Measuring Thrivability

Every time I speak to an MBA class about thrivability (as I did recently), it’s only a matter of time before someone asks: how do you measure it?  For some reason, it’s only MBAs who ask this. 

As it happens, we hosted a Thrivability Montreal conversation about this question last year, with guest speaker Kristian Gareau, who was doing research on the topic for his Master’s program.  I took detailed notes that evening, but until now I hadn’t yet synthesized them into a blog post.  At the time, it didn’t seem as if we had come to solid enough conclusions, though there were many valuable insights that emerged.  Actually, that may be the conversation’s conclusion in itself: thrivability is measured more in insights than in conclusions.  After answering the MBAs several times since, those insights are finally coming into focus enough to share them here.

At the conversation, we started the evening exploring the multiple faces of thrivability:

·         It’s a way to see your organization - as a living system that you are part of but that is more than you.

·         It represents a goal and an intention - to enhance life’s ability to thrive at every level (individual, organization, customer, community, biosphere). 

·         It’s a comprehensive operational strategy - informed by what we know about living systems, including the conditions needed for self-organization, emergence, collective intelligence, creativity and resilience.

·         It’s a set of practices – participatory, thoughtful, often playful, and always intentional in design.

·         It invites a certain stance or role - as a caring, compassionate steward of something alive, like a child or a garden.

·         And it suggests a certain perspective on work – most of all, as a path to community, learning, self-expression and positive impact in the world, as well as a source of income and status. 

“How could we possibly measure that?” we wondered.  What exactly would we be measuring?  And what’s behind this urge to measure things, anyway?  Maybe it’s an outdated compulsion to control everything, which may no longer be useful as we move into stewarding complexity and emergence.

As Kristian pointed out, though, “accounting is not neutral.”  When you report on something - and when you don't report on something else - there's already a decision being made.  Measuring thrivability would give it importance and attention.  It would be a conscious decision to give it value.  

He also explained that the root of the word “accounting” is the same as the French word “raconter” – to tell a story, to give an account.  It’s less about counting and more about creating a narrative in support of greater understanding.  Interesting.

Indeed, that perspective matched with AJ Javier’s.  AJ is the Director of CLC Montreal, the beautiful language school that was our host for the conversation.  He shared some of the ways he assesses the level of thrivability in his organization:

·         What’s the level of attractiveness? (“Thriving organizations have magnetism,” he said.) Are we attracting nice, conscientious people?

·         Do students feel more fully alive? Do they feel belonging? Do they come early? Do they stay late? Do they come to the optional events?  Do they feel a sense of contribution to the community?

·         Is it absolutely evident that we value the team?  Do staff feel listened to?  Are they autonomous?  Do teachers laugh together? Do they talk socially?  If the staff are thriving, the students feel that.  

These are the indicators that let him know that the conditions are in place for life to thrive at every level – for students, for staff, for the school itself, for the community.  Not coincidentally, he senses a strong connection between this set of indicators and the school’s profitability.

This makes me think of Jack Stack, a management idol who wrote in the 1990s about the need for every business to identify their “one critical number.”  For hotels, for example, it’s generally the occupancy rate.  Stack tells a story about a restaurant owner who knew how much money he would make on any night by the wait time for a table at 8:30pm.  For CLC, it might be the number of students present on Monday afternoons.

This “one critical number” is useful.  But it doesn’t give any insight into what goes into it.  It's the vital signs - but not the health that you're really after.  At least as useful (if not more) would be some measure of the things that lead to high occupancy or a full restaurant or a language school full of students.  Those are the factors AJ described.  So we just need to find a way to measure those, right?

Here’s where we noticed that we were entering risky territory.  What would be the effect if AJ introduced personality tests as part of the application process, in an effort to measure how “nice and conscientious” new students are?  Imagine if he set targets for how often students arrive early for class, giving teachers bonuses for surpassing those objectives.  What if he closely monitored the number of times teachers laugh together, charting and posting the results each week?  Here’s where we have to ask: what would be altered or diminished through measuring it? 

At this point in our conversation, we felt a little lost.  The way to value thrivability is to measure it.  But as soon as we measure it, we kill it.

And that’s the moment when Lynne Lamarche, our glorious graphic recorder, put the finishing touches on her drawing of our conversation.  And suddenly we could see what she had been building all along: a radar screen. 

There’s something potent about the idea of ongoing monitoring and awareness.  It’s a different approach to measurement.  It still gathers useful data, but it seems to interfere less with what’s being measured.  And it’s more in line with how life works – continuously sensing and responding to changing conditions.  The focus shifts from counting (alone) to recounting and shaping the unfolding story of the organization.

The implication is that everyone in the organization needs to become a "sensing organ," attuned to the factors that indicate thrivability.  There probably has to be some collective process to determine which factors deserve attention.  And there have to be times and places for sharing the “data” and acting on it.  All of that requires specific skills and structures, not to mention trust and transparency.  

I’m not sure all of this is going to satisfy the MBA students.  But my sense is that this is an important part of the practice of thrivability.

What do you think?  What are the factors of thrivability in your work?  And how do you sense them on an ongoing basis?

As you roll along, consider getting acquainted with formative evaluation, which "understands" ongoingness.

Hi Michelle!

Very thought provoking, thank you! As I thought and felt through your comment "as soon as we measure it, we kill it," it both rang true for me and also felt a bit either-or. It's a crucial area for us organizational changemakers to tackle, so I am paying attention to the dissonance :)

A couple of reflections:

- Part of the problem I think is that our understanding and practice of "metrics/measurement/assessment" are largely mechanistic/static/reductionist in nature. We measure parts and lose the relationships and the whole in the process. When we see organizations as machines, that might be a good fit. As we are discovering, our organizations are living systems, really, so how we approach "metrics" has to shift

- Another thing that strikes me about our measurement approaches is that there is a lot of judgement involved — good vs. bad. That's fine when you try to drive variance out of a system and assume that every part is a cog. But how does this impact people who are also emotional beings with needs to be inspired and motivated — BAD means you are BAD. Quite a motivator...

- This brings me to a reframer: As you conclude in your post quite brilliantly and beautifully, "continuously sensing and responding to changing conditions" is a better way. With this in mind, the question shifts from "How do we introduce effective metrics?" to "How do we design highly generative feedback loops throughout the system, embedded in the fabric of our everyday operations, that would support us in evolving toward more thriving/aliveness at every level of system?"

- We could consciously introduce some key *design principles* to help us design feedback loops that are *highly generative.* These principles could include: appreciative, enlivening, ongoing, self-improving, etc.

Good work Michelle!!

--Max

"How do we design highly generative feedback loops throughout the system, embedded in the fabric of our everyday operations, that would support us in evolving toward more thriving/aliveness at every level of system?"

I absolutely love that, Max. Thank you for that. You've pointed us all in an extremely useful direction.

Echoing Max's comment
"How do we design highly generative feedback loops throughout the system, embedded in the fabric of our everyday operations, that would support us in evolving toward more thriving/aliveness at every level of system?"
...

What was important about Jack Stack, imho, wasn't “one critical number” but rather his relentless effort to open the books and make a business transparent to all its participants. With "open book management" (and OMG perhaps even broad ownership) the participants will decide and learn and decide again where their attention and interventions can be most usefully placed.

 Absolutely agree, Gil.  Thanks for making that clear.  It's an extremely important part of the sensing and feedback equation.

Building on Gil's excellent comment/observation:

It might be very tempting to label old school metrics & measurement as BAD and the new idea of generative feedback loops as GOOD. An evolutionary motto "include and transcend" (vs. "dismantle and rebuild") might work better here. I see this as an action-learning journey of introducing more generative feedback loops alongside traditional metrics, learning what works, and hopefully gradually letting go of the old/mechanistic where appropriate. Remember Bucky Fuller? If you want to change something, build a new system that makes the old one obsolete. Doesn't happen overnight, it's not an event — rather an intentional action-learning expedition that takes time, curiosity and persistence (and courage.)

It may also be all too tempting to come up with a perfect new "feedback loops structure/framework" and just "drop it" into an organization. Look at me, I have a perfect new way! Watch the mechanistic/predictable/reductionist thinking creeping in. It doesn't work this way in living systems. Look at nature. No living system is created with a pre-defined system of feedback loops. These feedback loops evolve over time. There are a few simple [generative] design principles in place — but the living system grows its capacity over time to evolve its feedback loops with more and more elegance, intricacy and sophistication. So the question when it comes to organizations is less "What is the right system of feedback loops to install here?" and more "How do we grow the capacity of the organization to design and evolve its feedback loops in a way that is increasingly more generative?" Because every organization will have its own unique design — simply because every organization is unique in terms of culture, structure, size, location, product, etc. So our job as social architects and 'guides on the side' (vs. 'sages on stage' or 'consultants') is to support organizations in growing this capacity — vs. providing them with a ready-made system/solution. How do you do that? Great question. That's exactly what Bill Veltrop and I help organizations achieve (note the shameless plug — but hey, it's generative :)

Now, the capacity I describe above applies to just about every other aspect of an organization — its culture, structures, stories, etc. We are talking about becoming a 'consciously self-evolving organization' in every dimension. So our uber challenge is, how do we support our organizations in developing their capacity to consciously self-evolve? That's what Bill and I are all about :)

Thanks Michelle and everyone else,

Having been part of the conversation which sparked this post, I'm glad to see these ideas are generating interest, thank you.

Now, at the risk of sounding too 'MBA-ish' (full disclosure, I'm a business prof) what really struck me about this meeting and these comments are the points about transparency and developing measures which are inclusive at multiple levels. Kaplan & Norton's Balanced Scorecard (http://www.amazon.com/The-Balanced-Scorecard-Robert-Kaplan/dp/0875846513) is, to my mind a good MBA translation of these points. Some key points of their balanced scorecard include (a) the 'scorecard' or dashboard differs depending on where you are in the organization, yet at all levels should be integrally tied to the organization's mission and (b) each organization should develop its own scorecard based on its core values and mission. To put another way, A should evolve from B. To say this is hard work is obvious to this crowd. After all, if it were easy, organizations wouldn't need our help ;).

I think the radar is a wonderful metaphor for thinking about the organizational system. Building on (and being somewhat repetitive to) the ideas above, I believe the 'magic' happens when people are able to connect their everyday actions and processes of 'work' with their intended organizational outcomes.

yes, awesome!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <strike> <u> <blockquote> <sup> <sub> <img> <big> <small>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.