Replying to LO30634 --
> > If the above is the case (and I am not asserting that it absolutely IS
> > the case for every company) then LOs become a luxury for the better
> > times. During worse times the organization will revert back to Model
> > I behaviors, thus invalidating Model II and LOs as a viable
> > organizational context for the long term.
>
> I don't think that's true. This group became an LO at a time when they
> were universally acknowledged (perhaps not correctly, but that's a
> different story) as _the_ bottleneck in the organization. It was out of
> that trough that they became an LO.
I have found a number of organizations in my time that deplored the very
negative and abusive manner that was characteristic of Model I
organizational behavior. Some of these organizations resisted the change
to anything else (Model II or otherwise) because they at least knew what
they had and were comfortable working within that framework.
Some, though, were initially skeptical, but finally agreed to give the
changes a try. I transitioned a maintenance organization once that was
part of a very Model I organization. The supervisors were initally
skeptical of my approach (I didn't announce what I was doing, I just asked
them to provide input to decisions and become very active in the
implementation of those decisions). After the first round or two of this,
they got the hang of things and began to embrace and exercise Model II
behaviors, at least ay my level.
IMO, those organizations that resist becoming a Model II organization
either don't understand what it is, do not trust that as a way of doing
business, or simply are not ready for that change. Those that DO make the
change are ready to do so, they just haven't had the opportunity to do so.
Given that opportunity, and a little time to overcome their skepticism,
they will move toward Model II and make that self-sustaining.
> I think you and I agree on most everything except the transition. I
> hear you saying one needs external coercion to move from one attractor
> to another (using complex adaptive systems terminology), and I
> acknowledge you may be right, although I really don't think so.
To clarify, I think that coercion MAY be needed. The leader that decides
to take his/her organization in this direction needs to fully understand
why this move is important as well as any other operating parameters that
apply (speed, cost, etc.) If the move is crucial, then limited coercion
MAY be useful. The utility of this needs to be balanced against the
long-term costs of such actions and the enregy required to deal with the
consequences. If the move is not that crucial (the company is working
very well, but could work so much better if only ...), then coercion
should not be required and should become a less available option.
> I would state that one can't _commit_ to taking an organization to Model
> II ("You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," as
> they say). If one needs that kind of organizational control, one is
> inherently looking to remain a Model I organization. "Free and open
> decision-making" means just that; one can't force the people in one's
> department to make a certain decision. While I made a statement in
> favor of conservatism in eliminating people from an organization, I
> wonder if making a decision to move people out who don't want to be in
> Model II can be done in ways consistent with Model II.
If the organization is ready to move, and has started to make the move,
there may still be people who resist. In managing resistance, personnel
moves may result. These moves could be by mutual consent between the
individual(s) and the rest of the group/team/organization. In such cases,
coercion seems like a difficult concept to apply, but an organization that
is moving ahead toward Model II may make some members so uncomfortable
that they are essentially forced out, even though they may superficially
make the choice to leave rather than adapt. This is similar to being
forced to give up one's sports car in favor of a mini-van when those twins
come along.
Clyde Howell
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.