Tag Archives: leadership

Monolithic and Holographic Organizations

by on February 18, 2008 in Business

At first, I was just going to make a short comment at Ben Martin’s blog on his latest post concerning organizations and branding. Yet, the more I thought about it and started writing I realized this is a blog post in its own right. Putting aside the dialogue on marketing, the central theme of the post is the organization as a monolithic or holographic entity. Now if you’re thinking, “I’m not interested in organizational theory and similar crap, why should I care?”…give me a second and I’ll show you why this may matter to your everyday working life.

Organization as monolith (aka no one is the organization)
This is the old-school version that no matter how much folks try to kill it, it just won’t die. It’s a vestige of our industrial society past where the top controlled everything and the workers underneath were just happy to not have their arm chewed off by the machinery that day. This concept was further set in stone with the idea of the blindly loyal organization man. In this case, the worker and newly formed middle manager were just happy to not have their head chewed off by the boss that day.

Unfortunately, the monolith as organizational model hasn’t passed into history despite the increasing evidence that it no longer serves a purpose to either the individuals working within it or the folks on the outside who purchase its services and products. How do you know whether you’re working for or dealing with a monolithic organization? Here are a few clues:

  • The monolith talks at people
  • The monolith sees people as things
  • The monolith sets rules above relationships
  • The monolith creates narrowly defined roles for people

If you see something strongly resembling an engineering mindset here, that’s not by accident. The monolithic organization is built around notions of efficiency, practicality, economy, and order. These are precisely the kinds of things that folks at the top of organizations want because they believe it makes their jobs easier. All of which is pretty much crap.

Organization as hologram (aka each person is the organization)
For us organizational leaders who understand that the 21st century calls for a different paradigm, we’re driving the movement from the concept of one to concept of the many. The power and control that used to be jealously guarded at the top is being dispersed downward and sideways to the point where the whole fixed hierarchical dynamic has become blurred and increasingly useless.

Rather than viewing an organization as a bland, uniform, static structure, consider the organization as a hologram. Within a holographic image, each section contains a complete image of the original object. So the real beauty of the holographic perspective is acknowledging that the organization is a vibrant collection of all the individuals within it. It recognizes that each individual is fully reflected in the whole. The organization is the individual and the individual is the organization. The interests of each individual and the organization are interconnected and interdependent.

This approach offers a more human organization. Coming back to the marketing and branding conversation that got this whole subject started for me, it means that there’s not one message but scores of messages that define the organization. Each person brings their own stories and relationships to the anthology that is today’s organization. And these stories evolve as the people within the organization learn, grow, and change.

Let’s recap…
If your organization is monolithic, what’s that getting you right now? Employees who give a damn about their work? Doubtful. Customers who want to buy from you? Maybe. Customers who are passionately loyal? Probably not. Just keep asking yourself what’s the price of control and what will it cost you to keep a tight hold on something that is only going to slip through your fingers eventually?

Creating Great Ands – Your Opposable Mind At Work

by on October 4, 2007 in Work

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Chocolate and Peanut Butter

Moe, Larry and Curly

And so on, and so on…

Each of these are fine on their own. However, when one is added to another, a great alchemical melding occurs. It’s the integration of unique things into something quite different.

Too many times we limit ourselves and our choices by placing an ‘or’ between our options. Why not choose an ‘and’ instead? Because it’s just not that easy to do, particularly in the world of management and business. We like our options to be neat, our decisions to be orderly, our outcomes to be quick and well-defined. Yet this more logical and rational preference costs us more than we realize. It cheats us of our potential. Do you think Moe would be half as hilarious if Curly wasn’t there? And while chocolate is very good, the addition of peanut butter takes it to a whole other level (okay, that may just be for me).

I used to be an ‘or’ kind of guy. If someone gave me a choice between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, I’d make a rational choice between the two options. Then my dear wife entered my life and introduced the power of ‘and.’ When presented the same choices, she’d always reply, “Both.” The first few times she did it, I would say, “Wait, you have to make a decision.” Her response? “Why should I? I like both and they taste better together.” Guess what? She’s right. And by choosing an integrative solution she’s modeling a process that is essential in today’s business world.

One of the most influential articles I’ve read in Harvard Business Review was from the June 2007 issue and titled How Successful Leaders Think by Roger Martin. The article is a prelude to his book, The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking, coming out in December 2007. His primary argument is built around the idea of an opposable mind. Like the genetic advantages we gain through our opposable thumbs (like holding a pencil, lifting large stone blocks, and catching a ride with strangers), we have an immense capacity to create new options through an opposable mind. Yet, we often veer toward the shallow compromises of an ‘or’ decision because of the mirage of comfort it yields. Martin writes:

We often don’t know what to do with fundamentally opposing and seemingly incommensurable models. Our first impulse is usually to determine which of the two models is “right” and, by the process of elimination, which is “wrong.” We may even take sides and try to prove that our chosen model is better than the other one. But in rejecting one model out of hand, we miss out on all the value that we could have realized by considering the opposing two at the same time and finding in the tension clues to a superior model. By forcing a choice between the two, we disengage the opposable mind before it can seek a creative resolution.

The next time you’re presented with two or more options, don’t be too quick in choosing one over all the others. Take a bit more time to play with the healthy tension between the ideas and follow the steps that Martin offers:

  1. Start by acknowledging that everything is relevant at the beginning. Rather than quickly dismissing what seems trivial or unnecessary, welcome the complexity of the situation. It’s from this place that the best answers will emerge.
  2. Consider how things are connected. Instead of choosing a path and immediately racing in one direction, take a step back and look at the whole situation. Find relationships, question assumptions, get curious about other possibilities.
  3. Take a systemic approach to making a decision. Martin suggests that we see “the entire architecture of the problem – how the various parts of it fit together, how one decision will affect another…The order in which you make these decisions will affect the outcome.”
  4. Achieve resolution by refusing the simple and segmented “either/or” model which only leads to compromised trade-offs and conventional options. Appreciate the natural tensions between conflicting ideas and seek a solution that creatively assembles the best of each option.

Yes, this might appear to be more difficult and more time-consuming. But if you truly want to differentiate yourself, your team, or your organization, then do something that few others are willing to do. When a problem arises today, get curious and wonder, “Wow! what would it be like if we put these different things together?” Don’t be surprised if it leads to some interesting solutions.

If you’ve seen the power of ‘and’ in your decisions, start a dialogue here and share your story.

Connecting To Work That Matters

by on September 24, 2007 in Work

As I wrap up for this Monday evening, I keep coming back to an idea that is fairly simple, yet ever so easy for managers to forget. It’s the idea of matter. No, not dark matter hanging out in the cosmos or grey matter hanging out between our ears.

It’s the idea that employees want work that matters.

It’s the idea that employees want to matter.

We all want to feel that who we are and what we do is significant. In the crazy busy world of business, these feelings can get lost in the shuffle of meeting deadlines, making client calls, and other everyday activities. Yet, without being in touch with what matters, we tend to just go through the motions.

Leader managers have a unique role to fill by helping their folks connect with these deep and significant qualities. As a manager…if you don’t already know these things…take some time today to dialogue with your staff and find out what really matters to them.

And take some time to answer: What really matters to you? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

You Can Lead Employees To Change, But You Can’t Make Them Do It

by on September 11, 2007 in Work

I’ll openly admit that I’m not always the best employee. It all relates to a stubborn streak that I inherited from both my mother’s and father’s sides of the family (though Baileys and Garretts often claim the other is worse). The things is that I like to do things my way. I often bristle if someone tells me what I should do, if they tell me the best way it can be done, if they tell me that my way isn’t going to work. See…telling me just isn’t going to work. I’m just going to have to learn on my own. Sometimes it’s a strength and sometimes it’s a curse. Perhaps that’s why Paul Williams’ recent napkin idea on change resonates with me. He offers this quote from Marty Neumeier:

People do like change.
What they don’t like is being changed.

What I like is the simplicity of this idea. In two sentences, he’s able to clearly define why organizational change initiatives fail. Too often, change initiatives are built in black boxes and then sprung on employees. Executives deliver the news which is laden with directives detailing what we’re doing and how we’re going to do it. Great…now prepare to go down in flames. Why? Because the assumption is that change is a rational process that moves in a linear pattern. But what happens when we consider that change is an emotional process? Usually, fear is the emotion we most often connect with change, but that ignores other emotional responses like excitement, happiness, anger, and frustration. A favorite book of mine that has become a well-thumbed reference for organizational change is The Change Monster by Jeanie Daniel Duck. As the book’s subtitle points out, there are human forces that fuel or foil any organizational transformation or change initiative.

If you’re in the process of planning (or to the point of implementing) change, here are some questions to ponder:

  • What it will take to get your folks ready for the change?
  • How can you help make the decision to change their decision rather than your mandate?
  • Are you prepared for the emotional responses that are going to arise?

Thinking through the human factors of change will be critical if your plan succeeds or crashes.

The Simple Economics Of Trust

by on August 15, 2007 in Work

A week or so ago, Jamie Notter pointed to a recent interview with Stephen M.R. Covey in Associations Now magazine. This Stephen Covey is the son of the other Stephen Covey and even though his language and approach is similar, he’s clearly forging his own path. His most recent book is focused on Trust and the interview is a brilliant read as Covey lays some of the groundwork for taking the ‘soft’ label off the idea of trust. He argues there are simple economics associated with trust and distrust. The highlight is that there is a direct cost to trust (Covey calls it a dividend) and distrust (more like a tax).

Being an idealist, I’m hopeful for the day when we can take the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ distinctions off of essential organizational qualities. Managers and organizational leaders will see concepts such as trust, openness, and empathy just as relevant and important as quantitative measurements and financial results. Yet, I’m also a realist and know that this change in management thinking will take time and patience. What Covey is attempting to do is create a bridge that will help facilitate this change. His bridge is communicating something foreign (or at least not well understood) using the hard skills, metrics-focused, old-school individual’s more familiar language. So, if we apply the term ‘economics’ and its related methodologies to soft organizational qualities, will that make them easier to digest in the corner offices? God knows anytime I’ve even come close to introducing the idea of spirit or empathy in a meeting, I can see some managers getting the sweats and looking for the door. I’ve found success far more readily when I’ve taken the time to gauge my audience and determine just how open they are to different ways of thinking about management and leadership. The learning here is that if you’re trying to successfully communicate with a Hungarian, don’t start by speaking Mandarin Chinese.

Update: Jamie has followed his original post about trust with another gem. Go check it out.