Tag Archives: complexity

March 22, 2019

A Dialog on Complexity in the Organization | The #orgdna #globalchat 3/30/19 9-11am EDT

By Chris Jones

As we resume our twitter chat on organization complexity, we’re excited to welcome members of Plexus Institute to the conversation.

In the footsteps of David Bohm, we know conversations can lead to emergent outcomes. The #orgdna community, like Plexus, provides a place to spark new thinking and new opportunities for collaboration.

Since 2012, our conversations have explored key aspects of complexity facing the modern organization, as we seek to understand and guide:  stakeholders (as actors); key roles (as catalysts); initial conditions; agility; and most recently, org culture.  In successive chats we’ve taken deeper dives, where more focus was needed. And we’ve found planning, like scaffolding, can be useful. We post a few questions for each chat in advance to frame the dialog, but as the conversation unfolds, we will explore detours that seem compelling in the moment … a working example of social, adaptive learning.

Here are the framing questions used Saturday, 3/30/19. Transcript of insights (tweets) are attached in comments.

  • Q1. What do we mean by “organizational dna?”
  • Q2. What do we mean by the “dna of collaboration”?
  • Q3. How do concepts and methods of complex adaptive systems influence an organization’s dna, for better collaboration and outcomes? 
  • Q4. What are some examples of an organization’s sense-making, in practice? 
  • Q5. Are certain initial conditions needed for sense-making in an organization to be possible?

Much to learn, and much to discuss.  As always, we hope to see you online .. and again, welcome to the #orgdna #globalchat community!

– Chris Jones aka @sourcepov | Charlotte NC US

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in complexity

October 19, 2018

Cultures of Trust: Sources, Risks and Rewards | Agenda for our #orgdna #globalchat 10/27/18

By Chris Jones

Those who delve into organizational culture are often overwhelmed by it’s complexity. It is the result of decades of behaviors, both good and bad, the sum product of what an organization thinks of itself.

Those who know trust know its deeply embedded in our healthy relationships, and absent from our dysfunctional ones.  It often provides the spark for collaboration, the genesis of effective teams.

Together, the evolution of trust and culture can spawn a dizzing array of outcomes. Evolution is inspiring that way.

The had part is charting a course.  If we imagine of web of narrow but interconnected paths, we can follow the journeys that take us toward trust and culture.  These can lead us, with care and nourishment, to bonafide cultures of trust.  It is the end state of most enterprising CEO’s, and the holy grail of OD, or Organizational Development.

How do we get there from here?

In our Saturday 10/27/18 chat, we discussed these evolutionary threads, with this outline:

  • Q1. Sources of Trust. How can leaders and staffers instill trust across on organization in real time, when trust is painstakingly built over time? Could any of S.M.R. Covey’s “Speed of Trust” principles help?
  • Q2. Sources of integrative Culture. Are leaders able to shape an integrative, trusting culture change directly, or must they wait for it to evolve over years and decades?
  • Q3. Alchemy of Simple Rules. What simple rules might help trust and culture evolve together, as the prevailing forces come in contact? Can any factors accelerate the chemical reaction?
  • Q4. Risks when Trust is pervasive. Does a bias for trust expose the organization to manipulation and foul play? How might leaders and staffers guard against this?
  • Q5. Cultures of Trust: the Rewards. What are the most lasting benefits in a culture of trust? How do we know we have built one? What will we see?

Like trust and culture, it will take time for the conversation to evolve.  Stay with us.  Its going to be a journey.

We’ll continue to unpack the #futureofwork through the lens of social complexity each month, now on most 3rd or 4th Saturdays, from 1-3pm UTC, i.e., 9-11am ET, 2-4pmUK.  Stop in at any point during the 2-hour conversation. Can’t make that time? Feel free to tweet thoughts/inputs/comments using hashtags #orgdna #globalchat, or post comments to this blog.

It’s been a great exchange. We’re 6-years in, and gaining momentum. Transcripts of our conversations abound, elsewhere on this site. We hope you’ll join us.

See you online!

Chris Jones | @sourcepov | Charlotte NC

How does a twitter chat work?  It starts on Twitter. We recommend a streaming app like TweetDeck. Just append #orgdna to your tweets adding #orgdev #agile #agility #complexity and/or #futureofwork to specific tweets, as relevant. This expands the thread to others who might be interested. Sometimes we’ll chat in the #orgdna stream in real-time, like a flash mob, with insights just popping up.  But for the in-depth discussion, join us at the appointed hour on Twitter.

What is #orgdna?  It’s a self-selecting community of #orgdev thinkers, discussing collaborative aspects of the organization since 2012. 

What is a #globalchat?  This may be the first one.  Many challenges facing the modern organization are global in nature, or in impact. I’m hoping #orgdna can make #globalchat a more frequent and welcome exchange, with increasing scope of participation and value.

Do we have an agenda?  Yes, but it’s evolving as we learn. We’ve captured our key ideas and themes to date using Coggle, and our #orgdna roadmap is posted here (CC4-BY-SA). Have a look, and share your thoughts.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in culture, trust

August 17, 2018

Are we embracing Complexity and Agility too late? #orgdna #globalchat SAT 8.25.18 1-3pGMT

By Chris Jones

The 21st century has a breakneck feel, and it’s difficult for organizations to keep up. We try to focus on the work in front of us, but our attention is continually flooded with changing priorities, better options and new ideas. The sum total of our collective global knowledge base taunts us, always just a few clicks away.

How can individuals and teams be expected to function? How can organizations thrive?

Amid this torrent, notions of complexity and  agility are intriguing. Could they represent better ways to navigate the flood of ideas? Most experts and academics say ‘yes’.  Unfortunately, the words get dropped into meetings and board rooms like all the latest buzz words. Yet both concepts hint at important, underlying themes:

  • Complexity is a paradigm shift in how we see the world, less focused on empirical cause and effect, more on networks of interdependent actors that can learn and co-create organically; it’s where the whole can’t be predicted by the sum of the parts; where initial conditions and critical mass play key roles; where new thinking, under the umbrella of emergence, marks new pathways for adaptation, aka continuous improvement
  • Agility is a paradigm shift of it’s own, whereby organizations become more nimble in response to change; trust regains center stage; adaptation becomes a critical skill; incremental approaches open new ways to solve problems

Changes like these are at once exciting, and daunting. Our ability to work together and learn together is at the core in our #futureofwork. To me, complexity and agility are integral aspects of how work needs to get done in a highly interdependent world. So I think it’s critical that we understand these concepts, embrace them, and put them to work.

I just hope we’re not taking on these challenges too late. Let’s discuss.

In our 8/25/18 #orgdna #globalchat, we’ll examine agility as an outcome, through a complexity lens.  To lay a foundation, we’ll focus first on key initial conditions:

  • Q1. Trust Networks. Why is trust needed for collaborative dialog to emerge? To enable agility?
  • Q2. Agile and the Price of Speed. Can a simple methodology help organizations move faster? Within what constraints?
  • Q3. Small Wins. What makes notions like “minimum viable product” so essential?
  • Q4. Adaptive Governance. Can there be oversight without bureaucratic grid lock? What is the new role of leaders? Do we still need Kotter-style coalitions?
  • Q5. Making Sense of Complexity. Why is this a critical 21st century skill? Why are we so late to embrace it?
  • Q6. A Collaborative Culture. Why is an organization’s collective mindset an important initial condition? Is this happening too slowly to allow the emergence of organizational agility?

Lots to talk about. And because it will take time to unfold, it’s going to be a journey.

This outline will inform our follow-on conversations.  We’ll continue to unpack the #futureofwork through the lens of social complexity each month, now on 3rd or 4th Saturdays, from 1-3pm GMT, i.e., 9-11am EDT. Stop in at any point during the 2-hour conversation. Can’t make that time? Feel free to tweet thoughts/inputs/comments using hashtags #orgdna #globalchat, or post comments to this blog.

It’s been a great exchange so far. We’re 6-years in, and gaining momentum. Transcripts of our conversations abound.

We hope you’ll join us for the next one. See you online!

— Chris Jones – @sourcepov –  Charlotte NC

How does a Twitter Chat work?  We recommend a streaming app like TweetDeck. Just append #orgdna to your tweets adding #orgdev #agile #agility #complexity and/or #futureofwork to specific tweets, as relevant, to expand the thread. Sometimes we’ll chat in the #orgdna stream in real-time, like a flash mob, with insights just popping up.  But for the in-depth discussion, join us at the appointed hour on Twitter.

What is #orgdna?  It’s a self-selecting community of #orgdev thinkers, discussing collaborative aspects of the organization since 2012. 

What is a Global Chat?  This may be the first one.  Many challenges facing the modern organization are global in nature, or in impact. I’m hoping #orgdna can make #globalchat a more frequent and welcome exchange, with increasing scope of participation and value.

Do we have a Master Agenda?  Yes, but it’s evolving, as we learn more. We’ve captured many of our ideas and themes to date using Coggle. Our roadmap is posted on this site (CC4-BY-SA). Have a look, and share your thoughts.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in agility, complexity, future of work

October 14, 2017

Our Coggle Debut: Join the conversation, as #orgdna maps the Future of Work 10/16/17

By Chris Jones

First, props to Jamie Billingham for introducing us to Coggle, a mind mapping tool that’s allowed us to capture our preliminary thoughts on the Future of Work.

Now, what’s all the buzz about?

Inspired by Deloitte’s Tom Friedman interview back in July, we’ve started to reflect: What will the future of work look like? How can we shape it? What’s already happening to drive these changes?

Here’s the first “snapshot” release – what we have so far – for reflection and discussion.

ORGDNA_FutureOfWork-v1-OCT2017

For more in depth viewing, here’s a link to the ORGDNA-FutureOfWork v1 PDF version.

Let’s use our MON 10/16/17 chat, 9-10:30pm ET, to dive into this. We can discuss what we’ve captured so far using Q’s 1-4. Are we good with:

  • Q1. To the left, initial conditions: Stakeholders, Trust & Culture?
  • Q2. To the right, outcomes: Platform & Learning?
  • Q3. At the top, unsolved problems; Silos & Transparency?
  • Q4. At the bottom, enablers: Technology?

And then to chart our course for 2018

  • Q5. What can we learn from this model?
  • Q6. What’s next?

We’d love your input. Just drop us comments on this post, or to individual members tweeting at #orgdna. In fact, it’s probably easiest to simply join the conversation (details below).

Lot’s to talk about .. looking forward to where we might take this.

–  Chris Jones @sourcepov in Charlotte NC

 

ABOUT THE GROUP. Over the last 5 years, a self-selecting band of OD thinkers has been discussing the future of the organization, using hashtag #orgdna. The number of active contributors seems to hover around 20-25.

ABOUT THE TWITTER CHAT. On any given month, 5-10 of us come together on Twitter, as available,  for conversation. Please join us. The chat is open to all. For the chat itself, we recommend a tweet streaming app like TweetDeck. Just add #orgdna (and optionally, now, #futureofwork) to your tweets, and we’ll see you at the appointed hour.

ABOUT THE TOPIC. Much is being said on “the future of work” and its unfolding dimensions. Don’t miss Deloitte’s recent Tom Friedman interview, hosted by Deloitte CEO Cathy Engelbert and their senior strategist John Hagel.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR. A thinker, instigator, and explorer of edges, Chris Jones has been unpacking the forces inside organizations for 30 years. Look for more here on the #orgdna blog, on Medium – or for his deepest dive to date, over on Amazon.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in future of work, Uncategorized

September 17, 2017

Social Complexity: Inside the #futureofwork with #orgdna 9/18/17

By Chris Jones

Our August #orgdna chat was a deep dive on the #futureofwork, with the transcript posted here.

One area we touched on was social compexity, a modern, relatively robust way of looking at the forces at play inside the 21st century enterprise. To get us thinking about this exciting area, let’s contrast it with older models.

Consider two extremes:

  • Old hierarchical models. Not unlike a factory, control is administered via top down decision-making, seeking to drive efficiencies and compliance through standard practices. Variance is minimized in order to deliver according to a master plan. Assumptions are routinely made about cause and effect. Emphasis on structure. Works well when manufacturing widgets. Less effective at mobilizing a workforce.
  • New social complexity models. Diverse actors across an organization work together in countless interactions to produce change or ’emergent’ results. Actions can’t be directly controlled, but the conditions can be influenced. Cause and effect are not the focus. Emphasis is on flow. Provides the broad possibility of new thinking, on an accelerated basis.

To me, this is breakthrough-level material. Among OD practitioners, these ideas come up for discussion often. But how can we bring social complexity into real time? What factors make it work?

Let’s discuss:

  • Q1. How do independent, diverse Stakeholders change org dynamics?
  • Q2. Why do System & Design Thinking shift our thought processes toward complexity?
  • Q3. How do Patterns and Simple Rules (e.g., culture) work in a social system?
  • Q4. How do Initial Conditions impact our success?
  • Q5. Why do the quantity and quality of Connections play a major role?
  • Q6. Why does Adaptability – for both learning and change – become a differentiator?

To capture our ideas, there’s a mind map coming together, using Coggle, courtesy Jamie Billingham. I am hoping our chat on social complexity will help inform broader discussions on the future of work.

Trouble keeping track? We produce and tweet links to a transcript, courtesy John W. Lewis at Holosoft.

So, please join us Monday 9/18 from 9-10:30pm ET. We’re putting a dent in these exciting topics. And it’s always a lively conversation.

Best,

Chris (aka @sourcepov) Charlotte NC

 

ABOUT THE GROUP. Over the last 5 years, a self-selecting band of OD thinkers has been discussing the future of the organization, using hashtag #orgdna. The number of active contributors seems to hover around 20-25. On any given month, you’ll find 5-10 of us actually come together for conversation. Please join us. The chat is open to all. For the chat itself, we recommend a tweet streaming app like TweetDeck. Just add #orgdna (and optionally, now, #futureofwork) to your tweets, and we’ll see you at the appointed hour.

ABOUT THE TOPIC. Much is being said on “the future of work” and its unfolding dimensions. Don’t miss Deloitte’s recent Tom Friedman interview, hosted by Deloitte CEO Cathy Engelbert and their senior strategist John Hagel.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR. A thinker, instigator, and explorer of edges, Chris Jones has been unpacking the forces inside organizations for 30 years. Look for more here on the #orgdna blog, on Medium – or for his deepest dive to date, over on Amazon.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in future of work, social complexity

June 21, 2017

Laloux Part 3: Evolution, Purpose and Complexity MON 7/17 9pET #orgdna

By Chris Jones

 

Interest in Frederic Laloux’s 2-book series on “Reinventing Organizations” continues at #orgdna. His traditional 2014 business book favors the long form analysis with case studies, end notes, etc. The 2016 illustrated workbook introduces the concepts in a lighter-weight mode, ideal for visual learners .. and twitter chats.

Try to find Laloux’s RO-illustrated (2016) .. we’ll be referring to it.

Meantime, by request of the group, I’ve expanded the frame below to include more detail, to facilitate chat without the book(s) in hand. Let’s look at 6 key ideas in Laloux’s Part 3, his closing analysis:

  • RETHINKING VISION & STRATEGY. Laloux says our century-old predict-and-control mindset, rooted in ego, is the main force blocking better organizations. Obsessing on competition out of fear for survival, he believes, keeps us distracted. But he provides an alternative — Q1. How does a “sense and respond” change problem solving in an organization?
  • EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Citing Brian Robertson of Holacracy fame, Laloux references the analogy of a bicycle ride to describe the discovery and response aspects of adaptive leadership, new processes essential to a teal organization, so let’s ask — Q2. Can the modern company allow the destination, strategy & purpose to evolve? Will Wall Street entertain so much ambiguity?
  • INITIAL CONDITIONS. For Laloux, two conditions are necessary for an organization to evolve: buy-in to teal principles from (a.) leaders and (b.) owners. Are both of these key groups prepared for risk taking, less structure and fundamentally new thinking? Laloux says it’s what’s needed to launch successfully, prompting — Q3. Is buy-in at the top enough, or is more required, such as an enabling culture?
  • HOLDING SPACE. A new skill for teal leaders is bringing and sustaining focus, at least for awhile, amid the chaos that decentralized decision-making can bring, taking us to — Q4. How and when does a leader know to focus, and for how long must it be held?
  • KEY ROLES. While teal CEOs make fewer strategic decisions, the need for leadership is stronger than ever, so — Q5. What current skills can be leveraged as today’s business leaders search for a path to new roles?
  • A SIMPLER WAY. Laloux cites Wheatley, as many of us do, for providing breakthrough thinking on how orgs need to function, using the metaphor of an org as organism over the prevailing metaphor of org as machine. In the organic view, evolution and adaptation are integral to how things work, so let’s ask — Q6. Can new mindsets or metaphors influenced/sparked by complexity thinking help us re-imagine the organization?

Much of this material we’ve covered in past conversations. But Laloux’s framework builds on the ideas in interesting ways, perhaps even actionable ones. I’m excited to find what we’ll learn from this, and where our dialog may take us.

Please plan to join us MON 7/17 at 9pm EDT. We recommend a streaming app like Tweet Deck. Just add #orgdna to your tweets, and we’ll talk then.

Best,

Chris Jones @sourcepov, Charlotte NC US

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in organizational development

May 14, 2017

Frederic Laloux: On Reinventing Organizations, an Evolutionary Model

By Chris Jones

Many of us talk about change in our organizations, but few have been able to articulate a future state as clearly as Frederic Laloux. In Reinventing Organizations, he outlines a vision, examined both in historical context, and in contrast with other proto-evolutionary stages. For me, his comparitive approach is a useful mechanism to discuss a family of organizational cultures that are as familiar as they are dysfunctional.

I was introduced to the work of Laloux by #orgdna chat member/leader Christy Pettit (aka @odguru). I quickly found his content consistent with the theme’s we’ve been discussing. Thanks Christy!

Perhaps his most divergent, if not revolutionary, idea? Evolution driven by a next stage human of consciousness, further fueled by explicit linkages to complex adaptive systems. Echoes of Senge and Scharmer here of course. Definitely linkages to Wheatley. But there is some useful new thinking as well.

Here are 5 questions to frame our conversation. As always, we may diverge a bit ourselves, as the dialog evolves:

  • Q1. Evolutionary Purpose. A core theme for Laloux. Are his ideas actionable?
  • Q2. Teal, Amber, Red, et al. Do the colors used for Laloux’s organizational models resonate?
  • Q3. Linkages to Human Consciousness. This is a big step. Does it advance our thinking? Or distance it? [Note: The shift Laloux describes is fundamentally a change from Fear/Scarcity to Trust/Abundance. For me, in this more specific context, the abstract leap isn’t quite as hard to navigate as the ‘consciousness’ reference implies.]
  • Q4. Linkages to Complex Adaptive Systems. The implications for orgs and social change keep us wanting to learn more. How has Laloux advanced this?
  • Q5. Forward. What happens next? Are leaders and their organizations ready?

Lots to reflect on, for certain. And lots worth discussing.

Please join us Monday, 5/15/17, at 9:30pm ET, as we discuss Laloux and his ideas. Just add #orgdna to your tweets at the appointed time. To allow conversation, we suggest a streaming app like Tweetdeck, to make sure you see the tweets as they come in.

What is #orgdna !? It’s not just a hashtag. It’s a lively bunch of OD-minded change makers, congregating monthly to compare notes. I hope you will join us!

Chris (aka @sourcepov)

 

Sources and further reading:

  • Laloux, Frederic. Reinventing Organizations (2014). Nelson Parker.
  • Jones, Chris. The DNA of Collaboration (2012). Amberwood Media Group. [Note: I like to think of my first book as a research guantlet, laying down foundations for what’s to come in OD. I pause to list it among these titles, but it contributes to the OD discussion, and it was the early genesis for this chat, started way back in 2012. More on the site you are on, if interested.]
  • Mitchell, Melanie. Complexity, A Guided Tour (2009). Oxford University Press.
  • Wheatley, Margaret and Myron Kellner-Rogers. A Simpler Way (1996, 1999). Berrett-Koehler.

 

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in organizational development

February 19, 2017

A Time for Sense Making: Then, as Now, Our Understanding Evolves

By Chris Jones

While the search for understanding can be traced back to the ancient greeks, the modern take on sense making has a history of it’s own.

Space will not allow for a full accounting, but I see four primary vectors to help us track its modern evolution, unwinding both the practice and promise of sense making in modern terms. Consider:

  • Dervin (1983, 1992, 1996), and Russell, et al (1993, 2009) – on the human-computer interface, with the earliest explorations on the psychology of recognition and understanding.
  • Klein, et al (2006) – studying frame-to-data, and data-to-frame matching as a means to test patterns observed, advancing the earlier work of Cohen, et al (1996) and Piaget (1972,1977).
  • Weick (1979, 1988, 1993) – exploring organizational implications, with 7 discrete properties in the sense making process in groups or teams; without delving into them in detail, they are:
    • Identification – the role/sense of self, as it relates to the observed
    • Retrospection – looking back, considering the function of time
    • Narrative, discourse, and feedback – developing context and understanding via story, often through real-time dialog
    • Cues – using familiar points of reference
    • Plausability – establishing viability of scenarios
  • Snowden, et al. (2003, 2007) – with the “Cynefin” framework, introduced complex and chaotic scenarios, in contrast with the simple, the merely complicated, and the hopelessly disordered; with this more robust landscape, real world situations were more accessible, or at least visible.

How have these understandings evolved?  Has sense making come of age?

This, of course, will launch a good discussion, if not a healthy debate. In our #orgdna chat MON 2/20/17 at 9:00pm ET, let’s explore this question with the following frame:

  • Q1. HCI as Foundation. Was the early research important to what came after?
  • Q2. Klein and Pattern Matching. How influential have patterns become re: sense making & complexity? Are we returning to foundations?
  • Q3. Weick on Narrative. Has story consumed our dialog in the modern framing of sense making? For better or worse?
  • Q4. Snowden & Complexity. How has Cynefin changed the sense making dialog?
  • Q5. Futures. What is the path to practical application for sense making?

Our back story? The #orgdna chat community has been meeting since late 2012 on topics from leadership to learning, most often focused on the social dynamic.

To what end? Making sense of it all, of course. This topic is right up our alley.

Our conversations are typically lively. Just add #orgdna to your tweets at the appointed hour. We recommend a streaming app like TweetDeck. After the conversation, we’ll share a PDF transcript. And there’s likely to be a follow-up chat on a related thread. We do this every 3rd Monday, 9pET/6pPT.

Props to group member Christy Petit, who helped me shape this conversation.

Intrigued? I certainly am. The rest is up to the group. Hope to see you online Monday night.

Chris (aka @sourcepov, now on Medium)

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in sense making

November 14, 2016

Culture Unraveled: The Semantics of “Purpose” .. a Tale of Many Threads

By Chris Jones

After 3 lively #orgdna chats on culture since August, you’d think we’d be out of things to talk about. Yet the opposite is true. The more we discuss, the more we find to discuss. Each chat opens new ideas and new threads for exploration.

In discussing patterns of culture, we spent much time on semantics. Vivid concepts like “power” and “fear” often fought with broader and more abstract notions like “purpose” and “ethical behavior” that more of us would prefer to aspire to. This particular thread from friends & contributors Mark Britz and Bruce Waltuck rung especially true as I reread the transcript.

Like Wittgenstein, I’ve always been a stickler for care our word choices. Last month we talked quite a bit about somewhat abstract notions that get appropriated for nefarious agendas, good words like collaboration, transformation and even values.  I believe it was Noah or Jim who commented on purpose needing to be saved.

But it occurs to me that a change agent has little more than relationships and words to drive transformative change. The ability to inspire a team to action based on common ground requires that we shape that common ground carefully. What do we seek to accomplish? What are the hurdles? What can we all agree to?  There’s a fine line between manipulation and inspiration for the change agent, who, in my view, needs to alter semantic interpretations at the edges to create a coalition. Facts are facts, to be certain. But abstract ideas leave room for interpretation. A skilled change leader helps shape that agenda, recruiting all the while.

So what ARE the skills of a change agent? What must happen for them to become masters in undestanding and navigating “attractors of meaning” as Bruce noted last time, in the tweet above? Let’s discuss.

  • Q1. Define “attractors of meaning” in the cultural context
  • Q2. How does a change agent build common ground when everyone has their own semantics? a diverse cultural lens?
  • Q3. Utlimiately, what are the skills of a change agent?

Here’s an aggregation of our recent #orgdna culture transcripts, with a participant # and a tweet # for each:

We are slowly unravelling the tapestry of organization culture. We’ve got planning threads open in both Twitter dm’s and Slack. Lmk if you’d like to join us there.

Hope to see you !! MON 11/14/16, at 9pm EST.  Should be another great one.

Chris (aka @sourcepov)

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in culture

September 18, 2016

The Price of Growth: Losing Our Edge, and the Impact(s) of Org Culture

By Chris Jones

We’ve all seen organizations change as they’ve grown. This is a part of any group’s natural evolution. With scale organizations encounter new demands, acquire new talent, and find ways to navigate the many new relationships that form. But what is lost in the process?

What are the forces that cause us to lose those advantages that entrepreneurs and small businesses hold dear?

Is an organization’s culture part of the answer, or part of the problem?

Important ideas are circulating here, very much aligned with our past few #orgdna conversations on cultural forces. Major thanks to #orgdna member Mark Britz for his recent blog post that’s helped us frame this topic. We’ve been viewing organization change and culture through a system thinking lens, to help us understand the dynamics. Along the way, we’ve started to apply a complex systems overlay to the dialog, to help us understand the interactions that happen with large groups.

Now we focus on the impact of scale.  Let’s take a look at some of the forces.

Span of Influence.  First, its worth reflecting that as organizations scale, the number of relationship multiples rapidly. The communication among leaders and members that is possible when very small starts to break down with growth. So intermediate sub-leaders are appointed, and specialization of roles and functions begins. There is a natural evolution of complexity as small organizations get larger. This challenges any leader to rethink their approach and processes, on all management topics ranging from motivation to communication to strategy setting.

Cultural Loopback.  Second, it helps to understand culture is both an emergent outcome of an organization, while at the same time providing a set of guiding principles back to that organization as it evolves.  That means culture is both influencing and influenced by the people that make it up. If that sounds complex, it’s no wonder. Linear cause and effect forces don’t work in large groups, because the dynamics are so intertwined as to make outcomes unpredictable. It’s why leaders usually struggle to drive transformation agendas. It’s why culture change is so difficult.

But this is just the starting point. Expanding relationships and the 2-way dynamics of culture are only two forces that occur with growth. There are likely many more.

In our M 9/19 9pm ET chat, let’s exlore the implications, expanding on some of Mark’s questions:

  • Q1. What are additional drivers of change, with growth? What else influences how an organization culture changes as it scales?
  • Q2. What signals change? How can we know culture change is happening?
  • Q3. Must we lose our edge? Can the benefits of small (e.g. being nimble and low-cost) survive inevitable growth that comes with success?
  • Q4. What must Leaders do? Complex forces can be paralyzing. What can/should leaders do to accommodate healthy growth and healthy culture?

Our group is a loose band of change-minded thinkers. We come together virtually and rekindle these discussions every 3rd Monday at 9pm ET. Simply add the #orgdna hashtag to your tweets, and join the conversation. We recommend a streaming app like Tweet Deck for the best real time experience.

From there, the rest is up to the group. The conversation will flow where you help us take it. It’s almost always a lively exchange. And watch for a PDF transcript here, after our chat, courtesy John Lewis of Holosoft.

Hope to see you online.

Chris (aka @sourcepov)

 

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in culture