Self-organization and emergence: #2 – Organizational dynamics v organization design and development

As part of a stimulating conversation on self-organization in Stephen Billing’s blog, I added a few more thoughts on the topic as viewed from an informal coalitions perspective. As with my previous post, the intention is to note these comments 'for completeness' on this ‘home’ blog, as well as - perhaps - exposing this issue to other readers.

The particular focus here is on the points I made in response to John Tropea’s interesting vision of what he calls a “role-based” organization. In this, individuals would have greater discretion to organize their own roles and relationships to suit their particular talents and interests.  However, implicit in this is the widely-held view that self-organization happens (or doesn’t) as a result of deliberate choice – either by management design or as the result of a ‘grass roots’ initiative. And it was the felt need to challenge this general perspective that prompted me to add my ‘two pennyworth’ to the discussion.

Self-organization is not the same thing as self-management

When I was a manager in industry, I had similar aspirations to those set out above (but more of that later). Typically, these are rooted in a belief that everyone has strengths that are currently under-utilized – and an untapped desire to apply them. The purpose of leadership then becomes one of helping to unlock these talents and make them productive.  And this means fostering conditions in which people have scope for greater self-management of their work.

Despite retaining these beliefs, I would not equate this approach with the idea of “self-organization” in the sense that I now talk about it.

To help explain my thinking on this, I find it useful to distinguish between what I see as three complementary but distinct aspects of organizational change and performance. These are organizational dynamics, organization design and organization development.

Organizational dynamics

For me, the term “self-organization” refers to a fundamental dynamic of organizations. It is an inevitable property of the complex social process of people in interaction. Ralph Stacey and his colleagues at the University of Hertfordshire refer to this as a “complex responsive process”, to emphasize the pivotal role that ‘talk’ (or “communicative interaction”, as they more precisely call it) has on organizational outcomes. This is echoed in my own view of organizations as dynamic networks of self-organizing conversations, and the notion of informal coalitions that flows from it.

So “self-organization” is not something that is within the gift of managers to decide upon. It is at play just as surely in an organization ruled by the proverbial ‘iron fist’ as in one that has all the attributes of empowered self-management. However, the critical thing to emphasize here is that it is the conversational interactions that are self-organizing. And it is through the self-organizing interplay of these ‘local’ conversations across the organization and beyond that ‘global’ outcomes emerge.

Organization design

As regards organization design, I see its primary purpose as one of shaping and aligning the various elements of the organization so that it is best placed to achieve its purpose and ethos (at least as judged by the principles that inform the design). Critical to this, therefore, is a view of organizations as purposive, goal-oriented ‘enterprises’ – whether these are commercial of not-for-profit.

As part of the design process to achieve this, decisions will be made on structural aspects of organization, as well as on related processes, systems and procedures. And, whether by accident or design, these will both enable and constrain the ways in which people are supposed to work together formally. So the outcome might be one which facilitates greater self-management; or else inhibits (or even prohibits) it, in favour of greater centralized control.

Organization development

This brings me finally to the third of out 'ODs', organization development. In its 'pure' form, this is intended to provide a comprehensive approach to planning changes in behaviour in organizations, to achieve greater organizational effectiveness. It is heavily steeped in humanistic, people-based values and recognizes the impact of social, psychological and emotional aspects of organization on performance outcomes. As such, it embraces a philosophy of management rooted in a positive view of the value of greater employee involvement and self-management.

In essence, then, managers who embrace this perspective maintain high expectations of people’s willingness and ability to contribute and adopt leadership practices designed to foster mutual trust and enable greater self-regulation.

Unlocking organizational talent

I mentioned earlier that, during my time as an in-house manager, I practised this philosophy myself and advocated it widely. Indeed, I developed a sense-making framework to facilitate greater 'empowerment' along these lines, and subsequently developed it further.

In essence, at its centre is placed an individual’s core strengths or distinctive competence, on which their contribution to the organization – and personal growth - will be built. The framework then branches out in four complementary directions. These describe, in turn, the attributes of self-sufficiency, self-direction, self-control, and collaboration.

This broadly accords, I believe, with the talent-based approach to role development mentioned earlier – without, perhaps, taking the risk that empowered self-management will lead to abdication of leadership responsibility. As Larry Hirshhorn argues in his HBR 2002 article (subscription only), “New Boundaries of the ‘Boundaryless’ Company”, people still have a psychological need for what he calls authority, task, political and identity boundaries.

I argue similarly in my Unlocking Organizational Talent framework that there is a need for “boundary management”. As individuals develop along the four dimensions, a key focus for the manager/team leader is simultaneously to enable and constrain performance by seeking to ‘manage’ the boundaries within which team members are operating. The aim of this is to encourage, assist and enable them increasingly to ‘push the boundaries out’ as they grow in competence and confidence. At the same time, it seeks to align this growth to the shifting needs of the business environment within which they are operating.

In conclusion

To sum up, then, I see self-organization as a dynamic of all organizations, regardless of how these might be designed and managed from a formal standpoint. Outcomes emerge from this process - both locally and globally.

Emergence locally takes the form of jointly improvised ways of thinking and acting. And globally it can be seen in such things as:

• the idealized designs of the formal organization
• the informal coalescing of people around particular agendas
• the ‘patterning’ of taken-for-granted assumptions about the organization, which creates a generalized tendency for people to think and act in familiar ways. 

Unlike the choice that managers have as to whether or not they should embark on a new organization design project or invest in organization development initiatives, the socially complex dynamics of organization are a given. These cannot be wished away or dealt with mechanically.  All that leaders (or anyone else) can do is to act with insight and intention in relation to what they see happening around them. Even then, they can’t be sure what the result of this will be. Nobody can.

However well conceived the formal organization design and development activities might be, the ways in which these are taken up will themselves be subject to the underlying organizational dynamics. Particular outcomes can't be guaranteed. At the same time, these formal trappings of organization will inevitably affect the precise nature of outcomes that emerge through the ongoing conversational process.

In conclusion, I find it unhelpful and misleading to refer to formally empowered organizational designs and management processes as being “self-organizing”. Instead, the terms “self-managing” and/or “self-regulating” provide better descriptions of these formal, planned and structured elements of organizational strategy and practice.

Comments

[Bas Reus]

Another great post Chris. It's great to see how self-organization is being explained regarding the informal coalitions framework. Maybe I should order the book ;)

If we take a closer look to the 2nd OD, the organizational design aspect, how do you think the the networked society can fit the framework? How can organizations be designed, or aligned, regarding the new given of mass networking? Or better, how can online collaboration fit the whole framework? And where does it perhaps not fit the framework? Again, maybe I should first order your book ;)

[Tom Gibbons]

I would like to comment just bit on the concept of self management. I've worked a lot with Dr. Edmund J. Freedberg and his work regarding Activation (see book here - http://www.freedberg.com/ejfibook.html)
and he treats the concept of self management as an individual skill set that can be developed. Interestingly he focuses on the areas of self confidence, self direction and self motivation to generate more effective self management behaviours. It seems there may be some similarities to the 4 areas you describe Chris and I would think all would be important to self management from both an individual and organizational perspective.

I have found Freedberg's work very empowering for individuals but also quite challenging since I think we often say we want more autonomy, power, and such but actually having to live with the consequneces of the different choices you have when you do have those things can be quite difficult.

[Chris Rodgers]

Hi Bas and Tom. Many thanks for your comments.

Bas, you ask about the networked society and on-line collaboration. Firstly I should say that this topic is not covered in Informal Coalitions, which looks at the internal dynamics of organizations. It’s still a good read, though – or so they tell me!

Now to my thoughts on your question. Given the social complexity of society, the extent to which any planned design for on-line collaboration might be realized in practice would depend wholly on the self-organizing interplay of the myriad of 'local' sense-making interactions. Even where information exchange via 'the net' is widespread and open, I would argue that sense-making conversations - and the dynamics of human interaction that accompany them - can only occur 'locally' (i.e. through one-to-one and 'small group' exchanges). In the same way that Ralph Stacey would argue in relation to the world-wide dissemination of a CEO’s speech (via video or the net, say), any 'broadcast' information, propositions, rules etc can only serve as an invitation for others to engage in there own, local exchanges. And then, whatever emerges - locally and globally - will emerge!

Tom, thanks for the link to Edmund Freeberg’s book. I hadn’t heard of it. There do appear to be a number of common threads, certainly in terms of a belief in people’s potential.

As regards my Unlocking Organizational Talent framework, it is about valuing people as individuals, helping them to enhance their self-worth and enabling them to maximize their contribution to the organization’s success. It begins by identifying their core skills and building on these through training and development, consolidation of new knowledge and skills, and the provision of value-adding information. It focuses on enabling people to become more self-sufficient, take more responsibility for their actions and exert more control over their own output, in terms of cost, quality and quantity. At the same time, it also spurs them to work much more closely with others, in interdependent networks, whilst still encouraging individual initiative and diversity. I make the point that using the framework will only be successful if those in leadership positions (throughout the organization) take time to understand and apply its principles thoroughly; and if they help staff to make sense of its underlying principles and practices in the light of emerging challenges. One thing I would reiterate is that it starts with an individual’s strengths, in the context of their required contribution, and works ‘outwards’ from these in a ‘bespoke’ way. It is not about applying a pre-defined set of competencies.

There are two related posts on this blog that you might find interesting/useful. The first (http://bit.ly/hN1YA) introduces the idea of the Contribution Statement (rather than Job Description) and the second (http://bit.ly/XDjb8) refers to my MMObilizing Commitment framework. The latter is about seeking to create an environment in which people have the motive, means and opportunity to excel. Metaphorically speaking, it's the ‘wall socket’ into which you insert the Unlocking Organizational Talent ‘plug’.

As always, the notion of “success” in relation to the use of these frameworks must be tempered by an acknowledgement of the complex social dynamics of organization, in which managers can act with intention but not be guaranteed of particular outcomes. And, mindful of other points made in this series of conversations on self-organization, these frameworks are only facilitative of some aspects of self-management, they aren’t meant to be comprehensive.

Cheers, Chris