informal coalitions

The nature and dynamics of organizational coalitions

A colleague recently drew my attention to an excellent article on the nature and dynamics of organizational coalitions that I had not come across before. It was written by three senior academics at the University of California (Stevenson, Pearce and Porter) and published in 1985 by the Academy of Management Review.

Its title, The Concept of ‘Coalition’ in Organization Theory and Research, hardly sets the pulse racing! But it has some important things to say about the characteristics of coalitions, which resonate strongly with those discussed in Informal Coalitions. In particular, the authors challenge many of the ways in which the term has been misused in the past. They argue that this has led to "… great confusion as to whether it applies to collections of individuals, to collections of subgroups, or even to the entire organization."

I see this article as adding value in two ways. Firstly, the authors offer a definition of the term "coalition", which provides a useful framework for thinking about their nature and dynamics. Secondly, they offer a number of hypotheses about the process of coalition formation. This post considers the first of these.

Conversations, coalitions and change in New Labour?

Following recent setbacks at the polls, speculation is rife within the Labour Party over the future of Gordon Brown as leader. And, as we can see from comments by Times Assistant Editor Peter Riddell in today's paper, the dynamics of informal coalitions will have a big part to play in deciding whether the Prime Minister goes or stays.

Fostering innovation and change by 'breeding' Red Monkeys® (and building informal coalitions, of course)!

I was recently introduced to a new series of short videos clips on YouTube about innovation and change in organizations. Posted by Jef Staes, these describe, in a simple and engaging way, his concept of the Red Monkey®.  He uses this as a metaphor for those creative ideas born at the edge of an organization, which he sees as the real source of innovation and change.

Jef, who is a leading authority in Belgium on learning processes and innovative organizations, argues in the first clip in the series (below):

"If you want to change an organization, you will have to like Red Monkeys."

The roles of conversation and vision in team and organizational leadership

Nick Smith, in How to Set a Team on Fire, sets out some wide-ranging challenges to management orthodoxy in relation to various aspects of team and organizational performance, which are well worth reading. Two brief extracts give a flavour of this thoughts on the nature and roles of vision and conversation:

• On vision

"… I'd argue that shared visions are not all they're cracked up to be. If you think about it, the more diverse a team of people are, the less chance there is of arriving at a common vision. Diversity and a unified perspective are, to great extent, mutually exclusive. In anything but a small group, finding common purpose is nigh impossible unless you're going to select a team of me-too automatons."

Mobilizing commitment - The motive, means and opportunity to excel

As a youngster, I used to play a card game called "I Commit" (opposite), which was originally devised in the 1930s. During the game, players competed to collect sets of three cards which would enable them to ‘commit a crime’. I should add that, to redress the moral balance, they also strove to collect 'policemen' to thwart the criminal activities of their opponents!  In essence, before a player could say “I commit ...”, they needed to show that they had the motive, the means and the opportunity to do so.

So what has a 1930s parlour game got to do with mobilizing commitment in 21st century organizations? Well, if people are (figuratively speaking) to say "I commit" in relation to their everyday roles and relationships at work, then they too need the motive, means and opportunity to do so. 

Acting politically - An essential component of successful organizational leadership

According to conventional wisdom, people who act politically in organizations are ‘playing dirty’ - undermining the legitimate structures and functions of their organizations for personal gain. Despite this widely held view, it is important for leaders to recognise that successful organizations achieve high performance not only in spite of political behaviour but also because of it.