There is more on its way. Stay with me!

Yay! Nine Assumptions and Ten Realities. The book is now available on Amazon. You can view it on your Kindle, or on a Kindle app on your computer or iPad. And you can also get a print copy, to read the good old fashioned way. And tell your friends!  http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Assumptions-Realities-Saul-Eisen-ebook/dp/B00FO95CL4/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

In or Out of the Box?

We've all heard people talk about "out-of-the-box thinking" in conversations, at meetings, or in the news media. But does everyone know the origin of this phrase? Maybe not. And not knowing, they have a slightly different concept in mind--different from its original intention or usage.

Hearing the term for the first time, one can guess at its intended meaning, or something close to it. Most people interpret the phrase to indicate an approach or perspective that is out of the ordinary or not typical. Or else they think of a particularly successful effort, akin to "hitting it out of the ball park."

What do you think it means?

The term actually comes from a simple but very effective exercise that is sometimes used in consulting, coaching, and teaching:

The group is given a puzzle to solve. It consists of nine dots, in the following configuration:

The challenge is to connect all the dots, using only four straight lines, and without lifting the pencil from the paper.

It seems a simple enough task, but they quickly learn otherwise. They try several approaches but they all end up not working; somehow there are some dots left over, no matter what they do:

Try it yourself before scrolling down. Remember: Only four lines, without lifting your pencil from the paper.
.....
.....
.....

Eventually, the solution is shown to them:

They then realize that the lines they were drawing to try to connect the dots were all within an imaginary box--one that existed in their own mind only. It was an assumption they had made, without thinking about it, or being aware that they were making it. That imaginary box made it impossible to solve the problem. Only by transcending those boundaries, and thinking outside of the imaginary box they had assumed, could they find the solution.

We can apply this experience to any problem we're working on: Am I imposing any imaginary limitations on possible approaches I might explore? And if I become aware of those ways of limiting my own thinking and behavior, can I now explore possibilities that are beyond my own assumed boundaries--strategies that might turn out to be effective and successful?

Your responses are invited. Can you think of situations in your own life/work, in which you may be needlessly limited by your own assumptions about unstated limitations?

Click on Comment to post your response.

"Collaboration" and Hope?

As I write this, I am watching news coverage about proposals to raise the debt limit for the US government. Intense debate in the Congress is being televised by CSPAN, and summarized in TV news programs, radio, and newspapers. The "sausage-making" process we've heard about is in full display. I desperately change channels in hope of finding more reasonable, understandable programming, and settle for trite fiction on the movie channel.

We are watching the strangeness of the adversarial process, showcased in the form of polarized congressional debate. Conflicting views of our social and economic reality are being presented with conviction by opposing sides. The best we can hope for, it seems, is a lose-lose outcome in which no side gets what it wants, and American society may suffer serious consequences.

How did we get into this mess? It is certainly not what one would have expected when President Obama was elected, under the banner of hope and collaboration. At the time, I remember wondering how he had learned so much about collaborative perspectives at the Harvard School of Law. Maybe he learned about it in his community development work in Chicago. But not enough.

I don't blame him for this. His intentions are certainly sincere and his behavior is honest and courageous. But the kind of shift he has been attempting to lead has not succeeded--in fact we seem to be in an even more adversarial political environment than before. How did this happen?

Obama's strong election win under the banner of collaboration did give rise to hope for Democratic voters, but it also elicited dismay among Republican voters--and legislators. From the perspective of the losing opposition, this promise of collaboration was so successful politically, that they understandably  became concerned. Within the perspective of competitive game-playing, this initiative was perceived as a very threatening ploy. If they Democrats kept that up, they were likely to win election after election. They had to be stopped.

In a social setting, collaborative offers and initiatives usually elicit gratitude, and similarly collaborative responses. This works among neighbors, for example. I return their mis-delivered mail. They offer to feed my cat while I'm on vacation. But in a competitive setting, collaborative initiatives are confusing, and often threatening. If a basketball player passes the ball to an opposing player, that player will be confused, but will quickly pass the ball to her own team-mates, or shoot the ball to score for her own team. And she won't return the favor later on.

In a business setting, passing vital information to competitors only leads them to use it, and ask for more. If the shop owner at the bazaar responds to my inquiry about an item by telling me the price, but offers to sell it to me for a lot less (because he likes my face), I know I'm being conned. Collaborative initiatives in competitive settings do not increase trust, or evoke collaborative responses; they elicit distrust and more competitive stances.

Back in the political realm, the recent practice of improving the Democrats' offers to Republicans before any discussion has taken place, tells the Republicans that the Democrats are patsies, or up to something, and leads them to toughen their demands. It also leads Republicans to fear the possible popularity of the Democrats' politics of collaboration, and to seek at all costs to undermine the chances of their success. Collaborative gestures within an adversarial environment thus lead the other side to respond with increased adversarial behavior, aimed at undermining the possible success of the other side's collaborative strategies.

In an adversarial environment, collaborative initiatives from one side do not elicit collaborative responses from the other. They do lead to greatly increased adversarial reactions.

So what to do? Rather than changing the moves within a game, both sides would have to agree to change the nature of the game, itself. It is necessary for both sides to discuss the game, including the disadvantages and limitations of adversarial relations, and then to agree to redesign the game itself.

But you are most likely to succeed in initiating conversations about changing the game if you are very good at playing it the old way. You have to be a better adversary than the other side, and then invite them to talk about changing the rules toward collaboration. Then the work starts!

Not a simple subject, is it. Your thoughts, questions, and examples are invited.

From Game-Playing to Collaboration

Here is the second part of my summary of Virginia Satir's model of interpersonal decision making:

The three options we identified before--Disagree, Agree, or Change the Subject--are inherently based on game-like assumptions about winning and losing:

When I use disagreement, I'm trying to win, and to make you lose.

When I use agreement, I'm letting you win, and am willing to lose (while hoping for approval from you, etc.)

When I change the subject away from a decision, I'm willing to make us both lose, as long as we avoid conflict and unpleasantness.

Sometimes people think of compromise as a better alternative. We settle for half of what we want, but neither you nor I get what we want, or need. This is also a lose-lose option. We can see too many examples of this approach in political and legislative processes. Compromise, and its inevitable ineffectiveness for solving human or social problems, only makes people decide to fight harder next time. In this sense, compromise has a polarizing effect.

So what are we to do?

Satir pointed out that it's possible to shift from win-lose, game-playing approches, to win-win authentic interactions. This is not the same as compromise. Instead of working out how we'll split a small pie, we work together to bake a bigger one. The effect is to transform a limiting decision-making interaction into a constructive problem-solving conversation. Instead of competing for limited resources, we collaborate on creating new options that effectively respond to our respective or shared needs.

But how the heck do we actually do this? For most of us, it calls for new and unfamiliar behaviors. Satir found that it's important to be willing to put one's cards on the table, and to be the first to do so. Instead of "What would you like to do, dear?" (which is an agreement ploy), one has to be the first to take a chance and state one's preferences, needs, priorities, etc. And one has to disclose the underlying values, needs, or personal considerations. "Let me say what I've been thinking about this, and what about it is important to me."

One then has to inquire about the other's preferences, needs, and priorities, giving them equal importance and attention. Honest, active listening is crucial here, to understand the other's experience and point of view.

And one has to continually affirm the relationship in the conversation, by stating how the integrity of the relationship is more important than whatever gets decided.

This approach makes for a very different kind of interaction. Instead of game-like positioning to achieve one-sided goals, there is open, explicit consideration of both persons' perspectives. Given the superordinate goal to protect and affirm the relationship, it's possible to shift away from either/or decision-making. Instead, we can engage in creative problem-solving, no longer limited by initially-defined options, but working together to generate new options that increasingly respond to both persons' needs and priorities.

How often do you see or engage in this kind of win-win interaction? It is certainly not what we generally see in politics, or in schools, or organizations. It is thus counter-cultural. So engaging in win-win interaction requires continual learning, as well as perseverance, and courage.

I look forward to your comments!

Competition or Collaboration?

It’s useful to know the game we’re playing, and the rules that govern play. Sometimes we can be playing several games with the same people at the same time. We may be winning at one game, but we're losing at a more important one.

I remember being in a pick-up basketball game in high school, and having a good time, until I got an elbow hit to the nose. I had to walk around with a bandage over it for the next couple of months. I was surprised to discover an unanticipated benefit, though. The school’s star quarterback had gotten his nose broken about the same time, and suddenly girls started to notice me, probably thinking I was him, or at least associating my injury with his.

I wouldn’t want to get my nose broken again, though, just to get girls’ attention. But looking back at the incident, I had been a problematic opposing player, and the elbow to my nose had taken me out of the game, and out of the way.

So there were two games going on--competitive basketball between two teams was one. Getting rid of problematic opposing players was another game. This wasn’t part of the rules of the first game, though winning at the second game improved the first game for their side. Becoming attractive to the opposite sex was a third, mostly unspoken game, at which I had a painful but lucky break.

We human beings enjoy playing games--all sorts of games. In the US, as in many countries, we enjoy playing or watching games like football, basketball, tennis, soccer, hockey, etc. These are competitive games; if one side wins, the other side loses. The play brings together opposing individuals or groups, playing within the physical boundaries of the court or field, as well as the behavioral boundaries of agreed-upon rules. Each side has a goal, which it tries to achieve, while preventing players on the other side from achieving theirs. Eventually, one side wins and the other loses.

Virginia Satir, who trained family therapists and whose work influenced many OD practitioners, described patterns of decision-making using a simple model of a two-person interaction. Here is what I learned from her:

In the first example, I might want to get my way, even if it’s at your expense. In this case I would argue for my wants, needs, rights, etc. and discount your arguments or preferences, even if it means being particularly disagreeable: “We’ve always gone to mountains for our summer vacation; we end up traveling a long time to get there and back. We should go to the beach near our house!” I argue for what I want, and try to undermine or discount what you want. My behavior pattern is to disagree:

Under different circumstances the opposite might be true: When I interact with you around a decision we need to make, I might act as if I want to please you, so I’ll discount my preference and agree to yours. My behavior strategy is to be very agreeable. Typically, I would make believe there is only one party to the decision--you: “Where do you want to go for our vacation this year, Dear?” Of course, the catch is that I will expect some kind of goodies in return--maybe that you make believe I’m a really good person, but I never say so.

A third pattern emerges when this kind of decision-making and its potential for conflict raise so much anxiety for me that I’ve learned to avoid engaging in it at all. So when such circumstances emerge, I will neither agree nor disagree--I will do everything I can to get away from the situation. Most typically I will deal with it by changing the subject--sometimes in very creative ways: “You were asking about our vacation--oh, by the way, your mother called. She seemed upset about something and wants to talk with you right away.” Neither you nor I get what we want, but we avoid dreaded conflict.

Another version of this mode appears more positive, though it really isn't: Each of us gives up some of what we want until we can agree on what’s left. We call it compromising. It avoids conflict by the expedient that neither of us gets what we want.

Thus, Satir described these three modal patterns of decision-making behavior: agree, disagree, or change the subject--undermining, capitulating, or avoiding. She then pointed out an implicit aspect of these patterns--the underlying assumption that either I will get my way or you will get yours. It’s the win-lose assumption. When I argue with you I try to win by making you lose. When I offer to do whatever you want, I lose and you win (though I’m covertly hoping to win something else by losing in this situation). And when I change the subject or push for compromise, neither of us gets what we want and we both lose.

Most of us develop a habitual preference for one of these three strategies, though none of them is really satisfying. Do you recognize yourself in one of them? What can you tell me about your experiences with your own pattern?

I’m interested in seeing your thoughts and experience on this. And then I’ll share more about Satir’s perspective about it in the next post.

Is it Resistance or Incubation? The Exponential Shape of Change

I was talking with a good friend today about her struggle to initiate positive changes in the organization she works in. She described the tendency of most people there to avoid talking about certain crucial subjects. This is not unusual--most organizations have certain "unspeakable" topics. There is a tacit agreement to not talk about the elephant in the room, or the emperor's transparent new clothes.

I was reminded of a novelty toy years ago that looked like a black metal box with a little red lever along the top front edge. If one pushed the lever, the box would start whirring and the lid on top would slowly open. A little metallic hand would come out of the box, moving toward the lever. It would push the lever back to "off" and then dart back into the box, the lid snapping shut behind it. I realized this is a metaphor for many organizations, whose unacknowledged culture cancels out any initiatives for improvement, because people think they're not supposed to go that way, or talk about it.

This pattern of automatic self-stopping can discourage managers and consultants from implementing improvements. Their constructive initiatives are non-verbally spurned, and they come to the conclusion that there is great "resistance to change." I think this is a misunderstanding of the way human systems change. While there are some events that result in apparently quick and transformative change, such as a change in the top leadership, or major disruptive changes in technology, most real change has the shape of an exponential curve, or a hockey stick. Nothing seems to be happening for a long while, then suddenly it becomes apparent that there has been slow quiet development over a period of time, and big changes begin to emerge spontaneously. The caterpillar in the cocoon has been invisibly transforming, and it emerges as a butterfly.

For change agents, patience and perseverance is a wise strategy. Years ago, I was invited to Herb Shepard's house, which he called "Fort Courage," to celebrate his 60th birthday, along with many fellow alumni of the Case-Western Reserve U. doctoral program in OD. I was excited to see fellow alumni from many cohorts talking with great animation in small clusters, sitting at couches or standing around, holding drinks. My thought was, what an amazing repository of knowledge and experience about OD practice was assembled in the room! I imagined that soon, Herb would convene us, and the socializing would give way to serious exploration and discussion among the group as a whole. But after some time, that shift did not happen, and people just continued to chat, mill around in small clusters, and drink. Nobody was convening the conversation.

Finally, losing patience, I walked over to Herb and asked him, "Don't you think it would be good for us all to sit down and talk as a whole group about what we're doing and learning?" His response was a classic Herb Shepard intervention: He looked me in the eye and said, "So what are you going to do about it?"

I gulped quietly as I got the message. So I started to circulate from cluster to cluster, non-verbally and then verbally joining each conversation, and then asking, "Don't you think it would be good for us all to talk together about what we're doing and what we're learning?" They would usually agree, and then go on with what they were talking about with their two or three friends. I would shrug and go on to another group, etc. My initiative was not catching on. I kept going, though, until I got to the last group, standing in the kitchen, talking with great animation and energy about whatever. I began to do my routine of non-verbally joining the group and conversation, waiting for the first opening to speak my proposal. But this was a group of very experienced, first-cohort alumni. They were implicitly aware I was up to something and did not want to be interrupted. They were non-verbally keeping me out of the group.

I was feeling greatly discouraged. My change initiative had failed. At that moment, someone came in from the living room and said loudly, "Hey! We're all sitting down together to talk about what we're doing and learning! Come into the living room!" And we did.

What stories can you tell here about your own change initiatives?

(If you received this post via email, go to

http://human-systems.blogspot.com/ and click on Comments at the bottom of this item.)

Scanning the Future, While Acting in the Present

Being an OD Practitioner in the 21st century is becoming more challenging, and perhaps more important.

Our global and local environments are less predictable and stable. Carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere continue to increase. Petroleum reserves may be peaking Forests are decreasing. World energy usage is increasing. Global population is increasing, though not evenly--European countries are facing a shortfall in their labor force. iPads may become the new novel or newspaper to read on the train. The proportion of college-educated and -employed women world-wide is increasing. Jobs and knowledge are being exported across national borders. Undocumented workers are being imported. Research and technology is improving health care but making it more expensive. Project teams in multi-national corporations work across time-zones, and seldom meet face-to-face. Managers make decisions, but outcomes are hard to assess because the variables are so complex; they get promoted for appearing to be decisive, rather than for making the right decisions. Short-term solutions turn out to lead to unanticipated disasters. Are you confused and overwhelmed? Guess how your clients feel?

We are increasingly aware that our world is changing, and that we need to be intentional about evolving our ways of practicing Organization Development in the years ahead. As the global and organizational environments in which we work continue to change, OD practitioners are called on to be clear about the core values and principles that guide us, while adapting our intervention strategies and developing the appropriate competencies to carry them out effectively.

The growing need is for ways to guide change in the present, while keeping the future in mind. Consider what you are noticing about how our world is changing. What trends are you aware of in your own work experience, reading, media reports, travels? We can put our individual perspectives together like a mosaic, and become more aware of the changing contextual patterns in which we are doing our work. Post your own observations and questions by clicking on Comments.

As Shel Davis, one of my mentors, used to say, "Correct me if I'm right." ; )

And you may be interested in the results of a Delphi study about OD and the future that is speeding toward us.

Creating A New Context--The Way of OD

How we behave moment by moment is determined in large part by the context in which we perceive events around us. In a comedy club I expect to be entertained and am prepared to laugh. At a drugstore counter as I pick up a medication, I remember being treated officiously last time, and I protect myself from being treated as the clerk's problem again.

At the comedy club almost anything the entertainer says is funny, or at least interesting, as long as it is consistent with the behavior of a comedian. Some jokes are funnier than others, but I do expect jokes, not tragic news. At the drug counter the new kid serving as clerk mumbles his questions and gets my name wrong. Then I notice his plastic bracelet and ask what cause he's supporting. It's some kind of tragic disease that needs more research funding; my behavior softens and I help him understand my name and find my order. We part wishing each other a great day. The context shifted.

In a staff meeting I expect to talk about work issues and to state relevant views about decisions we need to make. In one particular group I expect some off-topic comments from certain staff members, and weak, unfocused leadership from the manager running the meeting. I'm resigned to frustration for an hour and a half, but look for opportunities to interject sanity--or at least a smart aleck remark to break the tension.

All interaction, in this sense, has both content and context. We focus on content but are implicitly aware of context for guiding our understanding and response choices. These are the figure-ground combinations described so well by Gestalt psychology: we assign meaning to experiences in terms of the interplay between the figure and the ground--in my terms, between content and context. Changing either one changes the meaning of the whole.

We tend in most circumstances to accept context as it is--even to be unconscious of it, and engage in content-focused exchanges. The meeting is the way it is; my focus is on what people talk about, and my choices are about what I say. One way of understanding Organization Development practice is to view our work as paying attention to the context in which people say and do things; to notice the way that context supports or limits their awareness and choice; and to intervene at the level of context as much as content.

In the role of consultant or facilitator in a staff meeting I can say something about the topic we're discussing--content--and I can also say or do something about how we're talking and interacting--context (or as some refer to this, process).

In a rambling conversation at a meeting, I might say, "Ah... I just want to check; what agenda topic are we on?" and the context pops out of tacit background and into explicit focus in everyone's awareness. Group members come out of trance. It's like watching an overly dramatic play and turning to the next person saying, "what do you think this stage setting is doing to the action of the characters?"

This is always experienced as a break in the flow in some way. Pulses quicken; color returns to faces. Tension shifts, up or down--either experiencing defensiveness and conflict, or relief from frustration and powerlessness. It's a high-risk, high-power move. In that moment our professional behavior is counter-cultural--outside the norm. Done well, it releases group members' creative energy for constructive change. Done slightly wrong--in timing, tone, or wording, it can evoke aggressive coordinated group reaction in protection of the group and its formal leader from this hostile outsider.

We do this all the time in our work, in small or large interventions. Whether we are doing a role-play in a training session, or recording the agenda on a flip-chart or guiding the redesign of work structures, we're changing the context.

And we--anyone--can do this every day in any interaction. We are always each other's context as we talk, work, play, or are silent together. We are actors on the stage and also stage designers for ourselves and each other. As co-authors of our lives we can re-write the plot flow as we go along, creating the quality of our dramas, our tragedies, and our comedies.

The OD practitioner's job is to take these creative risks appropriately and effectively, moment by moment, in each intervention, training session and client engagement. It can't be done well as a technique or a manipulation, because it won't work, or it will backfire. When we consistently do it well, authentically, we truly earn our high fee, and we get the satisfaction of catalyzing constructive change and making a difference.

Do you have a recent experience with changing the context in an interaction? I hope you'll post a comment about it.

And enter your email on the right, to receive notification of new entries as they are posted.

Selling OD by Doing OD

Getting top management support for OD efforts in an organization is absolutely crucial. Because OD works on whole organizations, significant change needs to be understood and fully supported by senior management. Sometimes we learn this the hard way: I know of a very successful plant redesign project that used the conference-based model developed by Dick and Emily Axelrod. It was highly participative, with large cross-section groups from all plant functions meeting for three days at a time, integrating the outcomes of the session, then meeting again for three days--five cycles of conferences. The focus for each one was built on the outcomes of the previous one. They worked on generating a shared vision for a better, more effective way to operate, followed by an analysis of the plant's technical production system, then an analysis of the social system, then a redesign of key aspect of the plant to optimize both technical and social system goals, and finally an implementation planning conference.

This all worked very successfully and generated creative new approaches for organizing the work and also great enthusiasm for implementing the changes. And then they hit a catastrophic glitch: The internal consultants and plant manager had made an early decision to not include a key vice-president in planning the project. He had a reputation of not supporting participative work methods, so they thought they would demonstrate the success of the project to him after it was completed and thus get his approval. Instead, the VP walked in on the implementation planning session, having missed all the previous ones, and was outraged. He declared the new design totally inappropriate: "This is communism--we're not doing it." And that was that. The whole project was canceled and everyone went back to the old way of doing things, though with great disappointment and frustration.

So what should one do when the needed support at the top is not there? For one thing, it depends on the role of the OD practitioner. External OD consultants learn to focus on the clients who are genuinely interested and ready to work in this different way. Rather than convincing or "selling" managers that this would be good for their organizations, the strategy is to work only with those organizations that have a demonstrated readiness, understanding and interest in an OD project. Since these projects are much more likely to succeed, they will create the track record of effective change projects, and word of these successes will quickly get around to other organizations that were almost ready, often leading them to consider the OD approach themselves. I learned this perspective from Herb Shepard, who was my mentor at Case Institute of Technology, and one of the founders of OD. One of his rules of thumb for change agents was "Never work uphill."

But what about internal OD consultants or managers who see the potential for OD in their organization, but don't have the support of higher managers? Shepard also said, "Start where the system is." He meant by this that one must assess the situation and propose projects that the organization and its leaders understand as relevant and appropriate. These may be less ambitious than the consultant can envision, but they are much more likely to be accepted and to succeed--thus laying the foundation for more comprehensive projects. This way of working requires great patience, and great empathy. One must see the world through the managers' eyes, and design and propose projects that are relevant to their current view of the organization.

This is a tough discipline and requires patience, self-acceptance, and a focus on the long view--even if that key manager is being driven by this quarter's business numbers. Shepard also used to say, "Think globally and act locally." The corollary of that statement might be, "Think about the future and act in the present."

I invite further comments and questions.

Creating Benign Cycles in Organizations

Here's my elevator speech about what Organization Development is (OK, it's a long elevator ride, but a good one):

Just like individuals need to make a living by doing something useful, every organization does something useful to make its living. This means producing something people want to buy, or providing a service that is worth paying for. Organizations need to make that product or provide that service in ways that are effective in terms of the cost to the consumer and with satisfactory quality and reliability, compared to competitors. OD practitioners help people to make their own organizations more effective in producing whatever they produce. This is an important part of OD, but not all there is.

In order for an organization to function effectively, the people in it need to communicate in sane and constructive ways. Without that kind of communication organizations devolve into environments that look like the Dilbert comic strip (which, by the way, is based on letters about real events in organizations, continually sent to the cartoonist). As new technologies are introduced, or new competitors enter the market, or new needs emerge from customers, people in organizations need to talk and work together sanely, effectively, creatively, to adapt and innovate. Otherwise the organization soon goes out of business, or loses its funding.

As a consultant, I generally find dysfunctional task processing arrangements that are caused or maintained by dysfunctional interaction patterns among its people. Over the years, new employees are taught the dysfunctional procedures, which may have originally been temporary work-arounds, as the right way to do things ("Don't ask--that's the way it's done here.")

OK, it keeps getting interesting: Much of the reason for dysfunctional patterns of interaction among people in organizations is that the task procedures, technologies, work structures and hierarchies, tend to isolate people, pit them against each other, and limit their ability to engage their full intelligence and creativity in the work setting. So dysfunctional task structures create or maintain dysfunctional interaction patterns, which prevent people for making sensible changes to the task structures. It's a vicious cycle.

The good news is that when you find a vicious cycle you can reverse it by reversing any of its elements. When we bring people together in a collaborative creative context they spontaneously generate significant design improvements to the task structure. As new task structures are implemented, these tend to reduce the crazy-making qualities of the task arrangements, and interaction patterns continue to improve. It becomes a benign cycle. This is true OD.

People who claim to do OD and work only on "bottom line" improvements, or only on touchy-feely "team-building" experiences are not doing real OD. Those partial approaches tend not to work, or to actually make things worse. OD is about working with people to improve their own task structures and interaction patterns by improving both.

I'm looking for examples of what I'm describing here. I welcome your short stories.

Self-Managed Teams and Culture Shifts

The field of socio-technic systems work redesign emerged in England at the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s. Eric Trist and Fred Emery discovered that coal miners had developed an unusual work arrangement: they preferred to mine coal as self-managed cross-functional teams. Upper management tried to organize them into conventional structures of specialization and hierarchical supervision, but their productivity and morale plummeted. When they were allowed to work again as a team, they regained their very high quality output.

Trist and Emery thought there might be something in that work pattern that could be generalized and applied in other settings. Out of that investigation came the understanding that there is an intrinsic interdependence between the way work arrangements are structured and the way people feel and act toward the work and toward each other--that a change in the technical work system affects the social work system, and vice-versa. Looking for descriptive terminology for this they came up with "socio-technic systems (STS)." They developed ways to design new work arrangements, or to redesign old ones, guided by these discoveries. Most often--though not always--the redesign process led to self-managed teams that included all the skills and resources needed to complete a whole job from beginning to end.

The increases in productivity and work spirit in a range of organizations where this was implemented during the next two decades were astounding. In a world that was beginning to experience accelerated change, technological innovation, and globalized competition, these self-managed teams had a superior ability to adapt and innovate, and to move up any learning curve quickly. And they showed an amazing intrinsic motivation to do so. They didn't need a supervisor to tell them to improve the work--they had an interest in doing it themselves and did it quite well. In fact, supervisors tended to get in the way.

The emerging realization was that there is a fundamental clash of cultures between these two ways of structuring work. Emery distilled the difference in terms of a Design Principle I, referring to the conventionally vertical coordination of work through hierarchy, and a Design Principle II, referring to the horizontal coordination and self-regulation of self-managed teams. Part of the difference, too, was the shift from organizing departments according to function--marketing, fabrication, R&D, etc. (what we now refer to as silos), toward the inclusion in any team of all the skills required by the job--they were not only self-managed teams, they were cross-functional self-managed teams. The classic example is the redesign of the Volvo assembly line, so that instead of each individual attaching the same part to each car moving by on the assembly line, a team of assemblers traveled with the car from beginning to end, putting the whole car together. At the end, they expressed their pride in the quality of their work by engraving all their names on the engine block.

But the shift from Design Principle I to II is not a simple one. It affects technology, organization, supervision, reward systems, assumptions, and interaction skills. Supervisors, especially, can feel threatened because their role seems to become redundant. It takes an appropriate amount of time, planning, training, and coaching support to implement this shift successfully. At an oil extraction plant in Canada where I was part of the consulting team guiding this shift, the staff of the Utilities Division (that produced all the electricity, steam and processed water for the mine) was released from work for one week per month for six months to carry out the planning and training needed to make the shift (yes, temporary workers were hired during this time). At a Motorala cell-phone assembly plant in Florida, teams went through several phases of change, in which supervisors first became participative leaders, then coaches, then on-call consultants.

The tragic error among some managers who learn about the benefits of self-managing teams is to try to implement them by memo--to decree the end-result structure while skipping the participative analysis of all work processes, the appropriate tailoring of the new work design to their core work situation, the necessary investment in training and support, and the time people need to integrate a fundamentally different work culture. In the end, the effort therefore fails, and work structures revert to the old ways--problematic but familiar.

But properly implemented, especially by engaging people appropriately in the redesign of their own work processes, STS can lead an organization toward surprising improvements in both work effectiveness and teamwork.

Use the Comments link to respond, or go to http://human-systems.blogspot.com/

How Did OD Emerge?

Note: This and the next few items are reprinted from another blog I previously created. You will find a thematic connection to the exploration of how our assumptions shape our work and our lives. Your comments and questions are invited.

Organization Development (OD) has been understood--and misunderstood--in a variety of ways by different people at different times. It can be helpful to know how the field got started.

When I was a grad student at UCLA, I learned from mentors like Bob Tannenbaum and Jim Clark that OD emerged from the growing awareness that Management Development, even when very successful, had major limitations. Key managers could be immersed in powerful training experiences like T Groups, developing a fundamentally different understanding of themselves and their interaction with people, but when they returned to their own organization they faced three difficult choices:

1. They could become change agents, leading their organization toward significant new ways of being and working--very few people managed to do this.

2. They could become trouble-makers, out of step with their peers and subordinates' assumptions and expectations, working uphill to create change that nobody seemed to believe in or want. Some people did this for a while, and then gave up; or they were neutralized or expelled from their organization as alien organisms. A few left purposely, and even changed their chosen profession, becoming writers, sculptors, etc.

3. They could unlearn what they had learned and go back to their old way of doing things, encapsulating their brief departure from the corporate cultural norm as a temporary aberration, hopeful but naive; most managers chose this option, and achieved it rather quickly.

So there was something not working with Management Development--the development of managers as individuals. The underlying assumption that you could change an organization by changing individuals did not pan out. Time for a paradigm shift.

Borrowing from what were then new developments in family therapy, such as the work of Virginia Satir, some applied social scientists and consultants began to consider the need to develop the organization as a whole, not just the individuals within it. Family therapists were learning that they could treat a problem child with apparent success, but on returning to the family s/he promptly reverted to the previous problem behavior. The problem was not in the child as an individual, but in the family as a system. Similarly, an organization could be improved not by developing individuals within it, but by changing the organization as a whole--hence the shift in thinking--from management development, to organization development.

Think about some problem in your own organization. Consider how it can be interpreted in terms of the problematic behavior of a particular individual. Then consider how this behavior might be an expression of the organization's unacknowledged, perhaps unmentionable problematic patterns.

What thoughts or questions do you have about this, or about OD, or about the OD Program at Sonoma State? Use the Comments link to respond to or comment on this entry.

Click Follow or enter you email in the field on the right to receive notification when new entries are posted.

James commented about my suggestion that each one of us could plant a tree:

"Great idea, Saul!

A new tree once a year for each person would go a long way toward not only beautifying our environment, but strengthening it.

Now, in terms of human systems; what would the world look like if each one of us could, once a year, plant a tree of hope...or a tree of education...or a tree of housing...or a tree of justice? What a lovely place we would have to live in then!"

What kind of tree have others here planted recently? What small seed did you use? How are you nurturing it?

Use the Comment link to post your response.

We Can Plant a Tree

Here's a thought: What if every human being planted one tree each year? What kind of effect might this have on sequestering carbon and stabilizing our global climate?

The commitment would be to care for and nurture that tree through one's lifetime and the tree's lifetime, rather than using it for construction or firewood.

What a lovely new tradition this would be for celebrating one's birthday!

And for celebrating one's Earth home.

And what if we did this together, as the human race, and celebrated our shared stewardship of the planet? How might this develop our sense of community with other human beings, and with all life?

Assumption 11: "I can't do anything about it," or "We can do it together."

We are so often overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problems around us, and we therefore decide to do nothing. Think about something else. Feel bad about it occasionally. There is the continuing tragedy of Darfur, and the ineptness of the UN or the African Union in doing something about it. There is the inexorable, accelerating warming trend in the global climate that is melting our polar ice and will soon disrupt ocean currents. And the startling collapse of the world economy, and its terrible consequences for human beings. And so much else…

"What can I do about it?" Nothing, it seems. The problems are so big. So we shift our focus down to the narrower scope of everyday concerns and activities. We make breakfast, take the kids to school, call Aunt May, respond to email. We can check off items on our do-list, and derive some satisfaction; some sense of accomplishment.

Watching cable news and the public station keeps us abreast of developments on that larger scale, the worrisome ones, but in a protected way, as spectators. It helps to know there are people out there tracking all these developments, or arguing about them (senselessly), or affirming our reasons to feel concerned. So we're not crazy.

"But what can I do?"

Everything. As human beings, we have evolved a capacity and a need for social interaction. We are fundamentally herd animals—we prefer to be with others, and have survived through our compulsion and genius to communicate, collaborate, and co-create. Together we have created cities, laws, science, corporations, the Internet, and baseball. There is individual effort and genius involved in all this, but it is based on what others have done and taught us, and is useful only through mutual support and teamwork.

Together we have accomplished a lot, both good and bad. As human beings and as a society we are slowly, perhaps just in time, learning to consider consequences beyond the immediate gain. We are definitely slow learners about all this, but we learn. And we learn together. Like ants touching fellow ants to exchange scents of newly discovered food, we avidly communicate about individual discoveries, questions, conjectures.

As we consider the overwhelming circumstances we find ourselves in as a global society, as nations and states, as communities and families, it is useful to remember occasionally that we have a choice: We can hide from ourselves in our imaginary isolation, or we can embrace our human and social power to make a difference, for ourselves, our dear ones, our society.

The first step is simple, though difficult: We can choose to talk with each other about these larger challenges. Talk seems useless, unless it leads to action, but concerted action that makes a difference begins with talk. We don't need to convince anyone to do anything they don't want to do. What is most useful is to express one's own concerns and aspirations, and to ask others about theirs. The rest emerges by the human magic of creative initiative and collaboration.

We can do it, together.

I look forward to your thoughts in the Comments section.

Workshop on Human Systems Coaching

Human Systems Coaching
Using the Self-Empowerment Sequence
With Saul Eisen, Ph.D.

• Are you caught in a vicious cycle, or not sure what to do next?
• Do your clients keep getting in their own way but can't see it?
• Is your group paralyzed and unable to move forward?
• Are people stuck in scapegoating and feeling powerless?

Discover the transformational power of the Self-Empowerment Sequence (SES) for catalyzing significant shifts in your own understanding and effectiveness. Explore the application of this perspective to the human systems in your life, including key interpersonal relationships, teams, families, the work setting and organizations, communities, and the global society.

The Self-Empowerment Sequence is a seven-stage road map for working through any concern, problem, goal, or aspiration. Action steps for implementation emerge naturally, along with the clarity and commitment for following through with one's own decisions.

Who will benefit:

• External and Internal Organization Development practitioners
• Executive coaches
• Group facilitators
• HR Training and Development professionals
• Managers and team leaders

Upon completion, you will:

• Have direct experience with the effectiveness of the Self-Empowerment Sequence
• Have used the SES to work through personally-relevant topics in three or more human systems
• Have developed skill in working through the task presented by each stage of the SES
• Have developed skill in facilitating and coaching others through the Self-Empowerment Sequence

Location:

Sebastopol, CA

Dates and Times: Four consecutive Wednesdays:
April 22 & 29, May 6 & 13, 2009.
We meet from 5:30 to 9:00 pm.

Program Fee: $250
Light dinner food will be catered, and is included in the fee.

Registration: Space at this facility is limited.
Contact Saul Eisen for registration form.

Reality 10: "There will be surprises!"

So there you have it: I promised to tell you about nine assumptions and ten realities. We have considered nine sets of assumptions that make a difference in how we live our lives; nine choices in how we think, which have consequences for what we experience:

1. Stable Growth, or Discontinuous Change
2. Rationality, or Unconscious Reactiveness
3. Competition, or Collaboration
4. Scarcity, or Abundance
5. Abundance, or Ecological Limits
6. Coercion, or Community
7. Information, or Interaction
8. Vertical, or Horizontal Coordination
9. "Someone's in charge," or "Yes—We are!"

There are other sets of assumptions and other topics I plan to explore here, but for now let's pause and consider what this is about: We are attracted to the comfort of certainty, especially in difficult times, and about that which is dear to us. But certainty is elusive, especially about the important questions.

So we make some educated guesses about how things are, and what is likely to happen, and then we choose our behavior accordingly. Years ago, George Kelly wrote brilliantly about this in The Psychology of Personal Constructs. We are all scientists, he told us, continually developing hypotheses and then acting on them. But competent scientists remember that these are hypotheses—best guesses—and that emergent data and experience can be used to confirm, disprove, or modify them. That is the scientific process, and more generally it is the learning process, which helps us to function effectively and happily as human beings.

We get in trouble when we forget that these are assumptions, tentatively held, pending further information. Blind certainty is at the core of much injustice, cruelty, and human folly. But when we follow the discipline of constant inquiry, we have the opportunity to do what we do best as human beings and as a society—we learn, we improve, we develop, and we grow.

What assumptions have you modified lately?

Assumption 9: "Someone's in Charge," or "Yes--We Are!"

In what may come to be called "the Katrina effect," we often see a tendency to assume that someone's in charge, and will make sure that needed steps will be taken to deal with problems. This assumption emerges directly from our experience in schools and jobs that are organized as authority hierarchies (see Design Principle One in my previous post). As noted earlier, most of us have been implicitly trained to be passive and well-behaved. Performance reviews consider whether a person is a "team-player," which usually means s/he does what s/he's told and doesn't make trouble, especially by asking unpleasant questions.

The lesson of the Katrina disaster, of course, is that the person in charge at FEMA did not do what was needed, nor did he make sure it was done. As one of many examples, out of 25,000 mobile homes the agency purchased for disaster refugee housing, only 1200 were actually used. Once the magnitude of this second disaster (the agency's tragic ineptness) became known, non-government relief efforts accelerated into action.

In a more recent disaster of a different kind, executives at financial institutions did not consider the untenable risks involved in extending mortgage credit to buyers who could not afford the payments. And the government regulators charged with overseeing the credit markets did not maintain control of those dangerous lending practices. Once the financial house of cards began to fall, the persons in charge stepped in with hundreds of billions of dollars to prop them up, but without oversight or conditions. At this writing, little or none of that money has gone to deal with the cause of the disaster, the high rate of housing foreclosures. Throughout all this, the rest of us watch the news reports, appalled. Where are the people in charge, and why are they not dealing with all this effectively?

A friend has pointed out that this is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect: Their research on incompetent people demonstrated that they "reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the meta-cognitive ability to realize it".

I have suggested, too, that such people tend to develop a kind of naïve arrogance, which often gets them elected or selected to leadership positions. Not a good combination when the times get tough, as they obviously have been! And more challenging conditions are on the way.

So what's to be done?

It seems clear from this perspective that none of us can any longer rest on the assumption that someone's in charge and will take care of things. The reality is that, actively or passively, we are all in charge. Each one of us has the responsibility to think about these questions, to talk with others about them, to learn what we need to about what is involved, and to engage in appropriate changes. This involves more horizontal coordination—among peers, friends, strangers, stake-holders. It's not easy. We haven't been educated or trained to work this way. But instead of being unconsciously incompetent, we are fully aware of the steep learning curve we are on. This is our strategic advantage.

Ironically, the person who will take on a position of authority in the US on January 20 seems to be a different kind of leader. He is very competent, but in a different, important way. He doesn't work from preconceived solutions and policies as much as from a commitment to bringing together the full range of relevant views, and working out together the best way to proceed.

Based on his very different orientation to leadership, his election appears to be sparking a spontaneous interest, an excitement, really, among people in organizations and communities throughout the US and also abroad. People seem to be thinking, "What can I do to be part of this? How can I start working with others in a different way?"

We may look back on this time and realize that we were part of the Obama Tipping Point—the fundamental shift from top-down politics and structures, to working together toward shared visions and goals. But is this really possible? As Barack Obama would say, "Yes, we can!"

Assumption 8: Vertical or Horizontal Coordination

As you know, our world is primarily organized in ways that rely on vertical coordination. Someone with greater authority makes decisions, and others follow. And if two or more people disagree on anything, they take the question to someone "above" them, to avoid conflict by deciding for them.

Business organizations are generally structured as hierarchies of authority, with a CEO at the top directing an executive management group. Each of them, in turn, directs a group of middle managers, who direct groups below them, all the way down to supervisors and team leaders, who direct the people "on the shop floor" who actually "do the work." Everyone understands that managing is work too, but common usage is that people are either managers or workers. Still, managers understand all too well that managing is hard work. And it's getting harder.

As our world has accelerated, managers no longer have all the answers, and their direction tends to ignore or suppress the knowledge and information of group members who are doing the work. This sub-optimizes the potential for shared judgment and the effectiveness of the work group. It's the work group as a whole that can best generate the required information about needs and problems, and possible solutions. "No one knows as much as all of us."

But since our shared mindset has not yet changed, managers still get paid for deciding and directing, even though in most circumstances the consequences of their decisions are not easily evaluated. So, many managers cultivate the habit of hiding their confusion, and at least looking decisive. Decisiveness in a complex organizational environment is highly valued, and leads to promotions—all the way to the top. But decisiveness does not necessarily equate with good judgment, or wisdom. To make things worse, most people habitually collude in avoiding their own insecurity generated by complex, ambiguous situations by passively delegating upward to "the person in charge."

Public and not-for-profit organizations use the same framework, and generally try to emulate what they imagine is the efficiency and orderliness of business organizations. This, unfortunately, often leads them to become more "businesslike" and rule-bound, rather than more responsive and effective. Government organizations thus tend to be the most bureaucratic (that's where the word comes from—"we'll have to refer your request to the Bureau of Endless Red Tape.")

Schools and colleges have similar administrative structures, and also use this model within the classroom. The teacher or the professor knows more than the students, and conveys that information, usually via lectures, then verifies that students have acquired the requisite knowledge. The implicit learning that is transmitted, of course, is that the world functions as a hierarchy, and that those with more knowledge and authority direct the rest. Most schools thus prepare people to become passive factory workers—at least the factories of the past.

This vertical coordination model and its underlying assumptions have been termed "Design Principle One" by Fred Emery, Eric Trist, and others. In a ground-breaking study they discovered that teams of workers in a coal mine had developed a horizontal coordination approach. Without the help—or hindrance—of a supervisor, they worked out with each other how the day's work could best be done, and by whom. Rather than relying on skill specialization and division of labor among various team members, they learned continually from each other, and could perform most of the required functions as needed. When managers tried to return them to a "well organized" way of working directed by a supervisor, both their efficiency and morale declined markedly. Allowed to return to their own team-based approach, they regained their high performance.

Emery and Trist described this as the use of self-managed cross-functional teams, and termed the horizontal coordination approach "Design Principle Two." They discovered that it was based on both a high degree of teamwork and on the more effective task methods such teams devised, and continually improved. They termed these two components the social system (teamwork) and the technical system (work methods). Since the two elements were clearly interdependent, they coined the term socio-technical systems. They then found that they could engender change toward Design Principle Two by involving members of other organizations in a process they called Socio-Technic Systems Redesign.

Since that time, many successful STS Redesign projects have been carried out. At an auto assembly plant, for example, a whole team of workers rides on the assembly line and puts a car together from beginning to end. Then they proudly engrave their names on the engine block. Some businesses have derived such great improvements that they consider the new methods a significant competitive advantage, and are reluctant to allow visitors to their production facilities.

There have been relatively fewer applications in public and not-for-profit settings, though the potential benefit is great there, too. And educational institutions lag behind in this respect as well. What would happen, do you think, if a college emphasized collaborative shared learning among students—and among professors?

And what might emerge in a municipality, or a government agency such as, say, the FDA or FEMA, if it shifted away from vertical control and toward an approach of horizontal collaborative community, including employees, service recipients, and stake-holders?

One could say, in fact, that in some ways the National election we have been engaged in is about a choice between Design Principles One and Two.

Click on Comments to let us know what you think. This is a DP Two blog.
(If this note arrived in your email inbox, go to the blog site to post your comment.)