There are two conflicting but symbiotic models of org design:
- A stable model for organizing, that’d include, in one way or another, elements like purpose, function, structure, process, and culture. The more stable the model is, the better the operation gets, since the nature of operation is the formalization and standardization of delivering value.
- An adaptive model for transforming to survive and sustain upon changing environment. In other words, we also need the org to be deformable, reformable, and transformable.
Those two are conflicting and there’s no one right way to address it. Some orgs would compartmentalize the two by setting up different “orgs inside org” with each dedicating to one side, or by implementing “change” initiatives periodically which leaves the interim periods relatively stable. Both approaches have flaws.
The tricky thing is that as much as function, structure and process are relatively easy to change, purpose and culture are very hard to change in a timely fashion.
When we say ~an org needs to be transformable~, it’s doesn’t mean we have to undergo structural change whenever the environment/need changes, because structure is only one of many essential factors. What about processes? Functions? Cultures? Purposes?
Certain org models can make certain factors easier to change or adapt. Different ontologies provide different insights into org design.
Change and transformation don’t necessitate constant re-org to match the changing needs of the org. Good org design make certain elements easier to adapt and others stable enough to sustain. A difficult job in itself.
The key is systems thinking and system design. Critical organizational factors such as purpose, culture, function, process and structure are like dimensions in mathematics – even though not always possible, we’d want to design them to be orthogonal to each other, which means when you change one of them it doesn’t affect others in unwantedly complex or complicated ways. A dot moving along the x axis on a Descarte coordinate system never changes its y position at the same time.
Part of complex system design is about establishing and facilitating orthogonality in order to avoid preventable complexity and complications.
In that sense, a re-org that “changes everything” is as bad as “Falling on a slippery banana peel accidentally led to a broken leg, a bloody nose, an angry family member and a house fire.”
“Re-org” means nothing until you clearly specify what’s changing and what the implications are. Is it a deformation? Reformation? Or transformation? And of what? Of function? Process? Structure? Culture? Or purpose?
According to The Power of Organizations by Heather A. Haveman:
People create organizations when they cannot achieve their goals by working alone, in small informal groups, in families, or in dispersed social movements. People create organizations when the actions they must undertake to achieve their goals require the joint, sustained, and coordinated efforts of many people, often with specialized skills.
The Power of Organizations by Heather A. Haveman
What’s more:
To maintain legitimacy, organizations often decouple what they claim they are and do (formal structures) from what they actually are and do (everyday practices) […] or only loosely couple them […] In either case, the goal is to get core tasks done, whether or not the work or the means to perform it conforms to prevailing institutional rules, while achieving legitimacy by presenting an image of socially constructed rationality to evaluators, both internally and externally.
The Power of Organizations by Heather A. Haveman
Official and unofficial lores dominate most organizations:
Individuals work out the rules of the game through an organization’s informal culture, irrespective of any narrative that may exist through an organization’s formal culture, which leads to a fluid symbiotic relationship between the formal and informal side of organizations. Such fluidity, of course, will shape specific political decision-making on the part of individuals, which further complicates managing change beyond control exerted through the formal side of organization.
The Politics of Organizational Chanage by Robert Price
Specifically, transformation lores come in different shapes and flavours.
Re-org is not enough for change. Change is not enough for transformation.
An adaptive and transformable organization requires some fundamental qualities:
…there is a base requirement for organizations to open the cell doors to allow freedom within which employees feel safe to discuss issues above, and not below, the surface of organizational life. The key elements are:
The Politics of Organizational Chanage by Robert Price
- Leadership capacity
- Strong managerial relations
- Shared and individual responsibility
- Clear objectives but no micro-management
- Accepting and dealing with risk
- Sharing resources
- Sharing ideas
- Shared timely decision-making
- Challenging norms
- Continuous development
- Addressing challenges…
Where do you see challenges in your oraganization?
Did your re-orgs work?
{END}
Noah Fang 