Three-Tiered Balance

In my previous article I spoke of those things required to ensure an organization is viable; one of those things is the concept of three-tiered balance. The overall premise is that for organizations to be effective, their subparts or components must be consistently structured and restructured; they must adapt to the internal and external environment, and they must approach a state of congruence through balance. To accomplish this, leaders and leadership balance must take precedence, but not the typical balance traditionally understood from the school playground teeter-totter. This is a different type of balance that is not linear but, rather, triangular in nature. This triangular balance derives from the notion that all organizational patterns are triadic in nature and a large proportion of organizational dilemmas reside within the boundaries of autonomy, control, and cooperation.[1] Leaders who understand the triangular nature of the universe can adapt to the turbulence that exists or is created within it.

Leaders must avoid the two-variable thinking trap[2] (e.g. efficiency versus innovation) as it only limits possibilities and opportunities. In today’s complex world, there is always a third concept necessary for complete understanding, which then allows for quality decision making. Note also that the triadic nature of the globe is rarely either-or but usually resides in the context of and.[3] Therefore, the problem of selecting innovation or efficiency is a problem of balancing the need for efficiency (control), innovation (cooperation), and creativity (autonomy). In this case, the forgotten or neglected element is the individual necessity for creativity to ensure that both efficiency and innovation are possible. Leaders today must develop a “pattern recognition” competency instead of two-variable thinking. The generic model is showcased below:

           The essence of systems thinking lies in the shift of the mind, seeing interrelationships rather than linear cause-effects and seeing processes of change rather than snapshots.[4] Using the model above the leaders of the organization then evaluate any number of data points to determine where inside the triad they think the organization should strive. For example, if Google, there is an assumption that the organization would tend to be in the upper right of the triad; while the Department of the Interior might find itself toward the bottom left. The next decision would be to determine if this was indeed the desired location for the organization to reside. 

This is not the butterfly effect, but rather it is a system for seeing totalities. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things and seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots,[5] and it has to do with context and perceptions rather than simple data and facts. This is why the focus on collaboration is essential. It allows for a wide range of perspectives on any business problem and an exponentially broadened number of possible solutions. In other words, it changes the leader’s responsibility from finding, contemplating, and resolving each possible organizational problem to asking relevant questions based on analysis of the information gathered and presented from various experts within the organization. The data gathered ensures that relevant decisions are made by those best to make them, and it makes the proper supposition that all leadership is essentially situational because the context in which leadership is exercised directly influences the decisions made and actions taken[6] and by whom. Complexity changes the things that leaders do. It no longer makes sense for leaders to be on top of all the facts and to be in control[7] as both of these items require the leader to have all the information available to them at exactly the right time while simultaneously having enough time to evaluate said information. Instead, leaders must create an atmosphere where everyone in the organization can deal with change. Moreover, the more change characterizes the business environment, the more leaders must motivate people to provide leadership as well.[8] This motivation does not come from rewards, be they extrinsic or intrinsic, nor does it even derive from a high-minded vision; it comes instead from transparent communication of the current and future situation in which the organization is operating—both the good and bad. Since context is such a significant factor affecting organizations, it is often difficult to anticipate where and how problems and opportunities may develop.

More to follow on systems thinking as strategy and as always I look forward to your thoughts on the topic. Your feedback is definitely appreciated –thanks so much. 

[1]. Keidel, Robert W. Seeing organizational patterns: A new theory and language of organizational design. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995.

[2]. Keidel, R. (1995).

[3]. Collins, James Charles, and Jerry I. Porras. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. Random House, 2005.

[4]. Peter M. Senge, “The Fifth Discipline,” Measuring Business Excellence 1, no. 3 (1997): 46–51.

[5]. Senge, P. (1997).

[6]. Hamilton Beazley, “Leadership in an Era of Hyper-Change,” Perspectives in Business (2000): 13.

[7]. Morgan, Gareth, Fred Gregory, and Cameron Roach. “Images of organization.” (1997).

[8]. Kotter, John P. “What leaders really do.” Harvard Business Review 79, no. 11 (2001): 85–98.