Stacey on Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics

I have been a fan of Ralph Stacey’s work since I first purchased one of his early books (Dynamic Strategic Management for the 1990s) almost 20 years ago. In particular, I have been attracted by his willingness – eagerness even – to challenge conventional thinking and practice in relation to the leadership and dynamics of organizations. The latest edition of his textbook on the subject, Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, continues this tradition.

Stacey's forensic examination of the established ‘body of knowledge’ exposes its hidden assumptions and points to some of the flawed thinking and practice that these foster. This is facilitated by a richness of thinking that draws on a range of academic disciplines, not just those conventionally associated with organizational management.

Subtitled The Challenge of Complexity, the latest book continues to showcase Stacey’s radical thinking on how insights from complexity science and other writing might usefully inform our understanding of organizational dynamics. In particular, it includes a comprehensive and up-to-date account of his thinking on organizations as complex responsive processes. This provides a distinctive perspective on organizational dynamics that Stacey has developed over the past ten years or so, ably supported by faculty colleagues and alumni of the University of Hertfordshire’s doctoral programme on organizational change.

Sadly, I am not a member of that community! However, other than in one specific respect (and, of course, some of the language and presentational style), this formulation is entirely consistent with how I see the dynamics of organizational change and performance, as set out in Informal Coalitions.

As demanded by a textbook, Stacey’s coverage of the subject extends well beyond this complex responsive processes view. Here again though, his treatment of the material differs greatly from that found in other books that purport to cover the same territory. As he states in the preface,

"This book … seeks to challenge thinking rather than describe the current state of thinking about strategy and organisational dynamics."

And, as in its persuasive explanation of the importance of viewing organizations as complex responsive processes, it does not disappoint on this score.

Most particularly, in true Stacey style, it does not shy away from challenging what most organizational theorists and practitioners have come to regard as self-evident; that is, that organizations are multi-layered systems of individuals, teams, departments and so on. And this critical evaluation of systems thinking is applied as forcefully and insightfully to those theories that view organizations as complex adaptive systems (based on the ‘mainstream’ interpretation of the complexity sciences) as it is to those that emanate from the more conventional schools of strategic management. The latter include the theories of strategic choice and the learning organization, as well as open systems and psychoanalytic perspectives.

This fifth edition of the textbook bears little resemblance to the content and structure of the first edition, published some 15 years ago. Even at that time, though, Stacey was pushing boundaries and challenging conventional thinking. In those days, his concern was with the excessive focus placed by strategy textbooks on the relatively ‘safe’ terrain of what he referred to as "ordinary management". He emphasised instead the challenges that managers faced in coping with the instabilities, uncertainties and contentions that are characteristic of what, by way of contrast, he called "extraordinary management".  However, whilst these terms and the associated ‘agreement-certainty’ diagram (opposite) are still highly regarded and frequently referenced by managers and consultants alike, Stacey no longer uses them to describe the dynamics of organizations. And so, this central plank of the first (and second) edition of the book - the need for managers to deal with the continuing tension between ordinary (formal, rational, legitimate, programmable) management and extraordinary (informal, a-rational, shadow-side, messy) management – doesn’t feature in the same way in his current conceptualisation of organizational dynamics.

Clearly many of the ideas that are central to the current edition were seeded in those early versions and have been carried through in a different form. But it is striking how dissimilar the first and fifth editions are. Most remarkable perhaps, given Stacey’s current stance, is the absence of any reference at all to conversation in the index of the first edition. Today, of course, conversation (the complex responsive process of human relating) sits at the heart of his conception of organizations. In this regard, I recall him generously sharing his thinking on the role that conversation plays in organizational dynamics, during two full-day learning events that I attended in 1998 and 1999. Although his ideas were still in their formative stages, they resonated strongly with my own emerging conception of organizations as dynamic networks of conversations. And this undoubtedly strengthened my resolve to place conversational interaction, shadow-side dynamics and paradox at the centre of my own thinking and practice.

I’m sure that Stacey and his colleagues will continue to develop further their thinking around organizations as complex responsive processes. Nevertheless, this fifth edition of Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics is a landmark academic text. As well as continuing to offer a well-argued critique of conventional management wisdom, it provides a unique and authoritative treatise on what is a truly distinctive application of the complexity sciences to organizational leadership and change.

Other posts on the site that may be of interest, include:

• Key Influence #1 - Ralph Stacey
• Complexity and Organizational Dynamics - Does it Make Sense to Differentiate Between 'Levels' of Complexity?
• Changing the Conversations - Patricia Shaw
• The Dynamics of Continuity and Change in Organizations - An Analogy.  This post references the one area in which my view of organizational dynamics differs from that put forward by Stacey (in the paragraph headed "So where do these patterns of assumptions come from?").

Copies of Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics 5 Ed. can be obtained from Amazon UK or Amazon US.

Comments

[Rodney Brim]

Chris, thanks for the reflective look at Stacey's work. Given the discussion of conversations, I expected you to perhaps venture into what you thought the conversation in Ralph's mind sounded like as you traced the change in thinking.

Looking at the title at top, "the keep it simple" mantra, I was also wondering if conversations today reduce to something simple... and then I found myself looking for your simple synopsis within the blog.

Sheparding the conversation direction in an organization seems like an important construct by which to define leadership. I hadn't thought of that before reading your blog.

I tend to write about organization change as it interacts with introducing change via technology in pursuit of performance improvement. Let me know what you think if you have a chance. You can find the blogs at http://www.managepro.com/blog/index.php/category/leadership

One final question. Do you think that the conversation in organizations, in fact the culture, is a representation of what is and isn't talked about in the leader's head?

Rodney Brim,
www.managepro.com/blog

[Chris Rodgers]

Thanks for your comments and questions, Rodney.

I don’t know what might have been going through Stacey’s mind at the time of the event I mentioned in the late 1990s, except that he was very open about the fact that his ideas were shifting in ways that were as yet not fully formed. I do recall that he was not particularly taken with my comment that I saw links between his perspective on self-organization and de Bono’s ideas on the “mechanism of mind” that he had set out in his early books on lateral thinking! I still see many parallels, by the way.

In relation to your final question, I see organizational culture as the ongoing process of shared sense making. Within this, the more that people make sense of what’s going on in a particular way, the more likely they are to make similar sense in the future. Patterns of taken-for-granted assumptions emerge, which tend to channel sense making imperceptibly down familiar, culturally acceptable pathways. At the same time, the potential exists for novel outcomes to emerge through this same conversational process and for new patterns of meaning to form.

So, with this in mind, do I think organizational culture is a representation of what is and isn't talked about in the leader's head? Well, my answer to that would have to be “yes and no”!

Yes … in the sense that it emerges from what is and isn’t talked about in the dynamic network of conversations that comprises the organization – and leaders are active participants in this process.

Yes … because what leaders (at all levels) say and do – including what they don’t say and don’t do – provides a powerful input to these sense-making conversations, as people perceive, interpret, evaluate and share what they see and feel.

No … if the implication is that it is only what is going on in the heads of those in formal leadership positions that matters – even less so if it only means THE leader (e.g. CEO or MD).

No … (at least not entirely) because each of these conversations takes place simultaneously both in AND BETWEEN the heads (and bodies) of those involved.

The outputs of these conversations provide inputs to further conversations, within and beyond the formal ‘boundaries’ of the organization. And so on. And so on.

Two important points are implicit in this informal coalitions view. First, culture is not a ‘thing’ that can be designed, built and communicated to others by managers. Secondly, it is the sense-making process that is shared, not necessarily the outcome; so the commonly held notion that culture is about “shared values” does not sit comfortably with the understanding of organizational dynamics that I’d subscribe to.

I look forward to visiting your blog.

[Chris Traynor]

Great Post thanks,
Re the Culture point above. I agree. Culture is v difficult to develop or nourish, instead it is a factor of the various cultural dynamics. In my company we had an issue after an acquistion of integrating both groups of employess due to cultural differences and some resistance from my company's side. This I suppose is a factor of a hostile acquisition.

Thanks again for the post.

[Rakeback]

Hi,I have heard so much about Ralph Stacey, but unfortunately could not collect the book you have mentioned. Actually my uncle was a fan of him and I heard some special characteristic of him from my uncle. This post really helps me to find out some more points that I desperately needed. Thanks for sharing.

[David W.]

Thanks for your post on Ralph Stacey’s work!