Hi fellow learners,
I believe Simon Buckingham's responses to the questions regarding
unorganization, downstructuring, static vs dynamic structure, transaction
costs and other organizational issues are both highly insightful and
conceptually incomplete. I'm also having trouble with the names attached
to these very real change events in regard to what is actually happening.
Part of my concerns come simply from the different contexts we are each
using to interpret our observations and syntheses of the literature.
Let's see if I can adequately quote, explain and clarify from four
different posts.
In LO16018, dated 11/25/97 Simon Buckingham wrote:
>(Snip) I believe it (downstructuring and unorganization) will spread
>further as
>all economic, social and political problems can be traced back >to
>overorganization and static structure- (snip)
As I've written in earlier posts, organizations are literally coming to
life to survive in a fast changing, ecosystem-styled, global system. This
applies to NGOs and government agencies too, although the latter will be
the last to be forced into this pattern. I believe the living
organization is a reality and the direction organizational evolution is
taking us all, whether we like it or not. The structural and operational
characteristics of a fully converted living organization include
flexibility, continuous adaptation, integration with its environment,
enabling of each individual unit and sustainability.
Downstructuring and unorganizing are really alternate terms for these
conversions to a more flexible and continuously adaptive way of
organizational life. My concern with these terms is that they are
basically negative and focused on what we are leaving and "un" doing
rather than describing what we are building toward. As such, they do not
fully convey the direction or nature of the change taking place.
Regardless of our labels, Simon you are correct in stating that this
change is spreading and will continue to do so. There are a lot of
reasons for this conversion in addition to the economic, political and
social problems you note. There are many reasons too for why it is
inevitable and for what the new "stable" state (i.e. "living"
organizations) will be like. We can detail them off line or in later
posts if there is interest in such discussion.
Later in LO16018:
>(snip) Getting the balance is difficult because most change tends to be
>crisis driven and forced not voluntary- people in companies simply do not
>learn fast or fully enough to EVOLVE. But either way, the removal of
>structure is a pre-requisite in the end. (snip)
Fast or slow, crisis, forced or planned, companies and other organizations
ARE evolving. Rather the collective actions of the people who make up the
organizations are evolving. It was literature from diverse sources
describing changes actually taking place that lead me to synthesis of the
living organization understanding and model in the first place. Some
organizations are changing consciously and proactively, most are doing it
by accidental trail and error just trying to survive and some
organizations will fail to change and perish. The usual bell shaped curve
applies to this process like most other evolutionary and growth phenomena.
I too believe, as you apparently do, Simon, that things could move faster
and in a much less wasteful manner given a greater willingness by
organizational leaders to change and a greater willingness to listen to us
consultants. It hardly matters in the end whether we judge this "
downstructuring and unorganizing" evolution to flexible, adaptive, living
organizations as fast, learned or complete enough. Natural systems
definition of fast enough is that there is pressure to fill every
available niche. Since we are indeed playing by nature's rules in our
ecosystem economy, and things do appear to be moving fast enough and
complete enough to keep competition high for all niches available to most
all types of business and other organizations, every available space is
filled - and by natural definition, that's fast enough.
What I lament along with you, Simon, is that we could help a lot of folks
shortcut what is an otherwise expensive, wasteful, time consuming and
sometimes fatal evolutionary process. Some days when I'm weary from
explaining why folks need to change, I retreat to the undertaker's
philosophy - "die now, die later, inevitably you must so I can wait!"
Then I go back to trying to explain again.
In LO16019 Simon wrote:
>(snip) The fundamental question is, can humans find the courage,
>self-confidence and discipline to develop the middle way between fludity
>and rigidity- or are we doomed to persist in periodic crises and
>reinventions of world configuations because we do not have the capacity
>to learn and >thereby evolve- hence, we must revolve." (snip)
The answer is we are "doomed to persist in periodic crises and
reinventions." It's exactly where we need to be. Again, our perceptions
about what constitutes a useful approach suffers from our frame of
reference. Your doubts about human courage and discipline in finding a
"middle way" lead me to the conclusion that you are a victim of the same
structured evaluation you are trying to reject. You may also be measuring
courage, confidence and discipline by the same structural yardstick as
well as measuring the value of crisis and reinvention by definitions best
buried in the industrial era of the past. Let me explain.
We are evolving organizations and personal lifestyles that mirror the
structure and function of living organisms. (Flexible, continuously
adaptive, etc.) If you reject this thesis, then we need to suspend this
discussion and talk about the reasons and directions referenced in the
paragraphs above. If you reasonably accept the "living" conclusion, read
on.
Biological life exists as a phase transition between the ordered and
chaotic regimes. Those chemical structures and systems that are too
ordered and rigid (static) are not and cannot be alive (i.e. rocks) Those
that are too chaotic and unstructured can also never function as a living
organism. (i.e. air) Life - any living organism from a virus to a whale -
is, in function, simply a grouping of complex, self-replicating chemical
systems. To sustain such a wondrous act, this complex set of systems must
maintain itself in the middle zone between chemical reactions that produce
too rigid a structure and those that produce ones which are too chaotic.
In other words the middle ground between fluid and rigid, between static
order and chaos.
Thus, our current evolutionary journey toward developing living
organizations and "living" lifestyles involves EXACTLY the pursuit of a
middle way, the existence between fluidity and rigidity you propose. We
began heading there even before Intel developed the communications tool
which makes massive human to human "connections" possible. (The
microprocessor serves a similar role in bringing human organizations to
life as DNA serves in the biological world - namely to copy and share
information on a massive scale.)
Any living system will inevitably evolve. If it does not, it will perish
as change occurs around it. Constant evolution is also a natural outcome
of the "downstructured", "unorganized" world because we are talking
generally about the same processes and outcomes - but using different
words that convey a different conceptual approach. Evolution is not a
smooth, gentle, steady or nice process. It is a herky, jerky one
punctuated by leaps and bursts of activity, quiet periods, trips down
blind alleys, failure, extinction, accidents and temporary successes. The
crises and reinventions Simon laments are, in fact, strong evidence that
human learning and evolution IS happening. (Arguably not all crises and
reinventions result in the kinds of learning and evolution we judge to be
beneficial.) Crisis and reinvention are the very things that lead to
progress and long term survival. They are part of the leaps and bursts of
evolution. They may not be the ideal way but they are better than trying
your luck with a static existence in a dynamic ecosystem environment.
Ultimately they test the individual and organizational niches for
available opportunities.
In LO16020, Simon wrote:
>(snip) "Transaction costs explain life (birth is a transaction cost: a
>side->effect from a transaction), our imperative to grow up (overcome
>dependence which is soaked in transaction costs), learn (again to >overcome
>dependence). We die when we can transact no more and we are >100%
>transaction costs. (snip)
>Hence, when looking at a transaction, minimize transaction costs whilst
>maximizing transaction benefits- sometimes the costs are too high and
>sometimes the benefits are not high enough to justify incurring the
>transaction costs."(snip)
Again, Simon, we generally agree on the "downstructuring" and
"unorganizing" goals/outcomes (minimizing transactions costs/maximizing
benefits) - although I still believe the living organization principles
are more comprehensive, positive and accurate descriptions for what is
actually taking place. Living systems function from an "energy"
conservation approach rather than the transaction "costs" approach.
Living organisms and systems seek to optimize outcome per unit of energy
obtained or expended. Evolutionary advantage goes to those that can
survive, reproduce and otherwise sustain their existence more efficiently
( i.e. at lower energy use/transaction cost).
Maximal efforts are not sustainable over the long run for any system.
Living systems (organizations) ultimately seek to optimize energy demands
- balance the high energy use processes with "cheap" ones in finding a
niche for sustained survival.
In LO16021, Simon wrote:
>(snip) Static structure, structure as an end, is evil. Dynamic structure,
>structure as a means, is inevitable and tolerable. Unorganization is not
>disorganization: it is not chaos or anarchy but focus on business and not
>busyness. (snip)
Static structure is indeed a poor idea but I have trouble defining it as
evil. It's just a bad idea that is unsustainable and leads to the
extinction of the species or organization if pursued too long. One thing
we have to understand and accept as we move inevitably to living and
natural systems models for our organizations and societies is that nature
is also not a "nice" place and natural systems are not kind and gentle in
all aspects. They are not evil, just not nice. There are predators,
weaker prey who get consumed, accidents, disease, birth and death. It's
all part of the sorting out process. Dynamic structure - "living" systems
- produce a lot of pain and suffering too. Natural living systems are
also the most durable on the planet.
A byproduct of moving from static to dynamic structure, which we tend to
overlook, is that it leads some people to conclude that things are
becoming unstable and "unorganized." Hence, Simoin's observations about
occurance of crises and reinventions becomes more real - for these are a
necessary and integral part of adapting and dynamic systems. Actually we
should celebrate crises and reinventions for the new opportunities they
produce rather than lament their reality. They remain an essential
ingredient of evolution and evolution is an essential component of long
term sustainability.
Actually dynamic structures are not really less stable at all. It is
simply a different kind of stability which some do not readily recognize.
We need a new understanding of stability to recognize the new paradigm.
Dynamic stability is what biological life and natural systems have. It
involves fluctuations around a mean rather than the rigid sameness we
pursued in the industrial era and the age of physics metaphors. Dynamic
structures lead to dynamic stability. Both require rethinking how we
identify, accommodate and "management" them. As William Bridges notes in
"Managing Transitions" it is not the destination that is the problem,
it's the transition process of getting from the old to the new. We are
certainly in the transition right now, so frustrations and concerns about
loss of stability, structure and certainty are consistent with transitions
and paradigm changes.
In the end, I'd like to be persuasive that "downstructuring" and
"unorganizing" are catchy titles but not fully accurate or comprehensive
descriptions of the changes taking place. I'd like to convince (everyone)
that we are not and should not see ourselves as "un" doing things so much
as we are moving in a positive way to a new approachs to organizations
that are dynamic rather than static. I hope we will recognize that crises
and reinventions are not unfortunate doings - many are the mark of healthy
change and evolution. Finally, I believe it is essential that we
understand that the dynamic structures and stabilities we are developing
are the characteristics of living organizations and represent the desired
middle way between fluidity and static order. I'm also intrigued by the
apparent fact that clients may perhaps more readily grasp the concept of
"un" doing something they already do more easily than I seem to be able to
explain the "transformations" or "conversions" we are making to another
kind of organizational and individual lifestyle.
Simon, thanks for stimulating my thinking and pushing my passions enough
to get me to take time to formulate this response. It's helped me move
past some blocks I was avoiding in preparing my book on Living
Organizations.
Best wishes,
Cliff Hamilton
Progressive Visions
<cliffrh@aol.com>
--CliffRH <CliffRH@aol.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>