Truthiness in organisations

In 2005 Stephen Colbert coined the word 'Truthiness' to express when statements are deemed true based on intuition rather than evidence and logic. How is this relevant in organisations?

Photo by Damon Lam on Unsplash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1][2] Truthiness can range from ignorant assertions of falsehoods to deliberate duplicity or propaganda intended to sway opinions.[3][4]

Stephen Colbert featured this in his pilot episode for The Colbert Report in a regular segment titled The Wørd

Whilst at that time the subject of Truthiness mostly focused on deliberate propaganda and hostility to fact-based discussion Truthiness can also describe more seemingly innocuous ignorance.

This is not a treatise on ignorance. We are all ignorant. For every area, we are slightly less ignorant in there are infinite in which we are entirely ignorant.

In organisations, there are some classic pervasive examples of Truthiness.

Cost centres (such as I.T.) and “The Business”

Cost Center Accounting has a lot to answer for. Functional structures have existed tracing back to at least the industrial revolution. That cost centre accounting has echoed functional structures in its approach provided a truthy reason to prefer functional structures over alternatives.

It provided a reason to separately organise cost centres from profit centres. Organisational processes, bodies of knowledge, standards and all manner of codified knowledge reinforced this separation. Calcification against change whether it aided organisations to be structured this way or not.

It will not take much of a search in an organisation to find people within a supposed cost centre who refer to “The Business” as if this is something they sit outside of. One step away from being outsourced, readying themselves for their fate.

Organising by Function

Organising by Function has a certain Truthiness to it. It seems to stand to reason that people should be managed by someone who has done their job. In some cases, this may make sense but it’s not the only way to organise.

From this often unchallenged assumption expands a self-similar pattern. Departments are organised by collections of skills and competencies. These report into functional portfolios under each Executive.

The friction from trying to align work across functional lines permeates and monopolises the concerns of organisations. Once aware of it you can see evidence of effort wasted addressing these frictions everywhere.

Project Management practices dominate, I hypothesise, because if people are organised by skillset then the dominant pattern to coordinate the work will naturally appear to be by activity. Striving to create value must reconcile the competing interests of each functional unit. And the natural path to navigating this friction becomes politics.

Slowly but surely organisations are finding alternatives to organising by function alone. That’s not to say that it’s not a sometimes useful approach. It can be an elegant solution at times.

The last bastion of organising by the function will likely be of the executives around the board room table. Of course, it’s the leaders who have most bought into the Truthiness that this is the best way to organise people! :)

Project Governance supports efficacy

Another example which dominates organisations is the idea that Project Governance is the path to assuring valuable use of the organisations’ resources. It certainly offers some auditable controls but applies those controls in almost all areas except value.

It’s safe to say most organisations that have governance practices do not practise Benefits Realisation Management at all. And for those that do they are the equivalent of breaking the evidentiary chain of custody. If you are PMI or Prince 2 certified and experienced professional who has some strong case studies which are a counterpoint to my assertion I’d love to chat with you.

What truthiness are you aware of in your organisation? Share your experiences in the comments.