To what extent do your offerings as an organizational consultant, or those that you receive as a prospective client, foreground the complex social dynamics of organization and the implications of these for management practice and performance? Or are these framed instead in neatly packaged, ‘if you do this, you’ll get that’, terms?
The Challenge
Anyone who has been involved in any aspect of organization is likely to have found themselves immersed in policies, practices and procedures that are rooted in assumptions of order, predictability and control. As a result, managers have come to expect consultants to provide highly structured interventions that promise to deliver the sought-after results. No ifs. No buts. It is not difficult to understand why this might be the case, given the reality-denying “if you’ve not in control, you’re not leading” mantra that continues to disfigure management theory, and which sets unrealistic expectations of what individuals (irrespective of their formal position) can achieve independently of the actions of others. The false promise, that it is possible to know in advance what the results of a particular intervention will be, reduces anxiety, of course. And it ‘ticks all of the boxes’ in terms of what is supposed to happen, according to management orthodoxy.
Under this formulation, if complexity is acknowledged at all, it is typically positioned as something that ‘proper management’ will cure. So, escaping from this pattern, and working from a position which is congruent with the social complexity of organization, is anything but straightforward. This is despite the fact that, as ‘walking case studies’ of these dynamics in action, managers are generally aware that the formally endorsed view of organization and management practice is far removed from their everyday lived experience.
What makes this task more difficult still, is the fact that consultants are faced with similar pressures to be seen to conform to the established discourse. Not least, to increase their chances of securing work. And so, for those consultants who do understand the inherent complexity of organization, this can present them with an ethical dilemma: Do they expose the falsity of the generally accepted ‘truths’ on which management orthodoxy is based? Or do they collude with the anxiety-reducing – but illusory – narrative that continues to dominate conventional thinking and practice?
Taking Complexity Seriously
In the context of organization and management practice, taking complexity seriously means adopting a radically social view of all aspects of organization, from the individual identities of those involved to the widespread interplay of their interactions. in brief, this includes:
- recognizing that people are interdependent, enabled and constrained in everything they do by the actions, inactions and interactions of everybody else;
- accepting that everyone is acting forwards, moment to moment, into a continuously emerging and unknowable future…
- … a future which they are perpetually creating together, through the widespread interplay of their ‘local’ (i.e. small-group and one-to-one) interactions;
- understanding that self-organization and emergence are fundamental dynamics of the ongoing process of organization, which are just as much ‘at play’ in a so-called “command and control” regime as they are in one based, say, on empowered self-management;
- recognizing that the self-organizing nature, and pattern-maximizing tendency, of people’s ongoing interactions are, at one and the same time, both the essence of organization (enabling people to go on together) and natural inhibitors of change;
- embracing the paradoxical, ‘both A and B at the same time’, nature of organization, in which seemingly contradictory conditions are simultaneously present – neither of which can be eliminated or otherwise dealt with through supposedly decisive, either-or thinking;
- acknowledging the situatedness and path-dependency of people’s coming together, which renders notions of generalized ‘best practice’ prescriptions meaningless as universally applicable blueprints for action;
- rehabilitating talk, power and politics as natural dynamics of human interaction, out of which organization (in all of its forms) is continuously (re-)emerging; and,
- accepting that managers can act with intent, but that neither they nor anyone else can be certain as to what will emerge in practice from any particular action.
It also means seeing complexity as both the product and process of these interactional dynamics, not as another way of saying that something is excessively complicated. Although the perceived complicatedness of any situation will vary according to the perceptions and relevant expertise of those involved, complexity is an ever-present and irreducible characteristic of everyday human interaction. Whereas some people might dismiss a specific ‘technical’ challenge as excessively complicated and beyond their competence, others will view it as simple and straightforward. In all cases, though, those involved would be participating within the same complex social process of relating, within which there are no ‘levels’ of complexity. This is the case today. And it always has been the case.
So, whilst managers are formally in charge of particular aspects of organizational practice and performance, they are not – indeed, cannot be - in control of what emerges from the complex interplay of people’s ongoing exchanges. And nor, of course, can consultants.
The Consultancy Challenge
In light of the above, the following diagram is intended to act as a challenge to consultants (and other specialist practitioners) to frame their practice within an explicit recognition of the complex social dynamics of human interaction. Dynamics within which they and everyone else are continuously participating [1].
Understanding the Context
All consultancy work is context-dependent. Most experienced consultants will accept the need to get to grips with the specific, task-related context within which the consultancy (or other specialist support) is being provided and to shape their intervention accordingly. Taking complexity seriously though, also demands an understanding of, and engagement with, the hidden, messy and informal dynamics of the consultancy intervention. These are shown here as relating to the reasons behind the engagement (both explicit and hidden); the roles one is expected, or might need, to perform (both formal and informal); and the relationships involved – including both the surface-level, contractual linkages, and those that reflect the real-world ‘messiness’ of organization, such as the partial, power-related and political dynamics of everyday human interaction.
As discussed in The Wiggly World of Organization, these factors come into play from the moment that the consultant first interacts with the client. So, they must begin by recognizing that – like everyone else – they are always acting into ongoing situations. People don’t wait for consultants to give meaning and direction to their work before moving forward. They are continually making sense of what’s going on, and acting into the world as they see it; doing so both habitually and with conscious intent. In this way, as mentioned above, organization is continuously (re-)emerging in people’s moment-to-moment interactions.
The work of the consultant is therefore necessarily subject to all of the shadow-side dynamics of organization (e.g. power-related and political exchanges; informal ‘get the job done’ interactions; social relationships and gossip; cultural patterning of behaviour; individual idiosyncrasies; and so on). These are intimately interwoven with the openly acknowledged aspects of organizational life and are therefore central to any meaningful consultancy engagement.
Shifting the Patterns
Against this background, the overt task can be thought of as one of enabling those directly involved to shift their perspectives, practices and performance in ways that are judged to be beneficial. As well as encouraging, assisting and enabling them to mobilize active coalitions of support more widely behind the sought-after shifts in these dimensions of organizational behaviour. Clearly, attention might be focused on a specific aspect of organization or management practice. Or it might extend to a broader consideration of organizational design or development. In all cases, though, taking complexity seriously is about helping people to become so immersed in the Whys, Whats and Hows, etc. of their practice that, when the ‘real world’ happens (as a result of their own and everyone else’s participation in it) they are better placed to deal with whatever emerges; rather than what might have emerged, if the real world had been kind enough to comply with the planning assumptions.
Paying Attention to the Quality of One’s Own Participation
In pursuit of the above, it is essential for consultants to ensure that their own perspectives, practices and performance remain congruent both with the nature and demands of the specific, context-dependent intervention and with the underlying dynamics of organization – out of which whatever happens, happens. This means their avoiding the indiscriminate and mechanistic application of so-called “best practice” prescriptions and other, supposedly universal, ‘plug and play’ tools and techniques. Instead, the specifics of their intervention should reflect an in-depth understanding of the situation (both as-presented aspects and relevant shadow themes), gained through meaningful interactions with those involved; coupled with the pragmatic application of complexity-congruent practices.
This brings to the fore the consultant’s capability to understand, and deal expertly with, the situation in which they are immersed; including both the techno-rational aspects of the specific intervention and the development and deployment of certain capabilities that are congruent with the complex social reality of organization. Committing fully to the engagement requires them to see capability in terms of having the motive, means and opportunity to excel, within the specific context (reasons, roles and relationships) in which they are participating.
The credibility of the consultant (or other specialist) – as judged by the client manager and relevant others - is always central to the quality of their participation. This is particularly the case here, though, where the stance being adopted fundamentally challenges the established view of organization and management practice and calls on participants to take complexity seriously.
Framing One’s Involvement
The main thrust of the argument that I’m presenting here is the need for consulting practice to be framed in ways that foreground the complex social dynamics of real-world organization. First, this means raising people’s awareness and understanding of complexity, as this applies to the social process of everyday human interaction (and hence organization). A process in which they and everyone else – including consultants themselves – are perpetually involved. Secondly, it is about highlighting the centrality of conversation to people’s everyday enactment of organization; and, by implication, its role as the primary ‘action tool’ through which managers are performing their leadership and management tasks (whether knowingly or otherwise!). And, thirdly, although managers are formally in charge of particular aspects of organization, recognizing that neither they nor anyone else are in control of what emerges from this interactional process.
Drawing on philosopher Alan Watts’s description of the world at large [2], I refer to these complex social dynamics as the “wiggliness” of organization. This is intended to provide a stark contrast to the ‘linear’ view that dominates conventional thinking and practice. The latter implies an ability to predict and control what will happen, provided that managers do things ‘better’ and get them ‘right’ according to the latest prescription.
Muddling through together
Overall, then, up-front recognition of the real-world wiggliness of organization means that consultants and clients (indeed, all of us!) have no option but to muddle through these complex social dynamics of human interaction. And to do so together – whether expertly or otherwise.
Muddling through is a natural response to the unavoidable wiggliness of human interaction – whilst, at the same time, contributing to it. No one can choose whether or not to muddle through, any more than they can decide whether or not they want the world to be wiggly. It just is wiggly. And they have no option but to muddle through. We’re not talking here about simply muddling along. Or a muddle-headed approach to life. It’s about being resourceful, using one’s practical judgement, and adopting a pragmatic approach to deal with whatever emerges.
Expert practice is then about seeking to do this with purpose, courage and skill. In the consulting context, and taking complexity seriously, this means:
- Seeing the purpose of the intervention as being both to shift the patterns of people’s perspectives, practices and performance and, at the same time, to do so in ways that raise people’s ability to engage effectively with the complex social dynamics of organization. Doing this deliberately (on purpose); with determination (purposefully); and in contingently useful ways, as the future is emerging (purposively).
- Acting with courage, in challenging management orthodoxy; actively engaging in the real-world messiness; not seeking refuge in rigidly applied, ‘do this and you’ll get that’ methodologies; and, as argued by Ralph Stacey, having the courage to go on participating creatively, despite not knowing.
- Performing with skill: adopting a “parallel practice” orientation to the role (open/shadow, self/other, etc.); developing, and deploying complexity-congruent capabilities; imaginatively making do with whatever knowledge, ideas, resources, etc. are available to deal with the inherent complexities and uncertainties; and pragmatically applying elements of a personally resonant “practice theory”, gained through reflection on their own experience and the appropriate integration and adaptation of others’ perspectives.
__________________
[1] This reflects the arguments set out in Chapter 7 of The Wiggly World of Organization – Muddling through with purpose, courage and skill.
[2] Watts, A. (2009) The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are. Souvenir Press Ltd.
Comments