informal coalitions

“All human interactions are complex but some are more complex than others” – Discuss

In the previous post, I commented briefly on Ralph Stacey’s explanation of why he no longer sees his Certainty-Agreement matrix as a valuable framework for thinking about the complex dynamics of organizations. This same line of thinking underpins his criticism of systems thinking and of the related notion that there are different ‘levels’ of complexity.

Despite agreeing with the core of Stacey’s analysis and conclusions, I speculated that there might still be some value in recognizing both that complexity is inherent in every human interaction – however mundane – and, at the same time, that some of these interactions take place within a more complex context than others. Indeed, Stacey himself appeared to acknowledge that it might be possible to differentiate between situations of high and low complexity – if only with the benefit of hindsight.

So, does differentiating in this way make sense? And, if so, what would be the value in doing so?

Stacey’s certainty-agreement matrix and ‘levels’ of complexity

In a recent blog post, Stephen Billing looks forward to Ralph Stacey’s next book, Complexity and Organizational Reality. It is due to be published in December.  Definitely one for the Christmas list!

I had become aware of the book through a comment posted on the NorthShore Group blog by Lucy Garrick. This included the transcript of a response that Stacey had made to her question about his oft-quoted Certainty-Agreement matrix.

Although the framework, which Stacey had developed in the mid-1990s, regularly crops up in blogs, on websites and during presentations, he no longer sees it as valid and useful.  His comment explains why this is the case, and the implications that this has for his current view of complexity and organizational dynamics.

The negative spaces of organizational dynamics #3 - Leadership implications

In two earlier posts (#1- A metaphor and #2 - The limits of rationality and either-or thinking), I speculated on the insights that negative-space drawing (as described in Betty Edwards's Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain) might offer in relation to organizational change and development. This third and final post draws out some of the implications for leading organizations and makes some links to the informal coalitions view of organizational dynamics.

Drucker on controls and control

In Is a Balanced Scorecard Bad?, Jonathan Becher argues "... metrics by themselves are unlikely to increase the performance of an organization... metrics must be accompanied by objectives and initiatives."  This echoes Peter Drucker's often repeated view that:

• controls are different from control; and, most importantly, that
• more controls do not necessarily lead to more control.

Becher makes the equally important point that use of the term "scorecard" inevitably places undue emphasis on measures (ie 'scores' and scorekeeping).  As I've suggested elsewhere, organizational scorekeepers and commentators are too often seen as more important than the players!

The negative spaces of organizational dynamics #2 - The limits of rationality and either-or thinking

This post builds on the earlier discussion entitled The negative spaces of organizational dynamics #1 – A metaphor. It similarly draws on the notion of the negative space within drawings, as introduced by Betty Edwards in her book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. In particular, it challenges the limits of rational, ‘left-brained’ thinking in organizational leadership and consultancy.

The peaks and valleys of strengths and weaknesses

In the post Are Your Strengths Under Your Control? (31 January, 2007) "Ed" makes some important points about how an individual's strengths can become weaknesses if these are carried to excess. He suggests, for example, that self-confidence (a strength) can become arrogance (a weakness) if taken to an extreme. This is an important - and often overlooked - dynamic in individual and organizational performance. 

Re-focusing performance management

During my years as an engineer and then manager, I experienced many attempts by HR and OD departments to introduce what they saw as the ultimate answer to the performance management ‘problem’. The systems that they put in place were invariably well crafted, in terms both of the procedural disciplines that they sought to instil and the quality of materials provided for line managers, to facilitate their central role in the process. Despite these valiant efforts, the impact on results – if any - was invariably short-lived.

Key influence #5 - Gareth Morgan

Gareth Morgan is Distinguished Research Professor at the Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto. He is a writer and management consultant, who places particular emphasis on the use of metaphor and paradox to understand the dynamics of organizations and the challenges of change. I first saw Morgan in action at a full-day session of the Independent Change Management Forum in 1997, in which he explored various aspects of metaphor and paradox in relation to organizational change. This reinforced my attraction to the use of metaphor and analogy as language and thinking tools. His discussion of the paradoxical nature of organizations also re-ignited my interest in this important but under-explored and misunderstood aspect of organizational dynamics.

Paradoxes of change

The following paradoxes reflect some of the key lessons that have arisen from my experience of managing and participating in organizational change: