This is the fifth in a ‘mini-series’ of posts on Katzenbach Partners’ interesting and important report about the power of the informal organization. I am delighted that the report is helping to raise awareness of the impact of the hidden, messy and informal dimensions of organization. It is cleverly put together and its stories engaging.
At the same time, there are a number of aspects of the report with which I would take issue from an informal coalitions view of organizational dynamics. Here, I want to draw attention to the inconsistency between the authors’ use of a well-worn mechanistic metaphor to describe how organizations work and the general tenor of the report, which recognizes that more complex social dynamics are at play.
Pulling the right levers
Pleasingly, the report is sparing in its use of mechanistic metaphors. Unfortunately, there is one glaring exception to this. When the authors discuss the nature and dynamics of the informal networks, through which much of the work in organizations actually gets done, they urge new managers to get to know "the ‘secret map’ that shows which levers to pull".
I understand what they are trying to get at here. Some individuals inevitably have more power than others to influence the shape and direction of the local conversational processes through which people make sense of emerging events and decide how to act. Becoming aware of this particular dynamic and trying to anticipate how it might play out in different circumstances is part of being politically savvy.
But for the authors to use this phraseology is disappointing. This is especially so, given the statement in the report’s introduction that
"… the informal organization evolves organically in response to complex forces, like changes in the internal and external environment, the flux of people through its porous boundaries, and the complex social dynamics of its members [my emphasis]."
People aren’t machines. The patterning of their interactions and the outcomes that emerge do not conform to the mechanistic, ‘do this and you’ll get that’ assumptions that are implicit in the notion of "pulling levers" and other such metaphors.
Use of these words might help to reduce managers’ anxiety, by implying a greater sense of control and predictability than actually exists. But they are not credible expressions of the "complex social dynamics" of real-world organizations. They reinforce the myth that achievement of desired outcomes can be achieved with certainty, provided that managers ‘do it better and get it right’. That is, provided that they "pull the right levers", "press the right buttons" or whatever other machine-like operations they might care to perform.
Previous posts
Earlier, I have provided informal coalitions commentaries on other aspects of the report, including:
- whether or not this represents a radical challenge to conventional management thinking and practice (#1);
- the extent to which managers can control the impact that the informal organization has on organizational outcomes (#2);
- whether the notion of "managing" the informal organization is a credible aspiration (#3); and
- what constitutes "the informal organization in action" (#4).
Katzenbach Partners' website introduction to their report can be found here.
Comments