informal coalitions

Why escaping the chains of the dominant management discourse is proving difficult

Ralph Stacey has argued that a fundamental factor in the global financial crisis has been widespread adherence to a management discourse that bears little relationship to people's everyday experience of organizational life (see here). Despite a continuing gap between theory and practice, the view persists that a generalized set of rational, scientific principles can be identified and applied to organizations. As a result, the expectation that organizational outcomes can be predicted and controlled, based on rational analysis and formal processes, continues to dominate managers’ practice, consultants’ offerings and mainstream management publications.

So why does this unhelpful pattern persist?

As I’ve suggested elsewhere, when the sought-after benefits fail to materialize this is most often blamed on poor implementation rather than unsound thinking. That is, the above discourse contains within it the expectation that shortfalls will occur during implementation.  Perversely, then, failure confirms its validity. It is part of what managers take for granted and ‘know’ to be true. By adopting a “do it better and get it right” stance to implementation, failure is rationalized as a problem with execution and the flawed assumptions remain to fight another day.

But there is also a further characteristic of the complex dynamics of social interaction that, paradoxically, tends to reinforce the dominant management discourse. This is the ability – and often the motivation - that exists post-event to explain outcomes in ways that imply the existence of rationality, predictability and control.  Below, I’ve set out three contrasting examples of organizational dynamics, all of which fall foul of this tendency.

Enabling people to excel - remembering Sid's Heroes

In the mid-1990s, the BBC broadcast a series of six half-hour programmes entitled Sid’s Heroes.  This featured workers from a range of organizations (the “heroes”) who had been challenged to improve the effectiveness of a central aspect of their work, using techniques introduced in two-day workshops by management consultant Sid Joynson.  Sid suggested that a 30% increase in productivity was readily achievable in the chosen processes. And, based on the evidence of the shows, his confidence was well-founded. 

Sadly, on a couple of occasions, crass comments by managers in response to the workers’ findings undermined the work that had been done.  But Sid’s insistence that “the experts” in relation to the work processes were in the room with him, not in the management offices, was well demonstrated.  I recall trying to buy a copy of the series from the BBC – on VHS(!) – but it was never made available for purchase.

Informal coalitions and viral change

In the previous post, I commented on Leandro Herrero's latest book Homo Imitans, which provides further insights into his Viral Change^TM approach to organizational change. As I stated in my review, I agree with many of the things in it. For example, I share Herrero’s insistence that change doesn’t happen unless and until people ‘do’ things differently (although what constitutes “doing” might be up for debate). In Informal Coalitions, I also echo the importance he places on peer-to-peer influence; the powerful dynamics of organizational (i.e. social) networks; and the need for a different view of the leadership task (although, again, we might differ on what that different view might be).  I wholeheartedly agree, though, how easily the momentum for change can be derailed where managers insist on applying the full panoply of textbook ‘tools and techniques’ to ‘manage’ the process.  Herrero cites such things as formal, spreadsheet-based reviews; KPIs to measure the extent of interaction; bonuses for the “change agents” (who sit at the heart of his Viral Change^TM methodology); and so on, as sure-fire ways to undermine the process. Amen to that.

Crucial differences

So, there is much about Herrero’s description of “Viral Change^TM in action” that meshes with my own informal coalitions perspective.  At the same time, there are some important differences that I want to highlight.