informal coalitions

Organizations and "systems thinking"

In the latest chapter of his continuing "quest on self-organization and online collaborative spaces", Bas Reus asks the question:"What defines a system?" 

On several occasions in this blog, I have argued against a systems-based view of organizational dynamics (see here, for example). Nevertheless, I thought I'd 'have a go' at answering Bas's question - from the point of view of a 'systems sceptic'!

So here is my 'starter for ten' (or thirteen, to be precise), on the characteristics of "a system".

Stacey's "Complex Responsive Processes" meets Wenger's "Communities of Practice"

A few months ago, I came across the work of Etienne Wenger on communities of practice. In a postscript to an earlier post, I suggested that I could see many overlaps between Wenger’s perspective on organizational dynamics and Ralph Stacey’s view of organizations as complex responsive processes.  This was despite Stacey’s own comments to the contrary in the 5th edition of Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics (reviewed here).

Following a brief exchange of comments with Stacey’s colleague, Chris Mowles (see his Reflexive Practice blog), I decided that I would look again at Wenger’s views, as expressed in his book, Communities of Practice.  This ‘scene-setting’ post sets out what I see as the areas of ‘contention’, and why I feel that embracing Wenger’s views increases support for the radical shift in the understanding of organizational dynamics for which Stacey – and Informal Coalitions -  is arguing. In a couple of subsequent posts, I will then explore these points further. In doing so, I hope to explain why I still believe that Wenger has much to say that complements Stacey’s work, and the view of organizational dynamics that is expressed in Informal Coalitions.

Rogue leader or change leader?

In a recent post, When A Leader Goes ‘Rogue’, Allan Kelsey argues that what he calls “rogue leadership” occurs …

“… when a person of influence begins to cause others to follow them away from the originally agreed ideal. …a departure from the intent of the original focus or the intent of the originator.”

Kelsey maintains that this practice is destructive “… because it portrays an imbalance of power, it dilutes or even derails the corporate vision and it breaks alignment”. And he therefore calls for “swift and decisive action” to deal with it. 

At first sight, the dysfunctional nature of the sort of behaviour that Kelsey describes appears self-evident. But are things as clear cut as he suggests? Is movement “away from the originally agreed ideal” (or even the current one) necessarily a sign of trouble? Or is it instead the very way that change happens in organizations?

Humour in organizations - Taking it seriously!

In the previous post, I spoke about the parallels between humour and creative thinking, drawing on the insights of Edward de Bono. Here, I want to shift the emphasis to the important roles that humour plays in other aspects of organizational dynamics.

As I suggested earlier, humour works by ‘switching channels’, abruptly and unexpectedly, from a familiar pattern of thought to another, previously unseen or unacknowledged one. Patterns create expectancy. And it is the sudden emergence of a new pattern of understanding (“I wasn’t expecting that”) which triggers the laughter (or discomfort).

When this channel-switching process is interwoven into the ongoing conversations and interactions that comprise everyday organizational life, it serves a number of other important purposes. Using it ‘deliberately’ (whether by conscious intent or as the spontaneous expression of subconscious feelings) invites people to look at their situation in a different light, to challenge some of their taken-for-granted assumptions and, perhaps, to change their perspective.