In commenting on a recent post, Paula Thornton interestingly makes a connection between my description of the "wiggly world of organizational dynamics" and Gordon Mackenzie's notion of the Giant Hairball, as entertainingly described in his book Orbiting the Giant Hairball.
Mackenzie uses the Giant Hairball metaphor to describe a corporate world which is "honeycombed with ... established guidelines, techniques, methodologies, systems and equations." These, he argues, create an "inexorable pull of Corporate Gravity ... toward the tangle of the Hairball, where the ghosts of past successes outvote original thinking."
Mackenzie's Hairball, then, describes what he sees as the impenetrable, tangled mass of the formal organization, which grows up over time as a result of the quest to achieve "conformity with the 'accepted model, pattern or standard' of the corporate mindset". My Wiggly World relates to the hidden, messy and informal dynamics of organization that underlie its formal manifestations. The two are inextricably linked. But how?
Where do Hairballs come from?
In decrying the tendency of the Hairball to stifle creativity and innovation, Mackenzie says that:
- every new policy adds another hair to the hairball
- hairs only get added - never taken away
- even frequent reorganizations fail to get rid of the hairs - seeming instead to add whole new layers.
As a result, he despairs that the Hairball gets ever bigger and sucks everything into the mass of "Corporate Normalcy".
Mackenzie's main interest is in how people can rise above this tangle to develop original ideas:
"To Orbit around a corporate Hairball ... where you benefit from the physical, intellectual and philosophical resources of the organization without becoming entombed in the bureaucracy of the institution."
This is an important question, which Mackenzie addresses in successive chapters of his book. I'm interested in particular, though, in looking at the roots of the 'organizational hairs' that become intertwined over time to form the Giant Hairball.
And so to the Wiggly World of organizational dynamics
Mackenzie is talking about the often tangled mass of formal, 'above the table', policies, systems and procedures that seems to build up relentlessly over time. His interest is in how people can rise above this to remain creative and resourceful. Informal coalitions, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with how these formal intentions and designs arise from the informal, 'under the table' messiness of everyday organizational dynamics. The question is then: How can managers actively engage with this Wiggly World of day-to-day conversations and interactions, to stimulate beneficial change and enhance organizational performance? Or, using Mackenzie's metaphor, what - if anything - can they do to reduce the likelihood of the hairs becoming tangled together in the first place?
The essentially form-less, wiggly world of organizational dynamics leads to outcomes that are co-created by all of those involved - both within and beyond the normally accepted 'boundaries' of the organization. This complex social process of self-organization and emergence has a powerful effect on the dynamics of organizational change and performance - and on the outcomes that arise.
Managers seek to impose order on this perceived chaos by putting things in place that promise to provide them with the ability to divide, classify, count and control what's going on. This was referred to in the earlier post as trying to 'catch the wiggle in a net'. This metaphorical 'net' comprises the formal structures, processes and procedures that act as enabling constraints on the local interactions through which results ultimately emerge. Mackenzie's Giant Hairball vividly symbolizes how these management-perceived enablers can easily become stifling constraints - not only on creativity but also, I would argue, on the everyday functioning of the organization.
Embracing the paradox
One of the chapters in Orbiting the Giant Hairball is entitled "The Power of Paradox". And, from an informal coalitions perspective, more 'hairs' get added to the Giant Hairball precisely because many managers are reluctant to acknowledge and get to grips with what I have called the Leadership Paradox. This recognizes that, as leaders, they are both 'in control' and 'not in control' at the same time.
Within their formal levels of authority, managers can (at least in principle) make whatever changes they wish to the formal 'structures' of the organization. They are in control of these decisions. At the same time, they are not in control - and cannot be in control - of the ways in which people perceive, interpret, evaluate and act upon these formal initiatives and pronouncements through their everyday interactions. Too often they assume that, if they do the formal things 'better' and get them 'right' the messy stuff will go away. It won't. Or that, if it doesn't go away, at least it won't have much impact on organizational performance. It will!
It is important that the formal things should be managed well. But doing things better and getting them right is too often translated as doing yet more of the formal, structured stuff - more systems, more targets, more controls. This simply adds more 'HAIRS' to swell the size of the Giant Hairball, and risks the dysfunctional effects that Mackenzie identifies.
Instead, the challenge for managers is to embrace the paradox: actively engaging with the informal dynamics of the organization at the same time as managing the formal processes, systems and procedures that emerge from them. In the context of Mackenzie's metaphor, this means paying attention directly to the complex dynamics of 'hair growth' in the moment of its growing!
Copies of Orbiting the Giant Hairball can be obtained from Amazon UK and Amazon US
Chris: Great leveraging and adding value in a conversation (particularly clarification by comparison).
I believe that the 'mistakes' come from 'not thinking' (too many cultures browbeat people into 'checking their brains at the door' -- from an article I cherished in 1990). Control is obviously needed -- 'not thinking' insists that more control is better. [assuming that being "really good" at control is a goal].
As you said, as I constantly speak to and as is fundamentally a divine principle, it's always a matter of both. It's the finding the balance, or the relevant point on the continuum -- while balancing a floating realm of other continuums -- that becomes a challenge.
The minute a 'rule' is established, it's already out of date -- the conditions for its creation have changed. That's why, for all the good provided, programmed processes are limiting at the same time.
Denying, ignoring or being apethetic toward these realities is selfdeprecating. Thinking "highly-controlled environments" are 'ideal' is just plain ignorant. 'More enlightened' competition will leverage the advantage (sadly, there's not a lot of this going on).
Love the "embracing the paradox". Reminds me, I'm reaching for my copy of "A Perfect Mess".
Posted by: Paula Thornton | 15 March 2008 at 05:52 PM
Coloring outside the lines:
“The way organizations adapt, survive and be productive is through the social interaction that happens outside the lines that we draw by hierarchy, process and organizational structure.” Ross Mayfield in CIO interview, http://www.cio.com/article/197101/Enterprise_Wikis_Seen_As_a_Way_to_End_Reply_All_E_Mail_Threads
Posted by: Paula Thornton | 15 March 2008 at 10:45 PM