All organizational models are 'wrong'

Following Paula Thornton's comment on an earlier post about management models, I thought I would add a few more comments on how the use of such models and frameworks can be reconciled with the informal coalitions view that change happens through the complex interplay of everyday conversations and interactions.

All organisational models and frameworks (including those in Informal Coalitions) are ‘wrong’ because they can never reflect the full complexity of human interaction.  The important question, though, is not whether these are “right”.  It is whether or not they are useful; that is, do they help managers and others to make sense of the specific issues they face and to take beneficial actions that they might not otherwise have taken?

Models and frameworks can help in this by such means as:

• raising awareness,
• challenging assumptions,
• offering new perspectives,
• suggesting potential areas of focus,
• highlighting interdependencies that seem to be especially important (from the myriad that exist), and
• provoking otherwise unasked questions.

It is important that these frameworks are not used in a mechanistic and reductionist way.  Organisations comprise human beings in interaction; they are not machines. And organisational processes are complex and reflexive not simple and linear.  The best that organisational models and frameworks can do is to increase the probability of success, through means such as those set out above. They can’t guarantee it in an ‘if you do this you will get that’ sort of way, as is often implied by use of metaphors such as “pressing buttons”, “pulling levers” and so on.

 

As consultants, we can collude with this ‘button-pressing’ view or else we can challenge it.  The former approach is perhaps a more comfortable one, in that it plays to the prejudices for “keep it simple” solutions that management orthodoxy has schooled managers to expect. To challenge this can take them (and us!) into some uncomfortable areas initially, as many of their taken-for-granted ‘truths’ are laid bare. But the result of this is likely to be much more beneficial organisationally – and personally - than would be another of the quick fix offerings that continue to contribute to the high failure rate of organisational change.

Comments

[Paula Thornton]

Chris: You've tapped on a thought that I've taken to the mat at least once -- math/numbers are just concepts, they're not real (analogous to your thoughts on models). It's a matter of complexity. If "4" represents the whole (e.g. an apple), then 1+1+1+1 (an apple cut in 4 parts) can never equal 4. Once cut the apple can never be put back together (at least not by mere mortals).

This is a critical issue to consider in light of a heavy reliance on ROI in business cases, or in light of ANY business decision made by looking at an oversimplificaion of the facts (extracted from the reality) -- especially change.

I just wrote about a particular 'model' (cross-company) I experienced that celebrates, shortening distances (a different way to consider 'simple'): http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/10/11/think-supply-chain-or-demand-chain/

Thanks for your insightful thoughts. Look forward to more of them.