What is the best structure to help #organisationalchange ? If interactions within #complexsystems are numerous (https://bit.ly/35ahwNR) diverse (https://bit.ly/36oHtJP), feedback loops (https://bit.ly/33MCAJx) that are never in equilibrium (https://bit.ly/35ahwNR) how do they ever become ordered and serve their purpose? To answer this, our first outcome of complex systems (https://bit.ly/3MedaWA) is spontaneity and self-organisation. Alpha males, pecking orders and social ranking amongst insects, hierarchies naturally occur with complex systems.?But the ability of people to cooperate & change seems to suffer when organisations are structured hierarchically (https://lnkd.in/dBT5UzJ4).? This seems to be because ‘lower ranked’ individuals get less ‘voice’.?The stronger the hierarchy, the less effective it is at distributing resources fairly causing distrust between lower & higher ranks. The efficiency of hierarchical bureaucratic organisations and whether they can adapt to their contexts was questioned back in the 50’s (Blau 1955; Merton 1949). But it doesn’t appear that organisations were originally conceived as hierarchies & bureaucratic. (https://bit.ly/36GAqMs). The idea of decentralisation and getting employee involvement and commitment in decision making was proposed by Paul Lawrence (1958) ?(https://bit.ly/35EfULP) who conceived organisations as ‘social systems’. Contingency theory (Lawrence & Lorsch (1969) & Burns & Stalker (1961)) suggests that organisations who cannot adapt & align their internal structure & strategy with their external environment will underperform.?They proposed "organic" forms of structure in situations of high environmental complexity and uncertainty. Balancing structure to deliver purpose while encouraging employee involvement so they can express autonomy/agency?https://bit.ly/3gT0hCF?goes back to Max Weber bases for social relations, which includes tradition (structure) self-interest (autonomy/agency) dilemma. This structure v autonomy paradox also underpins Heckschers 1994 theory of post bureaucracy. ?He suggests this paradox can be overcome through a “consensual processes that involve key stakeholders in defining shared principles”. Contrary to Heckshers view that this ‘consensual process’ hadn’t been invented, social exchange theory (dating back to & Gouldner, 1960?reciprocity theory) explains how people decide to help one another & cooperate. Is it as simple as give and take? Probably not. Social exchange assumes people are rational/functional and missed the emotional/relational side of human interaction – people ‘feel’ when they give more than they take (injustice).? It wasn’t until Colquitt et al (2013) meta-analysis (https://bit.ly/3pncWmb) that we got a more integrated & comprehensive view of how to solve the structure (distributive & procedural justice) & agency (interpersonal and informational justice) dilemma. They suggest that a just environment is an #agile one. What do you think?
Excellent post on an important topic Alex. Looking back on some of my previous engagements, what seems less evident in rolling out a major change initiative, moving from a hierarchical 'top-down' structure to a 'bottom-up' agile culture, is that it entails a dramatic shift in power structure that also leads to a type of 'role reversal' between management and frontline. The root cause for this dynamic playing out is that the frontline employees are in control of their ideas - deciding to either share them or withhold them, thereby significantly increasing their power base. Vice versa, senior & middle managers no longer can 'tell' people what to do as this would turn people off from willingly contributing. What is intriguing that both groups experience a sense of confusion as the 'leader no longer leads' and the 'frontline no longer follows'. To overcome this dilemma, senior and middle management need to be coached in tactically role model visible different behaviours that encourage participation as to showcase to the frontline that their roles have evolved. The hierarchical structure in this scenario does not 'officially' change but the interaction and roles markedly change.
The main problem with Change in a hierarchical organisation is the unreal assumption that all change needs to trickle down from the top to the bottom and that all parts of the business need to adopt the change regardless of their context, needs, demands and ways of working. So change is defined, designed and mandated centrally by the people furthest away from the work and generally furthest away from the customer. That's not to say there is no need for any centralisation - but the flow of change requirements needs to be driven from the market, through the people closest to the market who are directly meeting the needs of the customer. https://betacodex.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/BetaCodex-OrganizeForComplexity1.pdf
Patrick Hoverstadt, your idea of 'mosaic change' gives a dynamic approach to how change programmes can be structured. It also emphasises the importance of simplifying decision making processes. Maybe it uses principles of organisational justice to give structure to how those decisions are made?
@Sonder - Managementkonsult. Aktuella uppdrag: digitalisering inom Digg ?F?r?ndringsledare inom energiomst?llning.
2 年"They suggest that a just environment is an?#agile?one" - yes! Agile methods do work in complex environments, since they increase employee agency. But I wouldn't say that hierarchical systems have more structure than agile systems. They are structured differently. In agile systems, the humans are part of the system design, while hierarchical systems view the human component as only soft cogs and wheels. A structure that takes agency and free will into account is absolutely more apt to solve for complexity than a structure that assumes people are robots.