Philosophy in Organizational Change

Yes, I'm opening a can of worms here. "We are here to work, not to philosophize!" - is that really so?
Before exploring this question, let me start by clearing up the common misgiving people have about "philosophy": this isn't idle chatter. Philosophy is all about "knowledge" - how we arrive at the conclusions we do, and what leads us to do the things we do. For example: We talk a lot about vision, strategy and values. But: How do we interpret our vision? What makes a good strategy? And how do we turn our values into behaviour? We need philosophy to move beyond the bla-bla!

I'm not exploring the entire domain of philosophy, only a few things that are really important when dealing with organizational change. And I'm just going to touch "What's in it - for you? Why should you care?" rather than explaining any details. All I'm trying to achieve is get your interest in the topic sparked. You'll have to do your reading by yourself.

Ethics

Every organization has its own set of implicit and explicit values and norms. Which ones do we have, why do we have them, and do they serve us in the way they should? How do they inform our choices?
What does it take to arrive at a different set of values and/or norms?

For example: If our organization values "being busy" - how could we move to "producing value" instead?

Logic

There are tons of illogical things going on around us every day, and nobody seems to care.

The majority could be wrong. And might doesn't make right. Just because something is right, doesn't mean it's true and vice versa. When something doesn't follow from the premise: can you spot it, and where would that lead you?

Sound reasoning leads us to make better decisions. How good is our organization at reasoning?

For example: Just because there's an unspoken consensus in your organization that you "don't deploy on a Friday", doesn't mean it's an indisputable fact: Why can't we deploy every day?

Knowledge

Did you ever "know" something was the right way to do things, only to find someone did the opposite - and got better results? Most of what we know is little more than contextual snapshots of momentary experiences, turned by our brains into immutable "facts". And while there are definitely some things where scrutiny just leads us off a wild goose hunt, there are other so-called "facts" that we must discard in order to grow. But how can you discern?

For example: We know for certain that there's a legal reason to archive every contract in written form. But ... how does a paperless, totally virtual company do business in compliance with the law?

Ontology

"What is ..." - the way we define things informs how we think about them. What is "value", what is "performance", what is "success?" - Do you have the necessary means to ask the right questions that allow you to align people around a common understanding, weed out misunderstandings, and provide a more focused definition that allows people to overcome their own mental barriers?

For example: As long as everyone has a different understanding of "Value", it becomes pretty hard to maximize value creation. How would you - properly - define it?

Philosophy of Language

Our lanugage affects our thinking, which affects our reality. The words we use have the power to unite, divide, shape or reform. The subconscious effect of our lanugage is that simple things could become possible or impossible, easy or hard. Our lanugage can create insurmountable barriers or build inviting bridges. How much of what we consider "real" in our organization is just so because we choose to use words the way we do?

For example: The most nefarious element we see in many organizations is calling people, "resources". It's not merely de-humanizing - it has practical impact: "Resources" are assumed to be interchangeable for one of equal type. That leads us to move people across projects in an attempt to optimize "utilization" - which significantly reduces performance, and thereby, drives cost and risk through the roof! 

Philosophy of Law

Ethics informs our norms and values. And what happens when we transgress those? Which one are we willing to sacrifice when two norms are in conflict? Based on what reasoning can we trade off one value for the other? 

For example: Who can decide whether it's okay to put a risky feature live that could either increase value or make customers unhappy? Can I, as an individual, place the value of learning above the risk? What consequences will my choices and actions have? 

Philosophy of Politics

Power rests where it does. We can choose to re-distribute it, but would that even be a good idea?
What's the relationship between a company and its employees or between "manager" and "worker"? What does security and individual freedom mean? How do we trade off between these, and what consequences do that have?

For example: By giving people a corset of processes, we offer a sense of security by working in accordance with known, explicit regulations - while stealing their freedom to do the right thing for the benefit of the organization. 

Game Theory

Every day, in every one of our actions, we weigh off alternatives. The course of action we choose is ultimately that which benefits us most. How do we set up systems where individual, group and organizational goals align with each other - and how do we ensure that everyone benefits most from actually pursuing these goals? Every system can be gamed, then how do we ensure that when it's gamed, we still end up where we want to?

For example: By measuring "Velocity", we might end up rewarding doing a lot of useless work, or by inflating the actual effort. None of that helps us. Then - what should we measure instead?

Conclusion

I hope that this teaser is enough to get you interested in learning more about the domain of philosophy, spend time on equipping yourself with understanding and methods to approach each of these topics, and begin leading the important discussions that will improve clarity, transparency and mutual understanding within your organization.