This post sets out to explain the fundamental difference that I see between the two, and the implications that this has for consulting and, more importantly, leadership practice.
Joint Problem Solving is the generic term that I use to describe a deliberate management strategy aimed at involving people formally in the organization's problem-solving, decision-making and/or sense-making processes. It includes such things as working groups, task forces, structured dialogue sessions, large-group change methodologies, team workshops, and so on. It sits at the ‘flexible’ end of a spectrum of formal, rational and ‘legitimate’ approaches to organizational change. This ranges from what I call Management Edict at the ‘tight’ end (imposed, directed and programmed) to Joint Problem Solving (involving rather than imposed, facilitated rather than directed and ad hoc rather than programmed). Although Joint Problem Solving is a more participative approach than Management Edict, it still sits within the conventional management paradigm. Amongst other things, this assumes that: In the book, I mentioned that some managers might pay lip service to Joint Problem Solving, by using one or other of the above examples of this approach but constraining this to such an extent that it becomes little more than Management Edict in disguise. However, even where it is used as a genuine attempt to involve and empower people, it still doesn’t address the complex social dynamics of organizations. Which is where informal coalitions comes in. I am often asked how my informal coalitions view of organizational dynamics differs from established approaches to participative management and organizational change. The latter aim to involve people more fully and directly in the decison-making and action-taking life of an organization and to adopt a more collaborative stance to problem solving and implementation.
Organizations as complex social processes
The informal coalitions perspective is concerned with what’s happening ‘under the table’, in the hidden, messy and informal dynamics at the heart of everyday organizational life. It looks at the implications that these dynamics have for everyday leadership practice. The focus therefore shifts to the shadow-side of the organization (its informal relationships, political dynamics, social processes, individual idiosyncrasies, cultural patterns, paradoxes and so on) and to what I have called relationship dynamics (the everyday conversational interactions through which people perceive, interpret and evaluate what’s going on and decide how they are going to act). Relationship dynamics are concerned with the socially complex and ‘constructionist’ nature of these interactions, with power relations, and so on.
Relationship dynamics
The critical points to bear in mind here are that:
- these interactions happen 'twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week' – with or without the involvement of those in formal leadership positions (i.e. line managers at all levels);
- they impact upon all of the formal, 'above the table' activities - whether these are governed by the assumptions and practices of Management Edict (impose), Education and Training (inform) or Joint Problem Solving (involve);
- it is through these local (i.e. one-to-one and small-group) interactions that people decide how they are going to act; and
- it is through the complex interplay of these local actions and interactions that organization-wide outcomes emerge.
Some of these interactions will be governed (or at least initiated) by the organization’s formal, structured processes (meetings, conferences, workshops etc). Others will occur informally. Often, the latter will take place ‘around the edges’ of the formal sessions (agreeing positions in informal conversations before meetings, discussing ‘undiscussables’ during breaks, or shaping interpretations and responses after the event). Many more of the conversations will take place at times and in places unrelated to the formal, ‘legitimate’ processes of the organization. All of these conversations, though, contribute to the organizational outcomes that emerge and the results that are achieved.
Some of the outputs from these interactions will find their way into the formal arrangements of the organization (strategies, structures and systems etc) - both enabling and constraining ongoing formal interactions and influencing potential outcomes. Others, though, will remain ‘in the shadows’. For example, people continually coalesce informally around particular interpretations of the world and supporting narratives, which seek to initiate, support or frustrate specific changes and ways of working. The narrative themes, which these informal coalitions reflect, continue to influence the ongoing sense-making process in a reflexive way. However, these themes will remain in the shadows (or ‘under the table’) until they gain sufficient momentum to ‘surface’ as formal propositions and overtly enter the formal arenas of the organization.
Organizational culture as a patterning process
Another dynamic that affects the ongoing sense-making process is the emergence of patterns of taken-for-granted (cultural) assumptions. These form over time, as people make sense of their experience in particular ways (rather than others). From an informal coalitions perspective, the more that people make sense of things in a particular way, the more likely they are to continue to make sense in similar ways. These assumptions therefore tend to channel sense-making imperceptibly down established, culturally familiar pathways. This is why cultural change is so difficult to bring about. At the same time, the dynamics of the conversational process hold the capacity for novel outcomes to emerge and change to come about.
Consulting (and leadership) implications
As a consultant, I seek to apply these insights directly when I’m consulting with individual managers and teams. And hopefully, the conversations that we have will affect the ways in which people interact 'back at the ranch'. But these conversations represent only a minute fraction of the total number of conversations that constitute everyday organizational life. They typically only involve a relatively few people and happen every now and again.
Informal Coalitions therefore emphasizes the need for leaders (at all levels) to pay attention to the conversations and interactions that are going on day-in-day-out, and to seek to 'shift' the content and patterns of these conversations in ways that are organizationally beneficial. I try to help managers understand these dynamics and to explore the options that they have for trying to affect those conversations. The focus therefore shifts to the everyday interactions that they have with their staff, the informal conversational networks through which people make sense of what’s going on, and the impact that their own behaviours have on the sense-making process.
For the reasons outlined earlier, managers can act with intention and insight in doing this but can’t be certain what outcomes will emerge. Ultimately, it is the conversations that individuals have with each other that will determine the detail of the actions that they will take and the overall outcomes that will emerge. However, the more informed that leaders are of the dynamics of informal coalitions, the more likely they are to be able to engage with this process in organizationally enhancing ways.
__________
Related post: Individual, team and organization development - The missing ingredient?
Comments