Organisations & Complexity: A Perplexing Business (part #2)
First things first - organisations are complex and unpredictable, not linear and predictable. Just like gravity, this is a non-negotiable, so it is fundamental that leaders, managers and decision-makers understand this.
The nature of organisations is not something that we can change to our liking.
We have to respect the nature of complex systems, rather than try to force them to play by linear rules - of order, reductionism, predictability and determinism - as these apply only to linear systems. In complex systems, such as our teams and organisations, "cause and effect are not linked; the whole is not simply the sum of the parts; emergent properties often appear seemingly out of the blue; taking the system apart does not reveal much about its global behaviour" (pp68).
If this is news to you or doesn’t make sense yet then head over to part #1 for a fun read that aims to bring you up to speed on the crucial difference between the natures of linear and complex systems.
Management theories’ fatal flaw 💀
In spite of organisations being complex, most management theories have been cooked up using linear thinking. Such theories and thinking are a perfect fit in the predictable realm, i.e. where everything is orderly, certain and there are no surprises. The problem is organisations do not live in the predictable realm. We know this because they surprise us daily. And yet most theories that guide them are offering linear solutions to complex problems. At best this leads to frustrating decisions, wasteful predictions, bureaucratic processes and widespread disengagement (to the tune of 85% according to Gallup). At worst, it is dangerous. Like asking the captain of a ship to pilot a plane.
Linear, one size fits all approaches are fine in linear settings but they are not universally applicable, so they do not work so well in complex settings. Unfortunately, a one size fits all solution to the complex problem of organising how we work simply does not exist.
Window dressing 💃
In reality, organisations that adhere purely to one management theory or way of working are pretty rare. It’s a pity then that it has become fashionable for organisations that depart from top-down management to swear allegiance to this or that theory or way of working. Those in fashion in recent years include Agile, Lean, Self-Management and so on. We can be certain that the next one is in the post, that it won't be the last, and that for all but a few organisations, these labels are largely window dressing.
Why? Because Agile comes in all shapes and sizes. Ditto Lean, Self-Management, even top-down and whatever else management theorists cook up next. Indeed, organisations often unwittingly blend various theories/flavours/ways of working whilst loudly and proudly insisting they are 100% Agile or ‘Teal’ or whatever else is the flavour of the month. Claims of ‘single malt’ are often wishful thinking.
It’s important to clarify at this point that I am not against these management theories and ways of working. Many are helpful in the right context so it makes good sense to borrow bits and bobs from them if and when they suit our environment and context. The trouble is when they are hailed by their creators and cheerleaders as the (new) one right way, i.e. the most sensible way of working. For me, self-management was the one that I believed and hoped would unseat top-down to become the one right way, and I believed that when this happened all would be well in our organisations…
I was wrong. It didn’t happen and it won’t. Again, that’s not to say it isn't helpful in some contexts or that it doesn’t interest and suit me. It just means that it’s not the one right way. And nor is any other theory, because the one right way does not, cannot, and so will not exist in this or any other complex problem space. Once we accept this, we can focus instead on more pragmatic stuff, such as the patterns that endure in high-performing teams and progressive organisations.
Reality bites 😬
Theories are efforts to model real-life situations and separate out rules from special or accidental circumstances. So far, no management theory has been able to reliably predict, explain, or control workplace events. Infact, they haven’t even come close, which explains why they’re so changeable. Consequently, I view management theories as being kinda similar to job roles in that, generally without fanfare, they have a tendency to evolve to fit circumstances.
It makes no sense for us to use a 100-year, 20-year, or even 2-year-old job description to advertise a role. Yet this is exactly what we do with our ways of working. Top-down management became the flavour of the month during the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century and it’s still well on top today. Not so long ago in 2001, a challenger arrived on the scene in Agile ways of working, which have had some degree of success. I see both these ways of working (or window dressing) and others as neither good nor bad - most have their place in the right context and environment.
Oops - “Theorisits it seems, failed to ask themselves a simple yet fundamental question: is it feasible to formulate theory to model… phenomena characterised by copious diversity and constantly fluctuating events that in the main follow no rhyme or reason” (pp 32).
In reality, our ways of working, just like our roles, evolve over time to remain relevant and ultimately to survive. Neither is static, and such constant adaptation is a clear sign of a complex (unpredictable) environment, as opposed to a linear (predictable) environment. Arguably up until Agile, those concocting management theories largely believed in a fantasy realm where all things in life are orderly and predictable, and stable cause-and-effect relationships are King. Unbeknownst to them they were cooking up linear recipes for a complex world, i.e. forcing a square peg in a round hole.
Broken promises 💔
If only our organisations were as simple, orderly and predictable as gravity. Alas, they are not. Not at all. They are stubbornly and permanently nonlinear, or in other words, complex and unpredictable. And crucially, complex environments/systems are not bound by the rules that linear environments/systems play by. Little wonder then, that leaders and managers putting top-down theory into practice are left constantly chasing their tales.
Complex systems do not adhere to the golden rules of linearity - order, reductionism, predictability and determinism.
In short, management recipes have not delivered on their promise of prediction and control. Intense debate around competing theories rage, and when events cast doubt over management theories’ ability to model real work life adequately, their creators make amendments. Course corrections are commonplace as theorists double down on their attempts to finally create a universally applicable management model. Various gurus nitpick their way through the details and disciples bow whilst sensible onlookers sigh. On the weekend, I assume the theorists and their fans form a merry band and go in search of the Loch Ness Monster.
Matters truly went off the rails when MBAs went viral and business schools the world over tried to pedal management models as scientific and/or universal theories that should be imposed willy-nilly. They still do.
Sadly, real life seldom tallies with management theory.
Hoarded power 🔋
Somewhat annoyingly, one of “the most enduring feature(s) in human societies is a hierarchical structure based on monopoly of power and wealth by an elite at the top and a concomitant for equity and justice” (pp48). Most organisations do not stray too far from this feature. It’s a trait that spilt into the business world and has never been mopped up. Top-down has been the order of the day for yonks, and the arrival of a few recent challengers has done very little to disrupt its dominance.
“Over the centuries, ideologies were invented to justify the privileged position of the elite, and to offer a glimmer of hope to the rest of society… In the present era, the mainstream is represented by theories advocating a variety of so-called scientific explanations for the lopsided distribution of power. … inevitably, dissatisfaction with the elite and their uses and abuses of power comes the surface. There is, therefore, a constant tussle between the two factions. This applies to the hierarchy with the global interstate system just as much as the sarpanch (head of the village) and his friends and relations in a village in West Bengal” (pp48).
In sum, elites have always hoarded power. Hierarchies with a privileged few at the top hoarding power and disgruntled people below seeking parity and influence are an established facet of life in our societies and organisations. A handful of organisations here and there might march to the beat of their own drum, but for the vast majority, there is a very wonky distribution of power. It doesn’t have to be this way. And it sure as hell doesn’t make sense.
Patterns that endure 🌀
“The essential task in looking for evolutionary stable (org) development strategies is to search for the underlying patterns that endure” (pp47).
While there is and never can be one right way in management (or any other complex problem), there are patterns that endure when it comes to healthy and effective ways of working. A trait of many high-performing teams and progressive organisations is that they buck the current trend by holding traditional top-down hierarchy lightly.
Instead, they focus on experimenting with patterns such as learning healthy meeting structures and distributed decision-making techniques, growing a culture of feedback, creating clear and fluid roles, crafting a conflict engagement process, establishing team agreements, and working to create psychological safety. You can learn much more about these over in the New Ways of Working Playbook.
Cocktail time? 🍸
While organisations usually either trip and fall into the top-down trap or swear allegiance to this or that management theory, it tends not to “cramp unduly their room for manoeuvre” (pp49). Top-down organisations can be home to self-organising teams, Agile is completely misunderstood in many quarters, and some self-managing organisations do wonderful top-down impersonations.
As such, management theories should be “taken for what they are: varying and variable sets of simplifications to be handled with a degree of caution and flexibility” (pp50). More commonly than their champions would have us believe, management theories and ways of working frequently coexist in the same organisation and even at the team level, battling it out “in a constant state of mutual contention and agitation” (pp54).
The state of our ways of working is most often a dynamic cocktail of concepts borrowed from several theoretical roots. The core ways of working that we encounter today are best viewed as fluid sets of generalised beliefs that have plenty in common with each other. In practice, there is little sacrosanct about top-down leadership, Agile, Lean, or Self-management. The various window dressings and ways of working are flexible sets of patterns that emerge as outcomes of varied work contexts, histories, and endless interactions between people who make up the organisation.
So what? 🧐
Efforts to transform ideas around ways of working into universally applicable management theories are misguided. Why? Because they are founded on the false assumption that our organisations exist in the realm of the predictable, where stable cause-and-effect relationships rule.
Until management movers and shakers understand the nature of our organisations - i.e. they swim in the complex, not linear realm - they will continue offering linear recipes for a complex world. The conceptual quagmire and subsequent course corrections will continue, as we drink a disengaging cocktail of largely linear shots, perhaps with a dash of something sweet if we’re among the lucky 15% of engaged employees (Gallup).
In sum, the ways of working that our organisations most commonly identify with are a) getting on a bit, b) frequently coexisting, and c) were likely conjured by well-intentioned people who didn’t grasp complexity. So, is it down the hatch with traditional ways of working, or will you pour something new by searching for patterns that endure in the complex systems that are our organisations and teams?
--
*Acknowledgement: This article is based on Samir Rihani’s wonderful book, which was aimed at the UN, World Bank, IMF, and those working in the field of international development. I have attempted to distil the wisdom in it and repurpose it for a different problem space, that of organisational development.
Sami is the best educator I have ever encountered.
*Feedback: feedback is welcome, provided it is motivated by an intention to help and delivered kindly. So no kicks in the shin 🙏
Support
☕ If you find this useful and would like to support me to create more free stuff, you’re very welcome to fuel me with coffee: https://ko-fi.com/newwaysofworking
If your team/org could use some support (training or coaching) to move away from traditional top-down decision-making just hit reply and we’ll schedule a call to see how I can help.
🌐 www.marco.work | LinkedIn | 📕 New Ways of Working Playbook
