The Problem With 'The Organization'

There is a problem in the way we talk about organizations.

The problem occurs any time we talk about the organization as an agent, as in "It is the organization's responsibility..." or "The organization doesn't support...".

An organization can't have agency, or responsibility, or intention. The organization can't do anything.

Anthropomorphizing the Organization

We refer to our organizations as if they were people who decided and did things, as part of a larger pattern of how we use language in the technocratic, hyper-rational world that serves the powerful and their management class.

It works like this.

First you co-opt a word or phrase by turning it into something you 'own'; into a weapon or tool. Think of Francis Loyola's demand that only adherents of the Roman church could be Evangelists. Or of free-market capitalists or the anti-vaccine movement have a legitimate right to the word freedom (e.g. Canada's Freedom Convoy).

Second, you hollow out as much of the meaning as you can so that, third, you can load it up with the meaning you want to use it for. Consider the success of ultra-conservatives and racists in co-opting and then inverting the word woke.

In this, the co-option isn't the victory. Hollowness is the victory. When you have scooped the viscera out of the language, any identifying marks, any common sense, any memory or lived experience, any unironic emotion, is gone. The word you have taken over is now an empty powerful multi-purpose delivery vehicle you can fill in any way you want.

Using the new hollow language creates a useful fog of meaningless-that-feels-meaningful; think 'work-life-balance' or 'quiet quitting' or even 'employee engagement'.

Twisting language in this way also serves the technocratic elite as it ensures we focus our energies on fighting about the meaning of a word, not the real, original problem; exactly what those who benefit from invisibility, require. No racism here to worry about, just keep arguing about the word woke.

Further, the hollow language can be loaded with any meaning you want. When you own it, the word Freedom can mean anything you want it to, from amoral libertarianism to escape from a political dictatorship to market deregulation. Load it however you like. You own it.

(Almost) None of this is Intentional!

It is important to make it clear that there is no conspiracy. There is no cabal. Not in this space. As Jacques Ellul in The Technological Society , Vanessa Machado de Oliveira in Hospicing Modernity , or John Ralston Saul in Voltaire's Bastards , all share in one way or another: this is simply the inevitable outcome of a long sequence of decisions and behaviours that go back hundreds of years. It is the product of the acceptance by millions of people that rationality, efficiency, growth and consumption are intrinsically valuable and necessarily exclusive of all other ways of being in the world (or managing an organization).

Now, it is true that from time to time you may get an actor, say McKinsey & Co (yes, I'm aware I just assigned agency to a corporation), which becomes aware of these dynamics and intentionally manipulates them to further its own ends. But that is just cynical opportunism, not a conspiracy.

Why is this a Problem?

So if there's no conspiracy, and 'everyone's doing it', what's the problem?

The problem is it keeps us from solving real, root problems.

It is misdirection, unintentional or not, conscious or not.

It is what the professional magician knows how to do in their sleep: keep your eye over here while the switch is happening over there. It is the illusion that we are talking about, or fighting about, something important.

Why do we buy into it if it is problematic and no one is forcing us to do it?

Because its safe.

Back to Organizations

We do it to stay comfortable. Because this is where it gets uncomfortable.

If it isn't the organization, what, or who, should we be looking at? Who, or what, does have agency?

People have agency. You. Me. Leaders. Managers.

It is a person; or a small group of people. They eat lunch, they have families, they have jobs. They are your managers, your executives, your board. At the darker end of the spectrum, It is people with power who want the loosest possible relationship with accountability; people who don't want to change anything if it change costs them anything, or if it makes them uncomfortable.

We are the organization.

The things that we say organizations (corporations, governments) are doing to the planet, to communities, to employees, are being done by people.

Organizations don't have, for example, low safety standards. Human beings, individuals, have low safety standards. Let's stop using hollow language and start connecting actions to actors.

What do we do about it?

There are four steps to changing the way we talk, and consequently the way we act, to set ourselves up for addressing the 'actual' issues with real people in our organizations.

Get real - Foster accountability

As a leader or manager, this must start with you. Work with your colleagues and perhaps a facilitator to 're-place' yourselves in the center of accountability for the decisions that have been made and how they were operationalized throughout the organization. This is the necessary step of dealing with the "I", of self-reflection, before we try to enroll others. These events/conversations should be a time to be radically accountable for failures and for successes. No false humility, just real humility. If the leader-humans of an organization won't take this step, why would anyone else?

Get clear - Establish clear roles and responsibilities

My favourite tool for this is the RACI matrix. I like it because of two 'features': The requirement that you can only put one name in the Accountability ('A') function of any area of the organization; and the requirement that you address the communication within every area in the Consult ("C") and Inform ("I") functions of the matrix.

Make it safe to be candid

Anthropomorphizing 'the organization' is ducking for cover. It is a way of staying safe/invisible for team members and for leaders. It is a form of the elided speech of some cultures where you cant' tell a superior there might be a problem as it will cause 'loss of face' for them. Learn together how to become candid. Make it safe to call things as they are and attach names. Read anything by Amy Edmondson on this, and read Ed Catmull's Creativity Inc ., the best book written on nurturing organizational candor.

Normalize being critical

Model questioning assumptions and challenging the status quo, respectfully but transparently. Understand the thinking behind the Toyota 5-whys approach. This can help build the muscles and instincts to dive 'under' any statement, decision, assumption or action, where language is being misused or manipulated (usually unintentionally and unconsciously) and address the 'actual' underlying issues. It is likely your people will need training and coaching in this. Provide it. If you are serious about a culture of improvement, this is an investment you must make.

What else we've been and talking about

Today’s management-speak has a lot in common with 1930s Soviet propaganda—and it’s making people miserable [from Forbes]

The Toxic Culture Gap Shows Companies Are Failing Women [from MIT Sloan]

Managing External Contributors in Workforce Ecosystems [from MIT Sloan]

The failure of management to manage [from Scott Beaton]

Helping Others at Work Without Burning Out [from MIT Sloan]

From Glass Ceilings to Glass Cliffs: A Guide to Jumping, Not Falling [from MIT Sloan]

Job, Career, or Purpose? [from MIT Sloan]

Thank you for reading.

If this is interesting or valuable to you, please subscribe. To keep up with other conversations on better organizations, check out my profile, and click the bell to follow.

Clemens Rettich