Getting things done typically looks simpler in theory than practice. How many times have you thought up a project that ran into millions of issues the moment you tried doing it?

The first point of importance is distinguishing between two problem areas:

• Things may not happen for individual reasons. At this level, we can put in place a number of personal productivity systems or efficiency hacks: time-boxing, GTD, lists, sprints, and all sorts of other ways to nurture positive habits and discipline.
• Things may also not happen for collective reasons. Here, the default we notice is layers of structure and control: role descriptions, project plans, KPIs and dashboards, all intended to clarify who does what, and increase predictability.

All this is useful, but insufficient. These control systems, personal and collective, answer one question: once we know what we want, and conditions are stable, how do we stay on track? They assume a level of clarity and contextual stability most organisations do not have.

In real world systems, getting things done is far messier. It involves dealing with incomplete information, shifting priorities, human emotions, multiple interpretations of the same goal, real and perceived conflicts of values and interest, and complex relational dynamics. We might call this the execution gap: the space between intention and action.

Within organisations, structures assign different responsibilities to different teams, divisions, or parts. Because no one owns the ‘whole’, systemic issues often fall through the cracks. For instance, a compliance rule that interferes with marketing, or a tech upgrade that affects HR. Of course, we might argue that it’s part of the CEO’s role, but CEOs have a lot on their mind and don’t typically concern themselves with such details from their executive height.

This is where shapeshifters intervene. They don’t set the direction, they calibrate it. They turn a general intention into practical momentum, while protecting relationships from overload and confusion. They clarify who needs to do what in what order, but also contribute to motivation and drive, for the collective and the individuals involved.

This work tends to happen in four complementary ways:

• They scan the whole for problems. How does a change somewhere affect everything else? Where is a function or team or individual impaired because of something seemingly unrelated in the system? Sometimes, this is reactive, or this can be proactive: when a new initiative is proposed, they look for unintended consequences. For instance, they will track the human implications of a tech roll out across departments, and see where the problems will co
• They articulate specific improvement projects. They don’t just ‘map the system’ but propose concrete actions to reduce or relieve tensions and misalignments. They turn an abstract vision into practical pathways. They act as in-house designers for complex problem solving. They pay particular attention to cost, ease, and feasibility. Meaning, rather than large-scale change programs, the proposals often look minor: a change in email signature, a 2-minute segment opening a meeting, a conversation between two distant people. Incidentally, because they seem trivial, they’re often low cost, and low resistance. Note that this can be particularly precious in new businesses or start-up environments, where shapeshifters play a crucial role in the proverbial ‘building of the plane’ while flying it.
• They take initiative. There is an ‘entrepreneurial’ quality to shapeshifters. They sense what can be done, where, in what format, to bring about a desired evolution. They don’t need to wait for permission of top-down authorisation to take action. Not in some ideal state of the world, but in the organisation or the system as it is. Not only do they see it, but they do it. Either without waiting for authorisation, or because they have cultivated the channels for authorisation and know what to pitch where. Alternatively, they can also sense what to resist, even sometimes sabotage, derail or delay a dangerous proposal for the good of all. They will send the right email at the right time, or bring the right person into the room, unblocking it all.
• They make a good enough system for now. Perfect is often the enemy of done. Shapeshifters often know the difficult art of making it work, with what’s available. In start-up environments particularly, they can set up or upgrade a system, so that ‘it works for now’.

The following areas are ones where they will typically intervene:

• Creating common frames. According to Japanese management professor Udagawa. through the division of labour, people only have partial cognition of what is happening, hence the difficulty to address fundamental problems that people don’t see, because each is in their bubble. Shapeshifters take initiatives that help the members of a group, org or system, understand what they need to do in relation to the context. They might work with executives on vision papers and strategic documents, or artefacts that represent the org to itself, like feedback loop or stakeholder maps.
• Systemic, depersonalised problem-solving. Understanding relationships is hard: it’s easier to blame individuals and character. Shapeshifters help reframe problems as a collective issue: requiring x AND y to shift. They tend to be able to say ‘this is what is not working’, and ‘this is roughly what could fix it’. If anything, this can ease personal resentment and tension, and can be enough to just fix things.
• Accessibility and calibration. They think of small tweaks that improve access. How to set up the chairs in the room. Heat, hunger, thirst affecting judgement. Someone speaking too much, too little, too loud or too softly. Headphones that don’t work. Anything in the environment causing strain or pain that could be relieved.