Michael Lissack
Context Integration Evaluation
• Do physical and digital environments effectively complement each other? • Can people move between different contexts without experienc- ing disruptive transitions? • Is information appropriately accessible across contextual boundaries? Organizations that have established clear, adaptable, and integrated contexts are ready to empower autonomous action within these environ- ments. Those still struggling with context inequality, fragmentation, or ex- cessive rigidity should focus on contextual refinement before proceeding. To create the right context, organizations should: Design for psychological safety. In distributed environments, cre- ating contexts where people feel safe to contribute, question, and experi- ment becomes even more critical. Microsoft has found that psychological safety is the primary predictor of team success and has developed specific practices to foster this safety across hybrid teams. Safety requires intentional practices. When technology company Gitlab conducts retrospectives, it begins with the most senior person shar- ing mistakes and lessons learned, establishing a norm that vulnerability is valued rather than penalized. This practice creates coherence between stated values about learning and actual team dynamics. Build porous boundaries. Today's organizational contexts require clear boundaries that still allow for cross-functional collaboration. Adobe maintains distinct product teams with clearly defined responsibilities while creating formal mechanisms for cross-team innovation. This bal- ance creates coherence without rigidity. Porous boundaries require deliberate connecting mechanisms. Consumer goods company Procter & Gamble implemented its "Connect + Develop" innovation model, which creates specific pathways for external ideas to enter the organization while maintaining clear guardrails around
304
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease