A complex social process view of organizations - #2 Formal designs and informal interactions

In the previous post, I restated the central theme of Informal Coalitions - that organizations are dynamic networks of conversations.  This is in contrast to the view that organizations are “systems”, which need to be looked at and managed “as a whole”.  From the informal coalitions perspective, outcomes emerge from the self-organizing dynamics of local interaction.

So, if this is the case, how should we view the formally adopted structures, policies and processes etc, which provide the main focus of conventional management attention and systems thinking?  What part do these play in this ongoing conversational process? 

Imprints of past conversations

First of all, the formal ‘trappings’ of organization retain the ‘imprints’ of past conversations; taking forward into new conversations those themes that have been given the stamp of legitimacy.  In this sense, these represent the ‘authorized version’ of the organizational ‘story’.  They provide the formal context for people’s ongoing interactions, and for the sensemaking and action taking that arise from them.  In this way, the formal themes continue to influence interactions well beyond those in which they were originally formulated; carrying the ‘weight’ of formality and being ‘given voice’ (actually or by inference) by those in formal authority. 

So why doesn’t this ‘authorized version’ simply materialize in the ways intended and deliver the planned results?  What else is going on? 

Idealized designs

To begin with, regardless of how precisely formulated this formal design might be, it necessarily provides only a generalized statement of what those crafting it (or, more often, negotiating it from their particular standpoints) believe is required.  It therefore represents an idealized view of what is meant to happen.  That is, it is unburdened by the constraints faced by those who are involved in implementing its provisions at specific times, in specific places, in the context (and inevitable contentions) of specific local relationships and in the midst of competing demands.  The effect that this design has on people’s actual behaviour - and therefore on the performance outcomes that result - depends crucially on how it is perceived, interpreted, evaluated and acted upon in countless local interactions. 

Informal interactions

Secondly, only some of these interactions take place openly, in formal arenas and through formal processes.  Most take place informally, whether around the fringes of these formal interactions (such as pre-meetings, whispered asides, coffee-machine chats, informal follow-ups) or in separate conversations altogether (private one-to-ones, social get-togethers, and so on).  The themes that emerge in the informal conversations, and the power relationships and ideologies that these reflect, impact significantly on the conduct and outputs of the formal processes. This means that, in practice, the creation of the ‘authorized version’ of the organizational story and its subsequent implementation are affected more by the complex political dynamics, ideological stances and personal identities of those involved, than by the rational analysis and systematic decision-making that is implied by conventional management wisdom. 

Personal ‘frames of reference’

In Informal Coalitions, I spoke of the impact that an individual’s behaviours, beliefs and identities have on this process, in terms of what I called their “personal frame of reference”.  People perceive and interpret events and emerging issues through this imaginary ‘frame’.  And this tends to reinforce their existing patterns of understanding and behaviour.  Also, in interacting with the world from this perspective, an individual is motivated to do so in ways that seek to maintain the overall integrity of their personal frame of reference.  This means that they tend to define and shape the challenges that they face in ways that suit their own view of the world and the self-centred interests that this reflects. 

This ‘frame’ reflects an individual’s personal history, ideology and identity, as constructed – largely unconsciously - through their everyday interactions and the stories that they share with others about themselves and their relationships.  This is a patterning process.  That is, it creates expectancy (in themselves and in others who ‘know them’) of the type of situations that they tend to gravitate towards; the characteristic behaviours that they are likely to exhibit; the capabilities that they typically demonstrate; the beliefs they espouse; and so on.  These ‘patterns’ are not stored anywhere or ‘programmed’ in any sense.  Rather they are tendencies to think and act in particular ways, which are (re)created, reinforced (and potentially shifted) through ongoing interaction and through the sensemaking narratives that flow from them.

Realizing the ideal?

So far, then, I have spoken about the ‘authorized version’ of the organizational story emerging from the dynamic interplay of the myriad local conversations that make up everyday organizational life.  I have also suggested how the identities, ideologies and power relationships of those involved tend to shape the process and outcomes of these conversations – whilst, at the same time, being shaped by them.  And finally here, I have argued that the conversational process is therefore fundamentally a-rational, political and ideological rather than rational, politically neutral and matter-of-fact.

What impact, then, does the nature of this process have on the practical realization of the idealized design and on the outcomes that actually emerge?   I shall look at this in the next post.

Comments

[Tom Gibbons]

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the last couple of posts… good reading and I look forward to the next one. I am very much aligned with your position that organizations are not systems and the term you use; 'dynamic networks of self-organizing conversations' to describe organizations fits well for me.

Inherent in this position, and mentioned on a few occasions in your posts, is the concept of ‘construction’. My understanding is that construction basically means that what ever you have (let’s call it X) has been constructed by whatever historical dynamics were in place and that X need not be what it is had different dynamics been in place. In other words X is not inevitable.

A systems view of organizations tends to have the unconscious or conscious assumption that X IS inevitable, as long as you design the right system.

I have a question however. The concept of construction has attached to it a high degree of uncertainty. Not in the concept itself but in the uncertainty of what might actually be constructed depending on the 'dynamic networks of self-organizing conversations'. This uncertainty I find is resisted quite strongly, often to the point that people will challenge me with statements like, ‘So if the future is uncertain and based on unpredictable local dynamics it really doesn’t matter what I do.’ While this may be an illustration of what you describe as an effort ‘to maintain the overall integrity of their personal frame of reference’ it can be show stopper for people to consider their organization as highly uncertain and what that might mean to their actual behaviour.

I am wondering if you (or perhaps your readers as well) have experienced this response and if so how you might respond back?

[Chris Rodgers]

Many thanks, Tom.

I agree wholeheartedly that ‘X’, as the socially constructed outcome of the “dynamic network of self-organization conversations”, is not inevitable. Outputs and outcomes emerge, as you imply, from the in-the-moment dynamics of these everyday interactions, in the context of what’s gone on before. People can therefore act with intention here but with no certainty as to the outcomes that might emerge. In other words, in complex social processes, outcomes are always uncertain and unpredictable.

Like you, I find that some managers are very uncomfortable with the idea that they are not in control of these dynamics – and, hence, of the outcomes that emerge. After all, many have been schooled (and are still being schooled!) in the view that if they are not in control, they are not leading. Indeed, many consultancies are engaged precisely because they collude with this view.

So, to my mind at least, the revelation that managers are not in control of what’s going on locally - or of the overall outcomes that emerge - has to be matched by the recognition that their words and actions nevertheless have a powerful influence on what actually emerges.

If we unpick this a bit further, what can we say?

First, as we both agree, these everyday interactions are pivotal to what actually happens in practice. And so, if people want to influence outcomes, it’s here – in the messy, give-and-take of day-to-day organizational life - that they need to focus their attention. The default response, which is to do more of the formal, structured stuff in an attempt to gain control, simply increases the scope for further ‘mis’-interpretation, contrary action and unforeseen outcomes to emerge locally.

Secondly, in socially complex situations, people are both enabled and constrained by their relationships with other people. So they can’t just ‘do what they like’ – at least not if they hope to influence what happens in those relationships on a continuing basis. This is part of the dynamic that I am attempting to describe when I refer to an individual’s “personal frame of reference”, and the felt need to preserve this intact. As I said in the post, this ‘frame’ is a relational concept. Preserving it ‘intact’ means, amongst other things, being seen to behave competently by significant others in their personal networks. Similarly, the personal identity(ies) that they construct for themselves, through this same interactional process, must ‘fit’ with other people’s views of them – and with those people’s own personal narratives. So, whilst everyone has choice, people’s ability to contribute to, and benefit from, their social relationships, depends on their being willing, able and allowed to ‘fit in’ with what’s ‘expected’.

Thirdly, besides the relational nature of organizational dynamics, you also point to what you have called the “historical dynamics” that have a significant impact on the outcomes that emerge. You have used this to illustrate that a different interactional history would have led to a different outcome. That is, from a constructionist position, there is not the inevitability of outcome that is implied by those who see organizations as boundaried systems. The latter viewpoint, as you say, mistakenly assumes that the outcome is already “enfolded” in the design (to use Stacey’s term); and that this will unfold over time as predicted, provided only that it is implemented as planned. There is, though, a further way in which this ‘historical dynamic’ affects what emerges. As I’ve said elsewhere (and as I’m likely to say again in Post #3 in this series!), the more that people make sense of things in particular ways, the more likely they are to continue to make sense in similar ways going forward. That is, coherent patterns of response arise, which manifest themselves as taken-for-granted tendencies to think and act in some ways and not in others. These widespread patterns enable people to continue to function together, by tending to channel their ongoing sensemaking and action taking, imperceptibly, down mental, emotional and behavioural ‘pathways’ that are ‘culturally acceptable’. Although the potential always exists for novel outcomes to emerge from this interactional process, and for patterns to shift spontaneously, the likelihood is that existing patterns will be repeated and further reinforced. So, the ‘anything goes’ response to the uncertainty that is inherent in organizational dynamics is a misplaced one. As a corollary to this, trying to surface some of the underlying themes and assumptions that are tending to channel thinking in these ways is an important leadership task from this perspective. And so is the need for leaders to understand the impact that their own words and actions – including their silence and inaction – have on the emergence of these patterns.

And finally, I agree that an individual’s response of “it really doesn’t matter what I do” is also likely to be an attempt to maintain the overall integrity of their personal frame of reference. This is a natural defensive reaction; probably prompted, as Stacey suggests in his latest book, by the perceived threat to the manager's professional identity that this uncertainty and lack of control seems to imply. Paradoxically, though, it is these very conditions that make the leadership role of managers even more important – provided that they are willing to take these dynamics seriously and to engage with them in an active and informed way.

Thanks, again, for your helpful observations and questions. I look forward to your and others' further thoughts.

Cheers, Chris