I facilitated a workshop last month: Two departments in a large public organization want to solve a costly and complex problem - together, across silos. And take stock of a pilot project.

This is interesting only with a look at the details:

* One department deals with what happens on the ground, when an emergency arises on a Friday afternoon. The second department provides the funding. Both follow a different logic and are subject to different legal frameworks. They don’t speak the same language!

* In its day-to-day operations, the organisation competes with other providers that offer the same service. Yet it has to ultimately step in when things go wrong. This is a contradiction: having to be competitive in the market whilst being the last resort.

* The pilot project, in which the two departments are now attempting to resolve their issues, is under close scrutiny. Failure is not an option. Policymakers are expecting to apply this to ten times as many similar problem cases in the future. Which creates a lot of pressure.

So how do I deal with this?

A rigid framework, a high amount of pressure, and a limited scope for action (not to mention creativity) - this could be the immediate death of constructive problem solving. So I need to:

• inject a bit of light-heartedness via play
• reduce the pressure by rebuilding „we can“
• help them find a common language
• reinstall problem-solving capabilities, in order to come out with actual solutions.

So we try to adopt an MVP approach. Not the usual mindset for public sector employees.

Then, as part of a review, I draw attention to what those involved have learnt so far – and, wow: that’s actually quite a lot! And instead of focusing solely on shortcomings (learned behaviour), we then recognise what’s already going well: the first tentative steps taken together, and some hard-won successes. 

Once we’ve identified the two most critical issues, we continue in two sub-groups. We call them 'the System Hackers' and 'the Door-Knockers'. That's plain language, and again takes them to a different place where they can think and talk more freely. And then we go for the low-hanging fruit ….

Why is it so difficult?

People in large organisations, are not exactly seen as innovative. But what many forget is that these organisations are built to endure. Not giving in to every new impulse is essential for survival, because change produces costs, it takes up time and resources. If this happened too often, the organisation would be paralysed - visible in large corporations when the new CEO embarks on yet another restructuring programme. Many creative minds find it hard to empathize here. And they then become frustrated and even dismissive, because they feel that their clients are inflexible or unwilling to change. 

Change only works with the people, and only if the creative impetus takes the organisational logic into account. Only then will it be sustainable.