Organisations are not "fungible". “Fungibility” is an assumption that if you redesign an organisation & replace one set of people with a different set, you will still get equivalent outputs. This mistaken belief underlies many organisational restructures: that you can redistribute roles, reporting lines & teams without meaningful loss. I've been reading "Communities Are Not Fungible", a recent essay by @JoanWesten7568. She examines 1960s urban renewal, when planners believed demolishing old neighbourhoods & rehousing residents would allow communities to reform. They didn't. The residents moved. The community did not. A community is not a set of people: it is a historically produced web of relationships between them. Destroy the web, & you have strangers in a building. The parallel to organisational life is uncomfortable. When we restructure, we may preserve many of the people but destroy the relational infrastructure that made them effective. The informal trust that lets someone ask for help. The shared knowledge of who to call when a process stalls. The accumulated understanding of each other's judgment. These live in relationships, not individuals. Redrawing an org chart doesn't transfer them. Research backs this up. Tacit knowledge - the "knowing how" driving real-world performance - depends on trust to flow. Break those relationships & you block the transfer. Studies show informal networks persist along old lines long after formal structures change, creating tension between old loyalties & new mandates. Social capital is the value created by connectedness. It can be destroyed in restructuring & take years to rebuild — a cost that almost never appears in a business case. What leaders can do to protect collective value: 1. Audit informal networks before redesigning formal structures. Use, eg., System Network Analysis or Relational Coordination. Breaking key network nodes causes capability losses no productivity model captures. 2. Treat relational capital as a real cost. Business cases for restructuring rarely account for social capital destruction. Making it visible leads to better decisions & stronger cases for change. 3. Design around high-value relationships. Identify relationships carrying the most trust & history & actively design the new structure to protect them while enabling necessary change. 4. Invest deliberately in building new relationships. Create conditions for them to form through shared work, peer learning & social connection. 5. Give explicit attention to belonging & psychological safety for everyone (not just those who lose or change roles): This creates conditions for the discretionary effort that makes new structures succeed. 6. Slow down at the point of irreversibility. Ask not only "what do we gain?" but "what do we lose - & can we recover it?" The value of an organisation is not the sum of its people's individual capabilities. It is the web of relationships between them. That web is not fungible. Link to Joan Westenberg's essay: joanwestenberg.com/communiti…. Thanks to @charlie_psych who sent me the essay.

The stage of maturity of your learning/improvement network or community of practice impacts how much difference it can make. @SFU Faculty of Science identifies three stages: 1) "Knowledge Weaving" prioritises the exchange of tacit knowledge within the network or community. Collaboration & connection enable valuable experiential knowledge to be exchanged. 2) "Collaborative Learning" is about taking that tacit knowledge further to support members to experiment & learn, generating new & emergent approaches which are further shared. 3) "Systems of influence" extend influence beyond the community or network by advocating & supporting systemic change in response to complex challenges. Many networks/CoPs in health & care never get beyond stage one, when their potential is so much greater. sfu.ca/complex-systems-frame…. For deeper analysis of the principles: margaretwheatley.com/article…

It is a positive thing that, post pandemic, we are having more face to face meetings/summits/forums. However, I am surprised at just how many of these events still mostly consist of "expert" speakers that people sit & listen to. What's the point of face to face if people aren't connecting with each other? Much better to spend the time at the event enabling the multiple, diverse "experts" in the audience to problem solve & learn together. That's why this graphic from @voinonen really spoke to me.

Leadership is defined as much by how well people respond to unfolding events as how good they are at driving an agenda. Research shows senior leaders spend an average of 36% of their time in reactive mode, responding to such events. Nitin Nohria offers a matrix of types of event & how leaders should respond: 1) Normal noise: small issues likely to stay small - don't get drawn in 2) Clarion calls: significant issues likely to remain significant - be all-in 3) Whisper warnings: small issues that might become significant - nip them in the bud 4) Siren songs: significant issues that are likely to diminish over time - don't overreact. Watch and wait He offers a three step process - sensing, sizing & responding - to help leaders react effectively to the full spectrum of unfolding events: hbr.org/2024/01/leaders-must…. Via @HarvardBiz

In praise of "connectors" in organisations & systems. Connectors are people with links to many others in different groups. They are often unnoticed & underappreciated, yet they play a vital role in change across systems: crossing silos, disseminating information & mobilising people into action. As we increasingly move into complex change across integrated systems we need more connectors: paulitaylor.com/2023/12/08/w… By @PaulIanTaylor #IHIForum

A systematic review of research on workplace breaks shows that: 1) Regular micro breaks can be better than longer breaks 2) Outdoor breaks & fresh air are better than indoor breaks 3) Scrolling social media is the most common break type but it creates emotional exhaustion 4) Spending a break with a furry companion is beneficial hbr.org/2023/05/how-to-take-… Via @ZhannaLyubykh Graphic @DariusForoux