informal coalitions

Coalition government? We’ve never had anything else!

As election fever - or, depending on your perspective, election fatigue - grows in the UK, the prospect that no single party will have an overall majority after the 6 May General Election is dominating political discussion and media comment.

Following the first-ever televised leaders’ debate, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg won viewers’ acclaim for his performance. And, in these ‘instant fame’ times of The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent, his party’s prospects rose dramatically – at least according to the post-debate opinion polls. That surge in potential support has been halted to a degree, following the second debate in the series. But the Lib Dems still appear to be running a close second to the Conservatives in voter popularity.

Overall, then, this promises to be one of the most interesting election nights of modern times. But why are politicians and commentators so exercised by the thought of the Nation waking up on 7 May to what – in UK terms – has traditionally been viewed as a weak, indecisive result?

A complex social process view of organizations - #3 Emergent outcomes

In the previous two posts of this mini-series (#1 and #2), I have set out

• why, in Informal Coalitions, I refer to organizations as dynamic networks of self-organizing conversations, rather than as "systems"; and
• how the formal ‘trappings’ of organization (such as strategies, structures, systems, and so on) fit into this view that an organization is the ongoing process of people in conversation.

In this third and final post of the set, I want to look at the impact that these complex social dynamics have on the outcomes that actually emerge.

That is, if we reject the view that organizations are rationally designed systems - producing outcomes in line with managers’ formally stated intentions - what is going on instead?

A complex social process view of organizations - #2 Formal designs and informal interactions

In the previous post, I restated the central theme of Informal Coalitions - that organizations are dynamic networks of conversations.  This is in contrast to the view that organizations are “systems”, which need to be looked at and managed “as a whole”.  From the informal coalitions perspective, outcomes emerge from the self-organizing dynamics of local interaction.

So, if this is the case, how should we view the formally adopted structures, policies and processes etc, which provide the main focus of conventional management attention and systems thinking?  What part do these play in this ongoing conversational process? 

A complex social process view of organizations - #1 Dynamic conversational networks

In earlier posts, I have argued against the widely accepted position that organizations are "systems", which need to be looked at and managed ‘as a whole’.  It is easy to see why this view is popular.  It seemingly allows us, as managers, to ‘step outside’ this clearly bounded system and take control.  From the vantage point of the objective observer, we can spot and design-out the flaws that are undermining organizational performance; we can identify and pull those few ‘levers’ that will unlock the sought-after levels of performance; and we can take steps to ensure that the intended outcomes will unfold as planned.

But what if, as in the fairy tale, this particular ‘Emperor’ isn’t wearing any clothes?  What if this notion of organization as constructed by systems thinkers is as imaginary as the suit of clothes that was promised to the Emperor in the Hans Christian Andersen tale?  What are we left with?  Is it a case of all or nothing?  If we reject the idea of an organization as a system, are we left solely with individuals operating independently and acting in isolation?  Well, no!