We frequently do not run our organisations; our organisations, the stories we have about them, the things we believe and say about them, actually run us. It is usually said that some circumstance keeps us from doing what we would like to get done at work. I am sure there are a great many activities you would be involved in, great causes you would be committed to, fabulous accomplishments you would achieve "if I only ..." It seems we would rather have the story, the reason, and the drama about it not working, than do what ever it takes to make it work.
In order to make it work, we must not speak to the circumstances. The circumstances are real, they are big, and they are stopping us. It is much more effective to get beyond and behind the circumstances and reasons, to where the power and energy is. There is great power available when we speak and act from our commitments and do not address the circumstances. In order to break through our limits and to make things happen we must question most vigorously what we know it is useless to question; we must question what we know to be true.
When we realise that our assumptions about how things are, are not really the way they are like a physical fact, we are presented with a freedom and power for action. The bottom line is to commit to expanded levels of integrity, trust, and responsibility; to live as your word and to be accountable for what you do, what you say, and what you believe in. It is empowering to realise that when people have the integrity to be true to themselves, when people are an expression of what they are committed to and believe in, then a company will get the full value for its money while its employees reap the benefits of self value and trust.
Make
a difference.
Critical analysis and innovation are stifled when mired in the past and constrained by
what we already know. Breakthroughs attributed to the likes of Columbus, Newton, and
Einstein would not have come about if they believed what everyone else knew to be true and
useless to question. Likewise, organisation theory and the study of organisation
behaviour benefit when some of us step outside of the boundaries we have drawn for
ourselves (cf. Weick, 1979) and question our assumptions and beliefs.
For example, we talk about an organisation as if it were some thing located in time and taking up space, i.e., as being real like a chair. You can not see, touch, or show me an organisation. There simply is no such thing.
This does not imply we will not have need to use the term "organisation" as a heuristic for our decision to band together and to organise in order to derive a benefit from our organising. This distinction between an organisation as a thing and an organisation as a process is not one that most of us keep in the front of our minds. At first glance this distinction may seem to be unimportant or to be resisted. I assert that people use "the organisation as a thing" as an excuse for many inadequacies and inactions at work. For example, "There is nothing I can do about it, that's just the way this organisation is." This is an excuse for not trying. "That outfit is cheap, we will never get any money out of them." That is a reason for not submitting a bid or a proposal. "You know how this organisation works, it will take three weeks to get it OK'd." This allows people to blame the organisation for their lack of planning and not starting sooner. These concepts are implicitly embedded in everything we do and say as teachers, students and employees.
It is difficult for many of us to view these examples as illustrations of how we use excuses and reasons to justify and to explain what we do. For example, psychological work motivation theory (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1967; Katz & Kahn, 1978) explains that we do, or do not do something based on the myriad of factors which affect our level of motivation. We, theoretically, choose to quit trying because we are motivated to do so, or not motivated enough to not quit trying. Alternative theories explain that we perform mental "cost-benefit analyses" and decide whether the cost of trying is too great to justify the needed effort (March & Simon, 1958); if so, we stop trying. This thinking explains some instances. However, frequently we do not do something we are motivated to do; for example, when we know we should, or when we "have to" do something frequently we still do not act. Why don't we make those phone calls to prospective clients when we know that is how to get contracts and make sales? Why do we miss deadlines, or not quit smoking? Why do we continually stop short when we know we should be going on? Something, some reason stops us from being maximally effective. At work, that "thing" is frequently some attribute of the organisation. We are wholly unaware of how resigned we are to being run by the organisation as a thing and by "how things are done around here." I assert that we frequently do not run our organisations; our organisations (the stories we have about them, the things we believe and say about them actually run us.
What
is about the individual, is about the organisation.
Although it is known that a firm is affected by its
structure (Baron & Bielby, 1980; Blau, 1974), its
technology (Thompson, 1967; Woodward, 1980), and by
its environment (Aldrich & Pfeffer, 1976; Katz
& Kahn, 1978), it is useful to see how a
company is as limited as are its decision makers. It
is usually said that some circumstance keeps us from
doing what we would like to get done at work. "I
don't have the time." "It won't work anyway."
We have lots of reasons why we do, or do not, do something.
We had better have a reason, and a good one,
or else we would not look good. You know we will do
anything to avoid not looking good.
People in organisations always have great reasons. The person who doesn't have time, usually is truly busy. The one who says it won't work, has a laundry list of reasons why it is not likely to work. One way to view this is if we say "we are too busy" or "it won't work anyway" we really don't want to do the activity in question. We are not properly motivated. However, I am sure there are a great many activities you would be involved in, great causes you would be committed to, great accomplishments you would achieve "if I only ..." What we are left with in all these instances are the circumstances (the "if only ..."), not the results. It seems we would rather have the story, the reason and the drama about it not working, than do what ever it takes to make it work.
In order to make it work, we must not speak to the circumstances. The circumstances are real, they are big, and they are stopping us. It is much more effective to get beyond and behind the circumstances and reasons, to where the power and energy is. We must get to the people ; to their cores, to their humanity. This place has been called spirit, soul, guts, heart, origin, centre, being, essence. It is what makes us all human. When we address this place we access what people are committed to, what people have as intentions and visions. That is when we are addressing that which allows us to make things happen. When we live and act from this place we are authentic, enthusiastic, and effective. Others recognise this "quality" and usually don't know exactly what it is. They do see it. They just can not explain it.
You find
what you look for.
Explanations are very important to us. We frequently seek rational reasons and explain
organisational behaviour in rational terms (e.g., March and Simon, 1958; Thompson
1967). Data and logic rule our analyses and decisions. Typically we operate under the
assumption that the world is linear. We believe that one thing causes another. Asking
whether this is the ultimate, absolute truth or not, is still operating within the
linear paradigm. Understanding the "right" answer here, is of no
consequence. I assert that it is more powerful to act as if the world were
continuous, circular, or polar. For example:
Linear thinking - "I must not give any power to anyone. I must get as much power as I possibly can for myself." This leads to struggle, fighting, tension, and bitterness.
Continuous thinking - Power may not be a finite limited resource. "If I have power and give you some, I didn't lose any, we just increased the total available power." This allows freedom of action, cooperation, and relaxation.
Linear - "I made a mistake during the proposal meeting with the potential new client. I blew it. I know we are not going to get the contract." This allow us to give up. We will likely berate ourselves to let our bosses know we realise our error and are repentant (so we won't get fired).
Circular - "I made a mistake and there is a chance we will not get the contract. The mistake, however, will not necessarily cause our failure to get the contract. I will not allow the failure. I will do whatever it takes to get the contract." This is taking responsibility for what did or did not happen. This version allows us to confront our error and not let it get in our way. We can go beyond our mistakes and still be effective.
Linear -" All this griping, complaining, and stress is a real problem. We can't change things so we had better learn to deal with the stress. Lets do some stress management." This leads toward solutions, fixes, and making the symptoms better. It does not address the underlying conditions which may have driven the symptoms.
Polar - "All the griping, complaining, and stress is not bad. If we stop resisting, repressing, and ignoring it, we can see it as being driven by peoples' power, intentions, and commitments which are a great source of energy for us all." It is important to realise that when we resist, repress and ignore the griping and anxiety we are shutting down both negative energy (which seems to be the goal) and positive energy. This leads to apathy which is not a good condition for an organisation.
The circumstances in the above examples did not change from one example to the next. What changed was the thought, what was said, and, therefore, what was within the realm of possibility for occurrence. The examples illustrate the available power when we speak and act from our commitments and do not address the circumstances. If we look for reasons, we will find them. If we look for possibilities, we will find them as well.
Recognise
and challenge the limits.
One way to get to this place of peoples' effectiveness
and power is to deal with what is usually ignored or
hidden. When we, as individuals, confront our
anxiety, depression, anger, death, fear, and concerns
we unconceal things we are not familiar with. We frequently
experience some pain and discomfort during this process.
It is quite normal for us to want to avoid this. However,
to the degree we hide from this, we resist change and
are limiting our possible behaviours and personal effectiveness.
Obstacles to the implementation of any significant
organisational intervention are the personal limits
of the responsible people. We, therefore, must continually
confront our individual and organisational limits.
"Impossible" is an opinion, not a fact. It is impossible to sail around the world; the solar system revolves around the earth; illness is caused by evil spirits. These were not theories or superstitions; when they were believed that was simply ‘how it was’. It is now impossible to end war, to wipe out hunger, to live for two hundred years. In organisations, leaders do not fraternise with low level employees; managers do not ask workers for their opinions and judgments; the interests of labour and capital are always at odds. We forget that "impossible" is temporary. It means we can not, or do not, do it at this point in time. We determine our limits when we say what is and is not possible.
To make things happen we must question most vigorously what we know it is useless to question. What could be more useless to question than what we know to be true? Applied to individuals in organisations the question looks like "What is personally true for you regarding work? Bradford and Harvey (1972) discuss several dysfunctional organisational myths:
Other classic truisms people believe about their lives at work are:
When we realise that these are our assumptions about how things are, and not really the
way they are like a physical fact, we are presented with a freedom and power for action
(Weisbord, 1987). These things are true because, and only as long as, we say that they
are.
Applying this to the organisation as a whole, the question becomes "What is true in your organisation?"
These statements are true only as long as we keep saying that they are. Once we recognise our personal and organisational truisms and realise their subjective nature, these assumptions no longer have to constrict our options. We are somewhat freed from their bonds as long as we continue to see our assumptions as what they are, and not as "the way it is." It is likely to seem to be an arduous struggle to continually scrutinise yourself and your organisation. As we integrate the practice and build mental, social, and organisational structures to support these activities, it will become easier. It is one of the most profitable, rewarding, and effective uses for our time and energy. When we become aware of how we are limiting ourselves and our organisations we are afforded the possibility of true choice and a new freedom to behave in more effective ways.
What
is the "condition" of an organisation?
Taking this from the micro toward the macro we begin
to see patterns of assumptions and beliefs underlying
much of what people think, do, and say in an organisation.
Frequently there are "pervasive conditions"
in which an organisation unknowingly finds itself.
Conditions are not issues, problems, or obstacles which
need to be solved or overcome. Solutions are simply
our next problems. An organisation's condition is akin
to its personality or culture; its implicit and explicit
values, attitudes, behaviours, and history. For example,
the context in which most unionised manufacturing organisations
operate, is the condition of pervasive mistrust. Management
sees labour as being untrustworthy, basically lazy
and out for themselves. Labor expects management to
be manipulative and out to get them at every chance.
This corporate condition subtly (and sometimes not
so subtly) shapes and colours what is able to happen
in these organisations. This condition cripples many
firms and ties up valuable resources fighting this
battle. We do not even realise that this apparent "fact"
is based on a story about how it is, because that is
how it was. It is as if any possible future and present
has already been written by our past. We seem to walk
forward through our personal and organisational lives
always facing backward. Although it is a necessary
condition for personal and organisational survival
that we learn from our past, always living out of the
past severely limits our options when a new condition
or element is introduced with which we have not had
any experience. It does not allow us to take a fresh,
unbiased look at the situation. For example, when we
go about implementing integrated flexible manufacturing
automation in the manner which seemed to work
for non-integrated "islands of automation,"
we find it does not work.
The social
"Bottom Line”
Commit to expanded levels of integrity, trust, and responsibility. All of this work
revolves around living as your word and being accountable for what you do, what you
say, and what you believe in. To be an effective person one must take responsibility for
one's life and actions. To create an effective organisation, the CEO and everyone in it
must recognise and take responsibility for their own actions and commitments. It is
empowering to realise that when people have the integrity to be true to themselves, when
people are an expression of what they are committed to and believe in, then a company will
get the full value for its money while its employees will reap the benefits of self value
and trust.
These are not easy concepts to embrace. They sometimes "go against the grain" of our habits and patterns of thinking. As educators and students of organisation behaviour, however, we can find these distinctions of great value in breaking through to a new possibility beyond where we now can see.
References
Aldrich, Howard E. & Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1976). Environments of
organisations. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 79 - 105.
Baron, James N. & Bielby, William T. (1986). The proliferation of job titles in organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 561 - 586.
Blau, Peter M. (1974). On the nature of organisations. New York: Wiley.
Bradford, Leland P. & Harvey, Jerry B. (1974). Dealing with dysfunctional organisation myths. In W. W. Burke & H. Hornstein (Eds.) The social technology of organisation development. La Jolla, California: University Associates.
Hackman, J. Richard & Oldham, Greg R. (1980). Work redesign. Massachusetts: Adison-Wesley.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. (1967). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Katz, Daniel & Kahn, Robert L. (1978). The social psychology of organisations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
March, James & Simon, Herbert A. (1958). Organisations. New York: Wiley.
Thompson, James D. (1967). Organisations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weick, Karl E. (1979). The social psychology of organising (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
Woodward, Joan (1980). Industrial organisation: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University.
Weisbord, Marvin, R. (1987). Toward third-wave managing and consulting. Organisation Dynamics, Winter, pp. 4-24.