Archive for Organization

Is our need for control inhibiting needed change?

May 16, 2008 / / One comment

“After so many years of defending ourselves against life and searching for better controls, we sit exhausted in the unyielding structures of organization we’ve created, wondering what happened. What happened to effectiveness, to creativity, to meaning? What happened to us? Trying to get these structures to change becomes the challenge of our lives. We draw their futures and design them into clearly better forms. We push them, we prod them. We try fear, we try enticement. We collect tools, we study techniques. We use everything we know and end up nowhere. What happened?  

Yet it is only our worldview that dooms us to this incompetence. This world that we seek to control so carefully is a world we have created. We created it by what we chose to notice, by the images we used to describe what we were seeing. It was we who decided that the world was a great machine propelled by external energies. It was we who perceived the creativity of life as a dire threat. We saw life in motion and called it uncontrollable. We saw life’s unceasing desires for discovery-we say the dance-and called it disruptive..

Yet out beyond the shadows of our old thinking, a wholly different world appears. […] A world that welcomes and supports our endeavors. The world knows how to grow and change. It has been doing so for billions of years. Life knows how to create systems. Life knows how to create greater capacity. Life knows how to discover meaning. The motions that we sought to wrestle from life’s control are available to us to support our desires if we can stop being so afraid.”  (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996)

Our organizations arise out of our perspectives, which give rise to our deepest psychological beliefs and values.  Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers insightfully observe that the impulse to control arises from fear and distrust (ultimately, of the world and other people). Yet, by now it’s generally become clear that centralized, bureaucratic organizations (whether they be businesses or governments) are unable to respond rapidly enough to changing conditions.

It seems to be human nature that, the more fearful we are, the tighter we hold the reins of control, and the more resistant we will be to change. Yet, if environmental conditions have truly changed, change may be what we most need to survive.

How do we break out of this vicious cycle? Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers describe a perspective of trust.  Is that “realistic”?

In the next post, we will look at this organizational “wheel of fear” and some strategies for replacing it with an organizational “wheel of freedom” (Britton, 2001).

Britton, Rhonda. (2001). Fearless Living. NY: Penguin.

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Trust /

Organization as Organism & Machine

May 9, 2008 / / 15 comments

In my last post we backed our way into a discussion of an emerging way of thinking about leadership and organization: the metaphor of the organization as an organsim. 

 http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/01/the-brain-as-a-metaphor-for-organization/

As we talked about earlier, metaphors are maps of the terrain that can yield some useful insights, so we don’t need to hold on to them too tightly (as an ideology). Rather, when considering a metaphor we might ask two questions:

  1. Does it have some basis in reality?
  2. Is it useful?

Whereas the organization as a machine metaphor can be seen to have arisen out of Newtonian physics (the view of the Cosmos as machine) and the industrial revolution, the metaphor of the organization as an organism has its recent roots in new physics and biology, and the framework of systems theory, which observes that the whole has emergent properties that can’t be fully explained by examining each of the parts. Rather these properties emerge as a result of the relationship and interaction of the parts. 

I’ll apologize in advance for this: A useful but gorey example that is often given is that you sacrifice an animal and examine each of its parts, you won’t find life; life is an emergent property of the whole animal.  The same could be said of  a well-functioning team: a quality emerges in the interaction that only exists in potential in the individual team members.

 Seeing relationships vs. parts requires us to shift our vision. Are you familiar with the famous cognitive optical illusion: the figure-ground vase? http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Facevase.php

The image can be validly interpreted as two faces or as a vase. The one we see is the result of a mental interpretation, which may or may not be conscious. Once we’ve seen one view, it can be a challenge to see the other, because our current perspective is so obvious to us!  Yet, if we look for the other figure, as described by others (or the text), we can see that as well.  

And so it is with our metaphors of organization (and the cosmos). We might see the parts or we might see the relationships/interactions of the parts and the structures formed by those interactions.  As Westerners, our cultural history has attuned us to see the parts very well. However, most of us have not been trained to “see” the tangible reality of the qualities that emerge in relationship and how these materially influence what emerges as the whole.

Coming back to our earlier post on the brain analogy for organizations … Scientist Fritjof Capra (1988) observes that biological organisms often have some machine-like qualities (Turning Point, p. 266).  Our knowledge of these qualities has empowered the accomplishments of modern medicine. And, it is also true that biological organisms (and as it turns out, social organizations) also have emerging systemic properties. To “see” how relationships give rise to these properties, we need to shift our field of vision to look at relationships and patterns of relationship.  (This is where Riane Eisler’s concept of Partnership can be seen to be very relevant to leadership and organizational development).

This is just one example of how a shift in perspective can be extremely powerful in opening up a whole new set of tools and possibilities. And that is what coaching is all about…

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Collaboration, Communication, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Science, Teams /

The brain as a metaphor for organization

May 1, 2008 / / One comment

In Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, Margaret Wheatley discusses the metaphor of the organization as self-organizing system.  From a biological perspective, we can see that successful systems dynamically both help shape and adapt to changing environmental conditions: the successful organization and environment evolve together.  Conversely, the unsuccessful organization might be seen as one that does not respond quickly enough to changing conditions in a way that promotes both its own flourishing and the flourishing of the larger environment.   

Waldrup’s article (see link below) might be seen as complementary to these ideas, in that, using the human brain as an example, it shows how successful complex systems can include specialization and executive functions. Although this article doesn’t mention this topic, it is also potentially instructive to note that the more researchers study the brain, the more “plastic” they are finding it to be, with respect to developing new capacities and connections. 

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/03/09/mitchWaldrupTheBrainAsAMetaphorForOrganization.html

One of the reasons that I am personally excited about coaching is that it is an excellent method for creating these new connections at both the individual and organizational levels. 

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Communication, Leadership, Organization, Science, Vision /

Unwritten rules determine behavior

April 27, 2008 / / No comments

Executive coach Robert Hargrove (1995) asks, “Why do so few chief executives succeed at making their vision statements come alive, even when people agree with them intellectually and emotionally? Why are so many managers and employees frustrated, skeptical, and even cynical aobut their own ability to make something happen?” (107)

Hargrove interviewed Dr. Peter Scott-Morgan, an Arthur D. Little consultant, who offers a very straightforward explanation: everything people do makes sense if you understand the unwritten rules of the organization.  For example, in 1990, a team at Ford Motor Company took a new “learning” approach to building the next generation Lincoln Continental. Despite bringing the new product to market substantially faster and reducing defects in the new car by 20% and thereby saving $65 million dollars, the manager of the project was “passed over for promotion and given early retirement.” Why? Because his organization broke the unwritten rule at Ford of talking openly about problems, which was thought to reflect poorly on his organization. The project was a practical success and a political failure. (108)

Other examples are the CEO who talks about the importance of collaboration and team work, yet rewards members of his or her team based on the size of their organizations or bases their bonuses primarily on the accomplishment of individual objectives.  People in the organization sense the conflict, assess what, at the end of the day, is actually rewarded, and take action based on realities on the ground (109-110).  

Scott-Morgan suggests several strategies for discovering and leading change in light of these unwritten rules:

1. First, discover the rules: Talk with people about the disconnects between formal policy and unwitten rules, the logic behind the unwritten rules, and about business goals and how they do or don’t connect to what they do.

2. Uncover the operative reward system, which substantially shape these rules. This reward system can be understood in terms of: a) Motivators: what is important to this person or group; b) Enablers: who can give it to them or help them get it; and c) Triggers: under what conditions will the enabler “grant a reward or impose a penalty.”

It’s interesting to note that the operative reward system strongly overlaps with but is not necessarily identical to the formal reward system.

3. Consider how the unwritten rules shape the actual functioning of the organization.

4. “Change the rules or go with the flow”: If you are in charge, you have some power to reshape the unwritten rules to get the outcome you want. Otherwise, your options are to find a sponsor who can help bring the disconnect to people who have the power to change it or find a way to use these insights to develop a pragmatic plan to obtain the outcome you want  (111-116).

 I would add that if the CEO or other leader is observant, s/he may have these insights at an implicit level. Asking the questions: “What do I want to have happen (and what does that look like)?” and “What do I actually reward and punish?” can potentially yield some useful insights. 

And, because our assumptions and expectations shape our organizations, including how we actually reward and punish people, it might be very helpful to ask, “What do I really value, and why?”  

References

Hargrove, R. (1995) Masterful coaching: Extraordinary results by impacting people and the way they think and work together. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Scott-Morgan, P. (1994). The unwritten rules of the game. New York: McGraw Hill.

Category: All Posts, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Rewards, Values, Vision /

Why do people not create or innovate?

April 11, 2008 / / No comments

The key quesiton isn’t “what fosters creativity?”  But it is why in God’s name isn’t everyone creative? Where was the human potential lost? How was it crippled? I think therefore a good question might be not why do people create? but why do people not create or innovate? We have got to abandon that sense of amazement in the face of creativity, as if it were a miracle if anybody created anything. — Abraham Maslow

Maslow observes that creativity and innovation are natural endowments — we only need to watch young children and remember our own childhoods to know that this is so.  So, why do we, as adults, commonly think of creativity and innovation as qualities that primarily describe the relatively small group of professional creatives? And, why do organizations struggle with the question of how to become more innovative?

Almost 40 years ago, futurist Alvin Toffler observed that our education system was designed to develop citizens who could take up their positions in the industrializing world, as cogs in the great machine (Future Shock, 1970).  Beyond the content of the coursework itself,  schools teach children how to show up on time, follow directions, work within an incentive system that emphasizes external rewards and punishments and to conform to a social program.  Creativity and innovation are generally channeled into art (where classes in art are still offered).  “Play” is considered childish.  Speaking personally, it wasn’t until graduate school that I felt encouraged to think for myself and to create new ideas and knowledge …

Then, as Alfonoso Montuori describes, our organizations are still dominated by bureaucratic forms of leadership and organization designed for the industrial age, which values conformance, compliance, industry, and relies primarily on external reward systems.  Although, as leaders, we intellectually know that our organizations need to become substantially more innovative to survive and thrive, at an emotional level, most of us in this culture, have come to value control and compliance even more…

Maslow’s good news is to remind us that we are all naturally creative. Just as we learned how to suppress and narrowly channel our creativity, we can also begin to unlock our creative potential by removing  those learned barriers (both institutional and internal). 

In order to do this, we will need to circle around to a discussion of the concept of control or power-over, which seems to be creativity’s chief antagonist…

Category: All Posts, Creativity, Culture, Education, Innovation, Leadership, Organization, Rewards /

Communication problems in traditional organizations

March 29, 2008 / / No comments

The human body-mind can be imagined as a network which both consists of specialized parts and as a seamless whole. Our ability to act in an intelligent and appropriate way as a seamless whole is a function of a massive network of electro-chemical communications. When the environment changes in a meaningful way – for example, the temperature rises beyond a certain point — this information is communicated throughout the body leading to both conscious and unconscious physical adaptive responses, to ensure our ongoing health and wellbeing.

Similarly, in an organizational context, our ability to act in an intelligent and appropriate way as seamless whole is a function of a massive network of communications.  However, unlike our human organism, traditional organizations have a number of built-in impediments to healthy communication: 1) communications flow primarily from the top down; channels for bottom-up communications tend to be very narrow; 2) bureaucratic organizational structure often gives rise to the silo effect; and 3) socialization and organizational power dynamics can work to suppress open communications even at the same organizational level.

If our body-minds suffered from such substantial systemic communication problems, we would not be able to function and would probably not survive very long. For example, although our feet might notice that we are walking on glass, but not pass the message on to the brain. Of course, this is silly; but these kinds of dysfunctions happen in organizations all of the time.

We’ll continue to explore these dynamics in greater depth in upcoming posts, with the purpose of continuing to raise awareness of how unexamined dominator cultural assumptions have created our current set of problems. And, of course, the gift here, is that every problem holds the seeds to its own solution…

Category: All Posts, Communication, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership /

Experience of Right and Left Hemispheres of the Brain

March 22, 2008 / / One comment

Below is a link to an awesome video, in which neuroanatomist Jill Bolte describes alternating experiences of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. 

This is important because in the West, we have extensively developed the left brain, associated with rational sequential thought, and modern organizations and approaches to leadership reflect this orientation.  However, it is the right side of the brain which sees larger patterns and is the source of our creativity, including creative leaps.  Therefore, learning how to integrate these diverse facilities — to draw on our inner diversity — can help us to see new opportunities and solutions to old problems.  

Coaching does just this, and therefore it is increasingly being recognized as a core leadership competency in contemporary organizations. And, there are many more interesting and exciting implications of this insight that we will discuss in this blog…

http://blog.ted.com/2008/03/jill_bolte_tayl.php

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Creativity, Diversity, Innovation, Leadership, Organization, Science /

Innovation & the Machine

March 17, 2008 / / No comments

 The juxtaposition of these two words sounds unlikely doesn’t it?  We really don’t think of machines as being innovative — they do pre-programmed things (one hopes well).  For certain, the operator of the machine can innovate, but not the machine itself.  Similarly, traditional bureaucratic organizations, specialization and organizational lines of communication and control usually substantially limit innovation from within.  

As we discussed earlier, the bureaucratic organization structure is based on the principle of rational control, which enables a small number of people to exercise control over a large number of people. Because security, privileges and economic rewards tend to be commensurate with the scope of authority and power, managers tend to guard and seek to enlarge their scope of conrol.  This and other factors tend to lead both to internal competition and a resistance to changes that may decrease a manager’s scope of control, or put him/her in a less advantageous position.  

Although this blog promotes a Partnership paradigm of leadership and organization, which is distinctly un-Machiavellian, there are few as insightful or eloquent with respect to the dynamics of authoritarian leadership than Machiavelli, who confirms one reason that innovation and change tends to be so difficult for modern organizations:  

“It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order and receives only lukewarm support from those would prosper under the new.” (Niccolo Machiavelli 1512)

This tendency to pursue one’s own self interest can be counterbalanced by an inspiring vision — which is one of the key functions of good leadership. However, it is interesting and potentially instructive to observe that the burueaucratic organization form we take for granted today was not designed or intended to be innovative. This is not to say that such organizations cannot be innovative, but in order to do so, they have to overcome some problems of their own making.

In upcoming posts, we will continue to explore the dynamics of traditional organizations, and also begin to explore emerging paradigms of organization and leadership, and how coaching is both a means and an end to more empowered, collaborative and innovative organizations ….

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Creativity, Design, Innovation, Leadership, Organization /

Is there less stress in flat modern organizations?

March 9, 2008 / / No comments

Have you noticed how there can be tremendous value in a good question? And good questions come to us in many ways. Recently, in reviewing the search terms that bring people to this blog, I found two such excellent questions:

  • Can a bureaucratic organization have a strong culture?
  • Is there less stress in flat modern organizations?

Each of these questions raises the topic of culture. One way of thinking about culture, organizational processes and organization structure is to imagine culture as being analogous to our assumptions, beliefs, and feelings; processes as being analogous to our behavior; and organizational structure and other structures (such as the environment) as more solid aspects of that process, which direct energies and activities to flow in a particular way… So, just as our thoughts give rise to behaviors, we might say that organization culture gives rise to organizational behaviors and structures.

It’s often observed how action or structure follows thought. However, in my experience, it’s less often observed that process or structure also influences our thoughts and feelings. At the level of the individual, how we hold our bodies both  reflects how we think and feel, and can also cause us to think and feel in certain ways. For example, it’s difficult to really smile without feeling brighter and better…  Similarly, at the level of the organization, other kinds of structures help shape the kinds of culture we create. For example, a long narrow conference room table will tend to shape one kind of meeting and a round table another kind of meeting. The design of buildings (another area I hope to get to in this blog) and organization structure also make a difference. 

I personally find this latter insight to be pretty cool because it gives us more tools and options to work with to create the cultures and environments that will really serve us.

So, all this said, I think the answer to the first question is: Yes, many organizations using the traditional bureaucratic form of organization are well-known for having strong, distinctive cultures that have helped them (or, sometimes, hindered them).  Two organizations with identical organization structures may have very different cultures!  The organization structure is just one part of the picture.

And, with regard to the second question, is there less stress in flat organizations? Assuming that by “stress” we mean the stresses and dysfunctions inherent in a “dominator-type” culture (see my earlier post on Partnership for a definition of the word dominator as it is used in this blog), then flatter organizations can potentially reduce this kind of stress.  Of course, based on the above discussion, we can see that we would need to look at the whole picture or system (culture, process, structure … and probably some more factors) to really know.

In summary, yes, it’s definately useful to recognize that we are talking about more than a way of structuring our organizations, but the gestalt of the organization as a whole…

Category: All Posts, Culture, Design, Organization /

Leadership & the Machine

March 1, 2008 / / No comments

Theories of leadership are informed by our understanding of the world, including our understanding of others.  This post will consider the worldview out of which the bureaucratic organization arose, including its understanding of creativity and intelligence, and then examine the nature and role of leadership in light of that understanding.  This is valuable to us because it builds towards an understanding that organizational realities are substantially shaped by leadership perspectives — which is a key insight of transformative leadership and a potential source of power for us as we seek to overcome the challenges we are facing both within and without our organizations. 

The concept of the organization as machine evolved from a worldview in which the world itself was seen as an unintelligent mechanism.  In this worldview, the apparent intelligence (and indeed, according to some philosophers, causation itself) arose wholly from God. One prominant scientist later dropped “that hypothesis,” leaving us to imagine the world to be, for the most part, to be a “heap” of unintelligent atoms.  Intelligence (or the appearance thereof) was primarily attributed to human beings.

Further, in this worldview, the idea of intelligence came to be especially equated with rational thought. Some philosophers proposed that rational thought, sealed off from the “corrupting” influence of the body and emotions, participated, in a sense, in the divine.

According to philosopher Charlene Spretnak, “Plato intensified dualistic thought […] by perceiving not only a divine order […] but a sense that the order created by divine, or ideal, forms was radically other than the material world we inhabit.  He established a dualism of universal and particular, of noumenon and phenomenon, of mind and body, and of spirit and matter that shaped all subsequent philosophy and religion in the European tradition [italics added for emphasis] (Resurgence of the Real, 47).

Although, according to this view, the realm of divine order, truth and beauty existed in a realm outside the material universe, Plato held that it could be approached by man through his rational facilities: “[R]ational thought could be experienced only if sealed off from “corrupting” influences  of the body (sensations, emotions, desires) and properly isolated from “lowly” nature. Plato felt that we, that is, our minds, are imprisoned in the dumb matter of our bodies. Although he considered the cosmos to be sacred in its orderliness, he shared with his teacher Socrates, a belief that nature is irrelevant….” (45).

However, not all human beings were considered equally capable of such thought. The relationship between knowledge and power becomes clear in Aristotle’s rendering of gendered reality: “[M]ale rules over the female, or the man over the child; although the parts of the soul are present in all of them, they are present in different degrees.  For the slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature (“Politics” 1260b; Code, What Can She Know?, 9 n. 5).

Therefore, some men (who per chance :-/ happened already to be in power and serve as the gatekeepers of knowledge…), were, by virtue of their asserted superiority of mind, considered to be closer to the divine order of things and thus “better suited” for leadership. (There is a historical parallel in the claim that wealth is a sign of divine favor). 

So, coming back to the topic of leadership and “the machine,” in the industrial-age organization, relatively well-educated managers sought to maximize economic outputs (roles requiring some intelligence and creativity), and “workers” were considered interchangeable “cogs in the machine.” Work was routine and boring, and working conditions were often unsafe.

Metaphorically, leaders were the operator of the machine; the workers were part of the machine itself.

 The leadership style associated with this philosophy and approach to organization has been called, “Theory X,” or what Robert Hargrove calls the “command, control, and coercion model” (Masterful Coaching p.7) and Riane Eisler calls the “dominator model.” 

In such a model, vision, communications and control flow from the top down; management ensures the efficiency and predictability of the machine, through planning, organizing and controlling.

Such highly structured and controlled organizations allow control by a centralized group and support a high degree of efficiency and predictabiliy. The flip side of that coin is that they are also exceptionally good at suppressing creativity and resisting innovation … 

In this post, we might begin to notice how leadership assumptions and values substantially shape organizational realities.  In upcoming posts, we will consider this core insight of transformative leadership in much greater depth, to demonstrate how and why this is so, and how we can use this insight to overcome some of our most previously intractable problems…  

Category: All Posts, Communication, Creativity, Innovation, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Values, Vision /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee