
Well said.