What is organizational fragmentation?

In his forward to On Dialogue by David Bohm[i], editor Lee Nichol described Bohm’s ideas on social and personal fragmentation.

               “Throughout his career as a theoretical physicist, Bohm made note of the fact that, in spite of claims to pursue the ‘truth’, scientific endeavour was often infected with personal ambition, a rigid theory, and the weight of tradition – all at the expense of creative participation toward the common goals of science. Based in part on such observations, he frequently remarked that the general lot of mankind was caught in a similar web of contradictory intentions and actions. These contradictions, he felt, lead not only to bad science, but to all variety of social and personal fragmentation. In Bohm’s view, such fragmentation cuts across cultural and geographic distinctions, pervading the whole of humanity to such an extent that we have become fundamentally acclimated to it.

               To illustrate the significance of fragmentation, Bohm often used the example of a watch that had been smashed into random pieces. These ‘pieces’ are quite different from the ‘parts’ that have gone into making the watch. The parts have an integral relationship to one another, resulting in a functioning whole. The fragments, on the other hand, have no essential relationship. Similarly, the generic thought processes of humanity incline towards perceiving the world in a fragmentary way, ‘breaking things up which are not really separate’. Such perception, says Bohm, necessarily results in a world of nations, economies, regions, value systems and selves that are fundamentally at odds with one another, despite topically successful attempts to impose social order. One primary intent of Bohm’s dialogue, then, is to shed light on the activity of this fragmentation – not only as theoretical analysis, but also as a concrete, experiential process.”

The analogy of Bohm’s ‘smashed watch’ with organizational structures is strong. At the time of design, structures are aligned with organizational purpose and linked by processes aimed at combining efficacy, effectiveness, and efficiency. But over time, particularly with larger organizations, individual adaptation takes place, usually with good intent and nearly always to accommodate a ‘local’ rather than a ‘corporate’ requirement – though, sometimes. the intent can be personally political. Whether good or bad, the consequence is the same; the functionality of the organization is compromised in terms of the original design. Experience has shown that even where rigid corporate control resists adaptation or a strong organizational development function implements re-engineering to smooth the design, change inevitably occurs and an element of dysfunction is established. This is equivalent to ‘smashing all or part of the watch’ and creates organizational fragmentation.

It can be argued, of course, that organizations must develop, adapt, change etc. because context and circumstances are constantly changing and even organizational purpose does not stay fixed for ever. The watch will always require breaking at some stage.

However, whichever situation prevails, the localized breaking or the corporate re-engineering of the watch, the consequences for the people working within and with the organization are significant in personal motivation terms, and in understanding the organizational purposes and goals and their roles within these.

Research and contemporary organizational development thinking show that the most profound way ie. one which embeds competence and effectiveness into personal style and organizational culture, to address organizational fragmentation is through dialogue, through understanding collective thinking.

At Marshall Gurney, we have developed for our clients a process of 'corporate conversing', a dialogue process for, in Bohm's words, 'shedding light on a concrete experiential process'. It is therefore a means for enhancing the quality , diversity, depth, and resilience of collective, organizational thinking - and of dealing with Organizational Fragmentation.

The Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 has not just smashed the watch, it has played havoc with whole horological collections. It is time to de-fragment our organizations.

[i] On Dialogue David Bohm, Ed. Lee Nichol, Routledge 1996, London