informal coalitions

The consulting dilemma - to challenge or collude?

How can consultants create value for clients who seek certainty, predictability and control in a complex, uncertain and ever-changing world?

Difficult times

Managers’ ‘backs are against the wall’. They are under pressure to deliver. At times like this, many are tempted to ‘batten down the hatches’, and to retreat into the familiar world of formal plans, programmes and routines to see them through. "Do it better and get it right" becomes the order of the day, as they seek to cope with the never-ending demands of a world that is full of ambiguity and in constant flux.

At times like these - and somewhat ironically - external guidance and support is often one of the first things to be cut. But, if and when the call for help comes, what should the consultant's answer be? Faced with their own need to win business and earn fees to survive, how should they respond to this seemingly sensible but deeply flawed approach? Should they collude with the manager’s view of the world? Or challenge it?

Managing to lead

I've just bought a copy of Henry Mintzberg's latest book, Managing. 

In the intro, he argues the case for management to be reinstated as an equal partner with what he sees as the over-hyped notion of leadership in organizations. Amen to that. 

This is a refreshing change from those who, like Warren Bennis, see leading and managing as separate and distinct roles - with the former seemingly inhabiting a somewhat higher and more praiseworthy plane than the latter:

"I tend to think of the differences between leaders and managers as the differences between those who master the context and those who surrender to it."

The reified world of everyday organizational reality

Over recent days there have been several lively discussions on self-organization across a number of blogs. The latest comments on the first of my own two posts, #6 by Stephen Billing and #7 by Chris Mowles, have centred on a separate but related aspect of organizational dynamics known as “reification”. This occurs when people treat something that is an abstraction as if it really existed - or ‘thingify’ it, as I have called it elsewhere.

Both Billing and Mowles see this as severely limiting our understanding and practice. This is because it can deflect attention from what’s happening in the ‘here and now’ of people in interaction. Billing has since restated his concerns about this phenomenon in the post Be Aware of Reification on his own blog. And Mowles’s last comment takes the argument into what he sees as the risks in using models and frameworks to inform management practice. These, he suggests, similarly reify complex social phenomena by “… [taking] on a life of their own [and] seeing regularities where no regularities exist.” His comment draws on the work of philosopher Axel Honneth, and it reflects the view of organizational dynamics put forward by the University of Hertfordshire’s Complexity and Management Centre, where he is a Fellow.

These are powerful voices ranged against the notion of reification as a potentially useful aspect of organizational dynamics. And, in many respects, their arguments resonate with my own views (see, for example, Leadership is a "doing word" and The wiggly world of organizational dynamics).  At the same time, I think that these concerns might be underplaying the pervasive role that people’s reification of their everyday experience has on the construction of meaning and organizational outcomes.

Seth Godin on bloggin'

A recent tweet from David Gurteen pointed to this short YouTube clip of Seth Godin talking with Tom Peters about the importance of blogs and blogging.

 

It's comforting to know that Godin thinks blogging is a worthwhile enterprise - even if nobody reads it!  And even then, of course, blogging is a social act. It presumes an audience.

Is there anybody there!?

Self-organization and emergence: #2 – Organizational dynamics v organization design and development

As part of a stimulating conversation on self-organization in Stephen Billing’s blog, I added a few more thoughts on the topic as viewed from an informal coalitions perspective. As with my previous post, the intention is to note these comments 'for completeness' on this ‘home’ blog, as well as - perhaps - exposing this issue to other readers.

The particular focus here is on the points I made in response to John Tropea’s interesting vision of what he calls a “role-based” organization. In this, individuals would have greater discretion to organize their own roles and relationships to suit their particular talents and interests.  However, implicit in this is the widely-held view that self-organization happens (or doesn’t) as a result of deliberate choice – either by management design or as the result of a ‘grass roots’ initiative. And it was the felt need to challenge this general perspective that prompted me to add my ‘two pennyworth’ to the discussion.