informal coalitions

Informal coalitions and viral change

In the previous post, I commented on Leandro Herrero's latest book Homo Imitans, which provides further insights into his Viral Change^TM approach to organizational change. As I stated in my review, I agree with many of the things in it. For example, I share Herrero’s insistence that change doesn’t happen unless and until people ‘do’ things differently (although what constitutes “doing” might be up for debate). In Informal Coalitions, I also echo the importance he places on peer-to-peer influence; the powerful dynamics of organizational (i.e. social) networks; and the need for a different view of the leadership task (although, again, we might differ on what that different view might be).  I wholeheartedly agree, though, how easily the momentum for change can be derailed where managers insist on applying the full panoply of textbook ‘tools and techniques’ to ‘manage’ the process.  Herrero cites such things as formal, spreadsheet-based reviews; KPIs to measure the extent of interaction; bonuses for the “change agents” (who sit at the heart of his Viral Change^TM methodology); and so on, as sure-fire ways to undermine the process. Amen to that.

Crucial differences

So, there is much about Herrero’s description of “Viral Change^TM in action” that meshes with my own informal coalitions perspective.  At the same time, there are some important differences that I want to highlight. 

Homo Imitans and Viral Change (TM): Pass it on!

A brief look at Leandro Herrero’s latest thoughts on his Viral Change^TM approach to orchestrated social change.

Early in 2008, I set out my thoughts on Leandro Herrero’s book Viral Change^TM (here). Much (though not all) of his thesis on ‘how change happens’ resonates with my own informal coalitions view of organizational dynamics. In his latest book, imaginatively titled Homo Imitans, Herrero further emphasizes his view that social copying and social imitation (hence “Imitans”) can play a powerful role in an orchestrated approach to organizational (and wider social) change.

Homo Imitans is a good read. Herrero presents his arguments in a way that successfully marries some challenging propositions and background research with a conversational style.  It is far removed from the superficial ‘one-minute-management’ genre of books. But it is also highly accessible. And it’s easy to see how adoption of the approach could itself become infectious – after all, I’m blogging about it here!  At the same time, there are some differences between Viral Change^TM and informal coalitions that I feel are important. But I want to address those in a forthcoming post.  Here, I want briefly to outline the content of Homo Imitans and attempt to draw out some of Herrero’s main points.

The fundamental proposition of the book is that “the only change is behaviour change” and that this is brought about primarily through people copying the behaviours of others. It is through this process, according to Herrero, that cultures are formed and that change is achieved. People become ‘infected’ with new ways of behaving as they imitate the behaviours of influential others in their social networks.  Importantly, from the perspective of Viral Change^TM, this process can be orchestrated to bring about specific outcomes.

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.

The everyday 'talk' of leadership action

An assignment that formed part of my engineering studies in the 1970s, included the requirement to reflect and comment upon the following proposition: 

"Talk and paper are an engineer's most important tools."

The same statement could be applied to leaders - especially as regards the role of 'talk'.

Who are the main players in organizational communication?

Who are the most significant people when it comes to communicating in organizations? Is it the Internal Comms department? Or line managers? Or is it, perhaps, those influential, ‘tuned-in’ and/or well-linked individuals, who have no formal comms role but who seem to be highly active informally?

Well, all of these have a part to play. And the last two are particularly important contributors to the sense-making process that sits at the heart of the informal coalitions view of organizations. But to leave it at that would be to miss the crucial role that others play in the dynamics of organizational change and business performance.

Leading is a "doing word"

In a recent post, The language of organizational change, I drew an analogy between the central role that verbs play in language learning and the equivalent role played by organizational dynamics in understanding how change happens. As I argued there:

"... once people understand the underlying dynamics of organizations, they understand change. The rest is just content."

To take this a stage further, Informal Coalitions shows how the critical dynamics of change are embodied within (and simultaneously emerge from) people's everyday conversations and interactions. So this places talk and language at the core of change and organizational dynamics. 

Drucker on communication in organizations

In writing this blog, I have often found myself referring to the work of Peter Drucker.  Much of his thinking still resonates strongly with me today, even though a lot of it originated more than 50 years ago. 

And so it is with his insightful-as-ever comments on communication.

The importance of gossip as a natural dynamic of organizational behaviour

In the October 2008 edition of Scientific American Mind, social psychologist Prof. Frank T. McAndrew argues that "… gossip is a more complicated and socially important phenomenon than we think". It is, he says, a by-product of the psychology that evolved in prehistoric times to enable our ancestors to survive and thrive in their communities.

Viewing organizations as networks of conversations inevitably brings gossip into focus. And gossip, like other aspects of ‘small talk’, is often dismissed as an irrelevant or, worse still, destructive component of the ‘conversational mix’.

However, McAndrew identifies a number of positive aspects of gossip.

Beyond Buzz - lessons for leadership communication in organizational change

"New marketing is about conversations - listening, having something new to add, and talking like we mean it instead of hiding behind pre-packaged corporate-speak."

So begins Lois Kelly's highly accessible, thought-provoking and informative book, which advocates a conversational approach to marketing in a connected world.

What she has to say about marketing goods and services to people 'outside' a business resonates strongly with the informal coalitions perspective of how change happens 'inside' organizations. And her thoughts on what managers might do from a marketing standpoint provide some equally useful pointers as to how they might lead change more effectively within their organizations.

Leadership communication in organizational change

In Lessons in Communicating Change, on her Body Talk blog, Dr Carol Kinsey Goman, challenges conventional wisdom on leadership communication in organizational change.

In particular, she stresses the critical importance of informal communication - the "complex web of social interactions and informal networks" as she puts it – which accounts for upwards of 70% of all organizational communication. Her post goes on to underline the powerful role that she sees non-verbal signals playing in the communication process.