Belief and Relational Structure: Mikado Game
Introduction
This is the fourth article in a five-part series on belief and relational structures using three metaphors. The metaphor for this belief and relational structure is "The Mikado Game." The Mikado Game is also known as, “Pickup Sticks.”? A bunch of sticks are in a cylinder and the player turns the cylinder upside down and dumps the sticks out. Some of the sticks will be loose and unattached, and some will be stacked and, therefore, “dependent,” on another stick. The metaphor is not about how the game is played (though it can provide an understanding of change processes) but a way to illustrate the structure and characteristics of the belief and relational structure, Relational Freedom and Responsibility. In this article, we will be exploring the characteristics of the Relational Freedom and Responsibility belief and relational structure typology using the Mikado Game metaphor.
Belief Structure
Looking at the Mikado Game metaphor, one can see the belief and relational structure as a loose connection of beliefs. Some beliefs are either unattached, attached, or "buried." The attached and/or buried beliefs may act as dependent or independent variables, acting as a hinge (Gonzalez-Castan, 2013) for other beliefs.?A hinge is a belief that is connected to another for validation. In the game of pickup sticks, one must move one stick (the hinge) in order to be able to move another.?Buried beliefs could be considered assumptions whereby the organization is unaware of them until they are disturbed by some event that also disturb the beliefs above or beliefs connected to it.?Some buried beliefs will not change until they are unhinged from other beliefs to be “pushed” out to the perimeter where they are willingly “let go.”? In a way, it is similar to the nest whereby if one wants to impact the belief structure, one must begin with the fringe before one is able to reach the middle.
An example of this comes from Christianity. Biblical scripture may be interpreted literally. As long as it is interpreted literally, beliefs like creationism or the story of Noah's Arch, will not change because the beliefs are determined by the belief that the Bible is literally true. These structures can be highly complex or very simple.
In the Mikado Game-type organizational belief structure, the people are given a lot of autonomy.? Beliefs are minimally controlled. There are not a lot of (if any) behavior and belief expectations, and so there is little conformity.?The organization allows for a great deal of diversity. People are allowed to be “who they are,” and so people are free to be able to bring their unique gifts and perspectives into the organization.?There is also a lot of transparency and so there are few, if any, assumptions in the culture. All members are brought into the decision-making process, which creates a great deal of autonomy within the group setting (Sherif & Sherif, 1953).
Key positive features of this type of belief structure is it’s flexibility (ability of beliefs to change), relatively unstructured (maybe even chaotic) shape, adaptability (Heifetz & Laurie, 2011), malleable due to the space between the sticks, and its embrace of diversity. The embrace of diversity is a key aspect because one can slip a new belief into the structure and it could be embraced and incorporated into the organization’s belief structure.? Flexibility allows the organization to respond to outside forces and easily change or adapt.? A wide variety of belief differences may also help the organization grow and develop in new ways through utilizing the creative and generative forces of its members. Furthermore, Although there may be many hinges that would make beliefs challenging and difficult, the structure is forgiving.
A possible negative to the Mikado belief structure is that the organization may be seen as being uncontrolled, unpredictable, and having no shape or form, and so one might think that the organization does not believe in anything concrete and the organization has no real conviction or stance. Also, when an organization feels threats, experiences problems or conflicts, or when the organization grows larger, it may experience a mobius cycle and institute power and control systems to maintain its unique structure, qualities, and characteristics, which results in being re-formed into a nest or a string belief structure.
Relational Structure
In the Mikado Game metaphor each individual, with their different belief structures, is loosely connected or indirectly connected.?This loose relationship also means that there may be a high diversity of beliefs that include social, cultural, racial, and economic differences, which increases diversity in ideas and encourages creativity. The loose relationship also means that there is limited or minimal control factors present, whereby each member of the organization is free or autonomous and therefore responsible for the relationship. The assertion is not that one is responsible for the entire relationship, but that one is responsible for one’s part (its quality, characteristics, and dynamics) of the relationship (Kegan & Lahey, 2016).
In the Mikado Game-type of organization, where there is relational freedom and responsibility, one may think the organization may lack form and function, but that would be inaccurate.?The organization is bound together for different reasons than the nest or string-type organizations. Instead of being bound together by power and control factors embedded in the beliefs, social, culture, or organizational system, the organization is bound together by common intrinsic fluid elements which all members share.?This suggests that the structure is similar to a “clan” as described by Ouchi (1980), that have a high degree of goal congruence brought about by high socialization and through high inclusion.?Similarly, it may be a superordinate goal whereby diversity is accepted for the sake of a goal or identity that everyone is invested and bound to accomplish. Such superordinate goals may be used to resolve the conflicts that can result from diversity (Ashturk, 2017).? Thus, elements that holds the relationship together vary. Yet, in this particular relational structure, because high diversity is present, the goal of the group may not be the only element at play.? A unifying element may also be the relationship itself.
One might also think that the relationships are weaker in this relational structure, but that is not true. In fact, the relationship requires great strength and resilience for its maintenance.? Lower power and control means that integrity and trust take priority.? Integrity is doing what is right because it is right, and not because someone is monitoring?behavior. Trust takes time, but in this relational structure, there is an openness knowing that such trust may be used and violated.?There may be failure, but failure is expected and there may be a willingness to accept failure and to repair the relationship over and over through forgiveness and grace. Such a relationship may be appealing and be a unifying factor.
Characteristics
An organization that reflects the Relational Freedom and Responsibility typology may be considered an open system.? For example, considering the Mikado Game metaphor, one can see how a stick (new belief, idea, or person) can be placed into or removed from the structure, thereby affecting the belief and relational structure of the whole.?Such intrusion into the organization’s culture is welcomed and expected. In other words, a Relational Freedom and Responsibility organizational structure, by virtue of its flexibility, is open to belief and relational influences.?The organization is never satisfied with the status quo and looks to others to influence it and help it grow.?The removal or intrusion of a belief may be an adjusting element that may challenge present organization practices, norms, values, and ethics. The organization is willing to incorporate the new information and reform.? The possibilities of a conflict is common when an individual finds him/herself within two conflicting groups and is torn between the loyalty towards two belief and relational structures whose values and beliefs he/she cannot reconcile (Sherif & Cantril, as cited by Ashturk, 2017).
An example of the characteristics of a Mikado Game-type of organization is Makarenko’s Gorky Colony, which was a school that functioned as a juvenile delinquent center. Makarenko created a place of “common life” in which everyone participated in the life of the school as administrators, teachers, and students (a reflection of the Spring Approach).?You will notice that it was not hierarchical but egalitarian.?Everyone shared roles.?They all also shared common hardships of poverty, common activities, and the reward and consequences.?The shared community spirit of working and living together transformed the adolescents.?They stopped their stealing, drinking, and gambling behaviors.?They were transformed into responsible citizens.?The change was not due to enforcement through punishment but “through active participation and by being a valuable part of a meaningful universe in which one’s effort contributes to [the] well-being of collective and in turn to personal well-being” (Ashturk, 2017, p. 65).?
While one may consider that the change was due to the group complying with what was expected (which Sherif’s view suggests) or the consequence (punishment) and reward control factors, one could also construe that the unique characteristics allowed for the development of the relationships whereby conflicts could be resolved based on superordinate goals which all the students shared, and the group found a way to resolve its differences and work together in a collaborative way (Raines, 2012). In other structures, the differences would serve as barriers. However, in this belief and relational structure, the ability to have unity midst the diversity through flexibility is a key attribute.
Within the example, one also sees weaker power and control dynamics within the organization. Power is distributed whereby nobody has power or control over anyone. This aspect is terrifying, and one may wonder how such an organization can function due to its feelings of helplessness and uncertainty. Yet, the lack of power and control over the process and outcomes are central to the person-center approach that allows an organization (and its members) to grow into the height of its potential. The organization operates out of trust in the relationships and the learning and development process. Every failure, conflict, and struggle is the normal work of arriving at the constructive work of converting and unifying interests, needs, and goals. This is what makes this belief and relational structure so rare. Power and control usurps the struggle, the conflict, the difficulties, the patience, and energy to do the work. In other words, the people in the organization wants a quick resolution of the conflict (Mayer, 2009). In organizations that exhibit the Mikado Game-type belief and relational structure, the organization stays with the conflict and does the work necessary for the function of the organization while furthering organizational (and individual) development and growth. Therefore, the differences, and the developmental conflict that results from such differences, are beneficial to the growth and development of the organization's relationships and work.
As with all relationally-centered organizations, the organization has a highly efficient communication system. As the Mikado Game illustrates, when necessary, there is tremendous flexibility to adjust, optimizing itself for speed and efficiency without sacrificing equity and inclusion.
Sorokin (1962) notes that this particular social construct has high homogeneity. This does not mean that everyone is alike or people coalesce into a single "type," but the members are united in caring about and for each other and the organization-sometimes to the point of being willing to give up their own self-interests and goals for the other. They realize that everyone is inter-dependent. To hurt another is to hurt themselves, and to care for each other and for the organization is to also care for themselves.
In an egalitarian social construct all inequalities are resisted. For example, because knowledge can create inequalities, education is shared across the organization. The organization functions much like a Community of Practice (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) whereby knowledge and skills are shared in order to equally build and develop each person in the organization. However, the knowledge base does not become a storehouse for assumptions but a repository for experiences whose cumulative and growing knowledge is used to blaze new trails across the "neural net."
Summary
The Mikado Game-type illustrates the Relational Freedom and Responsibility belief and relational structure whereby members take responsibility, invest in, and work on the relationship in order to get anything accomplished. Forsaking the responsibility is handing over to others power and control for the life of the person and the organization. So, the work is learning, growing, and developing the relational skills along side the technical skills necessary to function within the organization. This requires developing the qualities that gives life to the relationship (there are 32), understanding the qualities that negatively affects relationships (there are 22), and developing emotional intelligence. It also requires everyone to take responsibility for the organization's work of participating in the developing of each other while engaged in its work. Work is not separate in this development but is an integral part of the life of the organization.
Wrought with complexities, the Mikado Game-type organization is challenging and stretches the traditional organizational framework into the unknown and radical. Like the Mikado Game, each organization is different, uncontrolled, wild, unpredictable, and filled with conflict-as are all relationships. People who want a more controlling atmosphere will feel helpless within it. Others will enjoy the freedom, status-free, and adventurous environment that allows them full creative and developmental support to be their best selves.
References
Ashturk, E. (2017). Muzafer Sherif in America: Confidence, Crisis, and Beyond. In Norms, Groups, Conflict, and Social Change: Rediscovering Muzafer Sherif’s Psychology (pp. 55–88).? Routledge.
Gonzalez-Castan, Oscar, L. (2013). The nest structure of our belief system and its consequences. Wittgenstein Studien. 4(1), 65–94.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (2011). The work of leadership. In On Leadership (pp. 57–78). Harvard Business Review Press.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2016). An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Mayer, B. (2009). Staying With Conflict: A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Disputes. Jossey-Bass.
Raines, S. S. (2012).?Conflict management for managers: Resolving workplace, client, and policy disputes. John Wiley & Sons.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Some effects of power relations in molding opinion and behavior. The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 33(4), 287–296.
Sorokin, P. A. (1962). Society, Culture, and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). A Guide to Managing Knowledge: Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business Press.