Organizing Principles

On Gary Hamel’s WSJ Management blog he recently asked:

So, dear reader, what advice would you give to Drew? What have you learned about turning followers into leaders—and then leading the leaders? And is it possible to dis-integrate an organization without fragmenting it?

I provide an answer worth sharing here:

The best framework I’ve seen for turning “followers into leaders” and then “leading the leaders” is Holacracy. In Holacracy the organization is structured in ‘circles’, which I believe align with your “communities of passion” idea. In each circle there is a “lead link” which is accountable for carrying the larger vision to the circle and setting boundaries to the circle’s action. However, within the circle the lead link has no more authority for settings the roles, accountabilities, policies, and activities than any other member of the circle.

Any circle member can bring a proposal to a “governance meeting” where the actual operating practices of the circle are changed. These proposals must go through a facilitated process and have objections integratedbefore being accepted by the Circle. In this process the facilitator treats the Lead Link in exactly the same manner as other circle members. The process does not seek consensus. No one can “second” or “agree with” a proposal. All perspectives are treated non-personally, as a perspective of the circle, instead of the individual egos.

This practice creates true self-organization; but it does not allow for self-direction. Let me explain: the cells in our body are self-organizing, each fully autonomous with respect to it’s internal functioning. However, when a cell becomes self-directing, acting without regard for the larger whole, we call it Cancer. The same must go for groups in an organization. They must have the autonomy to freely control their internal functioning, while at the same time working in concert with the larger whole. Holacracy provides concrete practices for achieving this in a formal way. It is the best answer I’ve found to your question about “disintegrating” without “fragmenting”.

The main point worth emphasizing is the need for organizational groups to have two things given to them:

1. An aim that serves the larger whole
2. The autonomy to freely work toward that aim

Point 1 has an importan corollary: groups also need boundaries. They need to know what is not part of their aim. Groups do need to have a say into what their aim should be, but that decision must be made by the next higher level of organization to ensure that the group is not acting counter to the larger vision and strategy. In Holacracy each Circle is given a voice in this decision through a “Representative Link”. A person from the affected circle sits on the next higher level circle and has the same opportunity to make proposals as other circle members. 

These two links, the “Lead Link” and the “Rep Link” form the necessary bi-directional connection between groups to effectively de-centralize or “disintegrate” and organization without resulting in chaotic fragmentation.

Usually when we think of inter-cultural conflict national and ethnic divisions come to mind. However, within every organization there are significant cultural differences that impede communication and stir conflict. I can name three such divides. They are: temperament, interaction style, and placement within the organizational structure.

Each of these lenses reveal subgroups in an organization that have distinct shared values and meaning. And each layer of these subgroups creates a tension within the organization that becomes a source of potential conflict. Kenwin Smith and David Berg have suggested that paradoxes in the form of tensions like these are a natural part of group life [4]. John Lederach goes on to say, “To deal with [these tensions] constructively it is necessary to identify the opposing energies that form the poles of the paradox, provide space for each, and embrace them as interdepedent and necessary for the health of the group” [5].

For the three cultural divides already mentioned, this series of posts will aim to do just that.

References:

1. Linda Berens, Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the 4 Temperaments - 4.0 (Huntington Beach: Telos Publications, 2010).
2. Linda Berens, Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles - 2.0 (Huntington Beach: Telos Publications, 2008).
3. Barry Oshry, Seeing Systems (San Francisco: Berett-Koehler Publishers, 1996).
4. Kenwin K. Smith and David N. Berg, Paradoxes of Group Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987).
5. John P. Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies(Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997).

Yes. This post articulates the discomfort I’ve had with the word “Leader”. The word “Leader” made sense in old 20th century organizations where there were followers. In an enlightened organization where “co-creation” has taken hold, followers don’t exists any more. Consequently, leaders don’t need to exist anymore.

But — fear not — curent leaders, there is a new role for you: Builder.

It will be your new work to Envision the future, be inspired by it, and call people to join you there. No longer will you cajole, persuade, or incentivise.

No longer will you explain how every detail should be done. Now you will reveal whything should be done, and support others in finding the way.

No longer will Leaders seek to exploit, command, dominate, and profit. Builders will create organizations that seek to realize, connect, create, and measure.

It is time for leaders no longer.

I found the seven principles for effortless-looking improv out lined in this article particularly attention grabbing.  When teams are working well, the exhibit these same traits, and their results are effortless-looking!

1. Yes and. 

2. Make everyone else look good.

3. Be changed by what is said and what happens. 

4. Co-create a shared [emerging] “agenda.” 

5. Mistakes are invitations.

6. Keep the energy going.

7. Serve the good of the whole.

Click through for details…

What do architecture and organizations have in common?