Part V - Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Environmental Dynamism and Complexity

What do snowflakes have to do with leadership? Snowflakes are unique in structure and obtain their shape and size as the flake moves through the atmosphere and is affected by different temperatures and humidity systems. Since snowflakes are virtually unique, their structure is complex and contains a high degree of variation. Just as the natural environment impacts the complexity and variation in the size and shape of a snowflake, the organization's environment impacts the magnitude and character of leadership thinking and decision making.

Two terms emerging from the description of snowflake formation come to mind as I contemplate leadership thinking and decision making. They are environmental dynamism and complexity.


Just typing those terms tends to give me a slight headache! However, those awfully big words convey very important concepts which can affect leaders' thought processes. If understood and appropriately acted upon, then these concepts can help to frame and appreciate the perils and victories of leadership decision making.

 

So, what is environmental complexity? Aldrich essentially defines environmental complexity as a function of the level of standardization (uniformity) or variation (heterogeneity) of firms within an industry.  Can you think of a firm that is in a fairly standardized industry? How about banks...?

What is dynamism? Aldrich describes dynamism as the variability of the industry’s growth or market instability. Can you think of an industry growing by leaps and bounds? How about Internet-related services and products...?

Some researchers view complexity as meaning the number of factors in an environmental event and dynamism as meaning the rate of change in and among the factors (Clark, Varadarajan, & Pride, 1994; Sharfman & Dean, 1991).

Underwood describes complexity as nonlinear or unpredictable interactions of systems within the global system in which there are still elements of predictability. The factors that need to be understood include economic, government, legal, media, climate, moral, psychological/social, and ideological. According to Griffin, organizational environments consist of internal and external forces which must be understood in the context of change. Cummings and Worley argue major disruptions in an organization’s external and internal environment can trigger transformation in response to or in anticipation of those changes. More importantly, Underwood describes marketing and technology forces as dictating the rate of change. The two combined indicate the level of competition in the environment. The term Underwood uses to describe the level of competition is turbulence.

Why are these distinctions important as it pertains to how leaders think? Can you say the words "increased potential for mismatch"? Yes, according to Payne, as complexity of a decision increases decision makers will go for problem solving, learning, and discovery techniques that eliminate choices as quickly as possible. Their choices will be based on limited exploration and evaluation of information. In times of complexity and uncertainty, leaders’ with mental models limited to Hodgkinson's linear economic model are more likely to mismatch the response of the organization and the demands of the environment (Julian & Scrifres, 2002).be valid. The

Julian and Scifres propose decision-makers who operate in stable and simple environments tended to think there is plenty of time to respond to emerging strategic issues. Their thinking is made plausible because it has been reinforced by their past experiences.  In high levels of dynamism and complexity, the tendency to think there is plenty of time to respond leads to what statisticians refer to as an increase in Type II errors.

This environmental misperception leads to decision-makers choosing not to act when they should (Boyd, Dess, & Rasheed, 1993). In times of stability, the potential for Type I errors increases when the mental model is opposite of what was previously described. This misperception leads to decision makers taking unnecessary actions.

What is any self-respecting Leadership and Organization Development professional to do given these circumstances? Again, the answer points back to understanding underlying assumptions and the frame the leader utilizes as he/she processes information. The added challenge is to get clarity on how the complexity of the environment and the dynamics of the industry are informing his/her thinking.

While you may choose for your consultation to be simple and "surface deep", remember your counsel, solutions, and credibility are linked to clarity regarding the situation and the outcomes expected. So, go deeper. Ask more of the right questions to understand and then to simplify the situation. Once you understand and simplify the situation, then you can get to the golden treasure known as clarity. Remember decisions are no better than the information they are based upon.

The next post will be dedicated to the topic of munificence. Don't let that word worry you too much! The word munificence refers to an abundance or scarcity mentality. I'll bet you can't wait to see what impact this mentality has on leadership thinking and decision making. However, I do imagine you already know! Nonetheless, take a look at the next post to learn more. Until then ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see! 

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

References

Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Stanford, NC: Stanford

        University Press.

 

Boyd, B. K., Dess, G. G., & Rasheed, A. M. A. (1993). Divergence between archival

        and perceptual measures of the environment: Causes and consequences. The

        Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 204-226.  Retrieved from

        http://www.jstor.org 

 

Clark, T., Varadarajan, P. R., & Pride. W. M. (1994). Environmental management:

        The construct and research propositions. Journal of Business Research, 29(1),

        23-38. Abstract retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com

 

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organization development and change

        (Sixth ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

 

Hodgkinson, G. P. (2005). Images of competitive space: A study of managerial

         and organizational strategic cognition. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Julian, S. D., & Scifres, E. (2002). An interpretive perspective on the role of

         strategic control in triggering strategic change. Journal of Business Strategies,

        19(2), 141. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com 

Underwood, J. D. (2002b). Thriving in e-chaos: Corporate strategy for uncertain
        times. New York, NY: Writers Press Club.

 

Part IV: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Strategic Organizational Frameworks

What was I thinking? Isn't that the question we most often come up with when we fail at something? Well, as discussed in the last post, leadership thinking and decision making is astronomically important. Why? Because, as Odiorne and Grant remind us, mistakes in strategy lead to mistakes in goals and mistakes in goals lead to mistakes in activities. Can you imagine the significant waste of an entire organization's members leaning their ladders against and climbing the wrong walls? If the organization is a United States publicly traded company, then this waste is typically recognized quickly and brutally punished on Wall Street. This is as it should be! Whether the organization is on Wall Street or Non-Profit Corner, leadership thinking and decision making matter in the creation of value. 

 

What does Hodgkinson have to say about it? He said if an organization's strategies are shaped by the mental models or frames of its leaders, then we should study the models or frames to understand the processes and mechanisms through which strategies are formed and changed. Hodginkson documented three frames for creating managerial and organizational strategy. The frames are:

• economic
• organization theory and
• cognitive

McGee argues effective strategies are a result of the careful inclusion of elements of all three frames.

So, let's take a closer look at each frame.

In the economic frame, the experiences within the world can be placed into boxes. The experiences within each box are the rational outcomes explained by general economic laws. For example, prices rise when demand is greater than the supply. McGee proposed the problem with the frame is its simplistic underlying assumptions about individual and collective behavior. In other words, one size is a fit for all.

 

Essentially, McGee challenges whether the linear thinking, no-frills application, and rear view mirror perspective of the frame are appropriate responses to intricately complex situations.

 

The organization theory frame essentially emphasizes the economic model. Its “principles of specialization and coordination are means of simplifying and rationalizing the organization’s behavior” (McGee, 2005, p. xvii). The specialization or division of labor lends itself to hierarchical, silo, and bureaucratic behavior.

 

The problem with the frame is similar to that of the economic frame. Difficulty arises from its simplistic assumptions about individual and collective behavior.

 

Hodgkinson’s cognitive frame for creating managerial and organizational strategy is characterized by strategic thinking. It is built on the argument that the difference between success and failure can be attributed to the extent to which leaders can make sense of and respond to rapidly changing and difficult situations.

 

Making sense of situations or circumstances requires leaders to be capable of interpreting information as close to reality as possible. Sense making is also required in the context of complexity.

 

Hodgkinson wrote leaders in organizations often deal with multiple and conflicting goals and make decisions with incomplete understanding of imperfect information. Therefore, leaders develop a simplified understanding of reality by creating cognitive or mental models that are the outcome of filtering and organizing the multitudes of information they receive. Leaders use the information to shape macro-organizational strategy.

 

What is any self-respecting Leadership and Organization Development (L&OD) professional to do

given these circumstances? We are back to discovering underlying assumptions. The added challenge

 

is to recognize the leader's organizational framework. Is it:

 

1. a tidy one size fits all or stay within the box frame?

 

2. an orderly, chain of command, and control frame?

 

3. a strategic frame?

 

4. or a frame formed by a combination of the above?

Remember...Hodgkinson appropriately proposed the leader's mental frame should be an 

applicable combination of the economic, organizational, and cognitive models. So, would the

use of a consultative approach in which alternatives are offered to the leader based upon an

understanding of his/her thought processes

and/or an offer to support the leader's facilitation

of a discussion with a cross-function of trusted

colleagues in which underlying assumptions

are disclosed and constructively challenged

support better decisions and outcomes?

The objectives of the discussions are 

determination and clarity regarding

approaches (cognitive frame), order

(organizational frame), and boundaries

(economic frame). If L&OD is to be a trusted advisor, then this is the uncomfortable

territory within which a great degree of savvy and influence must be exercised to

help leaders see the water in which they are swimming.

 

 

In the next post, we will talk about environmental dynamism and complexity!

You will gain an appreciation for how these factors affect leadership thinking and decision

making! Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change

you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

References

Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis (Seventh ed.). Chichester, United

          Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hodgkinson, G. P. (2005). Images of competitive space: A study of managerial and

          organizational strategic cognition. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

McGee, J. (2005). Foreward. Images of competitive space: A study of managerial and

          organizational strategic cognition. G. P. Hodgkinson. New York, NY: Palgrave

          MacMillan.

Odiorne, G. S. (1979). MBO II: A system of managerial leadership for the 80's. Belmont,

          CA: FearonPitman Publishers, Inc.  

 

 

  

Part III: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Strategic Agility

Strategic agility is all about leadership thinking and decision making.

Let's focus on thinking. I really like Kenneth Craik's definition of thinking. He proposed thinking is a feedback support process which is both physical and mental in nature. The process occurs between the time we perceive something and the resulting actions. As humans, we decide a couple of things either consciously or unconsciously. Among them are:

1. How long to remain in the thinking process
2. The framework we will utilize to examine our perceptions

A choice to overly lengthen or delay the thinking process can also lead to "analysis paralysis".

In an excellent piece of work titled Mental Models, the authors said, as humans, we tend to see things through mental frameworks we have constructed. The frameworks or mental models and patterns we use can lead us to either course:

1. rectification (correction)
2. reinforcement (keep going in the same direction)
3. redirection (new paths forward)

Therefore, our view of the world, ourselves, what we are to do, and how we are to do it are
dependent on the mental models we have constructed. These models help us to anticipate and clarify our interactions with others and with the environment.

Consequently, according to McKendree, Small, and Stenning, mental models are a tool of thinking and they are constantly evolving models of models. Mental models and representations are so powerful that they can affect not only the rules, procedures, and strategies one holds but also how one performs (Mental Models, 1983). So, in terms of speed and the frameworks utilized, leadership thinking agility is astronomically important. Why?
 

If strategy and the goals of the firm are interdependent, then a mistake in strategic thinking can lead to a mistake in goals established for the firm. How could this happen? Robert Grant proposed agility challenges occur as a result of behavioral and cognitive factors. Included among the factors are:

1. rigidity relative to core capabilities (sticking with core competence no matter what)
2. social pattern disruptions (patterns of collaboration, coordination, communication)
3. perceptions of threats to power (control)
4. and complex configurations between strategy, structure, systems, culture, and employee skills (complexity).

According to Grant, we also have a tendency to lock into common structures and strategies and to prefer what's known over what's to be discovered. The preferences are reinforced by what is called bounded rationality and satisficing. Bounded rationality refers to the limited capacity of humans to process information. The limitation ultimately leads to constraints on the set of choices from which one can select. Satisficing refers to settling for satisfactory rather than optimal performance as a result of the termination of the search for better solutions once a satisfactory performance level is achieved.

Consequently, Hickman proposed the response to the environment is a critical and systemic thinking challenge for which leaders have to be adept at conceptualizing their strategic insight. Leaders have to be adept at surfacing their thinking and associated underlying assumptions in order to understand how they operate to undermine their own intentions. Again, thinking ability is critical because as Odiorne (1979) explained, a mistake in goals will produce a mistake in activity.

So, what is an L&OD professional to do in the face of these challenges during complex and chaotic times. Well, to use a Becky-ism, proposing that "it is 5 o'clock somewhere" is not the answer. This Becky-ism was the cue that it was time for Happy Hour and the alcohol that comes along with it. Yes, and one must soberly face up to these challenges.

The key as an L&OD professional is to examine underlying assumptions as part of the work. If true clarity and communication is to be attained, then this level setting step should not be missed. Why? Because, in my experience, often the underlying assumptions are different for each key decision maker. Further, the key decision makers may also not be on the same page regarding key terms or words they are using to describe the circumstances or solutions.

So, is everyone really on the same page and singing from the same hymn book? Are we just assuming so? Would you think it probably important to have clarity regarding assumptions for alignment, change management, and true sustainability of solutions implemented. As a very wise and wonderful leader once said, if the assumptions are right then the options to deal with the challenges stand the chance of being right.

The next post will include a discussion of three strategic organizational frameworks leaders may be using to make decisions. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.
View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/
Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

This post contains an "ism" from a former colleague, Becky Hall. She could easily come up with quips to add humor to any situation. Of course, no alcoholic beverages were allowed during the course of a work day from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at any time. So, at various times during the day, if a heavy conversation led most of us to think we needed to be at Happy Hour immediately, then Becky would break the tension by saying, "Well, it's five o'clock somewhere!". This was, of course, a joke! Thank you for the humor Becky.

References
Craik, K. J. W. (1966). The nature of psychology. Stephen L. Sherwood (Ed.). Cambridge,
          United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis (Seventh ed.). Chichester, United
          Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hickman, G. R. (Ed.). (1998). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. Thousand
           Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McKendree, J., Small, C., & Stenning, K. (2002). The role of representation in teaching
           and learning critical thinking skills. Educational Review, 54(1), 57-67. Retrieved from
           http://web.ebscohost.com.library.dub.edu:2048/ehost/pdf? 
           vid=5&hid=114&sid=63b1980c-eb34-4915-b639-892cf7e89aa5%40sessionmgr102
Mental Models. (1983). In Dedre Gerner and Albert L. Stevens (Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
           Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst? 
           action=openPageViewer&docId=55455342#
Odiorne, G. S. (1979). MBO II: a system of managerial leadership for the 80's. Belmont,
            CA: Fearon Pitman Publishers, Inc.
 
 

Part II: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Organization Strategy

According to Robert Grant, strategy is about winning and strategy links the organization to its environment.

I recall a conversation a year or so ago in which a leader and I were discussing the misuses of the word "strategic"? It sometimes seems that people use the adjective, strategic, to indicate they are visionaries who leave the details to others. Misuse of the term strategic, to borrow a Venita-ism, just "wears me slick". So, let's do a little level setting.

What does "strategy" mean? Robert Grant and Jim Underwood said, strategy is an approach or a plan that answers where and how organizations will compete to make money or create value for their benefactors. For-profit and commercial non-profit organizations also have to ensure they are generating the highest net present value of the organization's future cash flow. Underwood suggests companies who create and execute good strategy are far more successful in achieving the goal of profit maximization than those who do not.

As a quick reminder, Grant wrote the primary benefactors of profits in for-profit organizations are the shareholders. According to Hansmann, in non-profits and government owned organizations the public is the primary benefactor. Non-profits and government owned organizations may also have security holders who are benefactors (e.g., those who have purchased Treasury notes, bonds, T-bills, etc.).

Grant also proposed the firm’s goals and values are or should be directly linked to its strategies. Consequently, developing winning strategies requires significant thinking agility of leaders and staff within organizations. Hickman described leadership as sensing, analyzing, and incorporating environmental changes through processes of interactions between themselves and employees. Yet, he also proposed, while leadership initiates the first steps toward change, employees are expected to be involved as “highly motivated critical thinkers and actors who perform equal but different roles than leaders to meet their mutual goals”. Do you think this sounds like a recipe for employee involvement and engagement? Under these conditions, hoarding information is definitely not a good idea.

So, why should leadership and organization development (L&OD) practitioners care? Great question! Let's assume leadership has a somewhat accurate perspective on the organization's environment. Accordingly, let's also assume leadership has developed a strategy, a critical few strategic goals, and objectives. Let's also assume you have facilitated or they have let you in on their thinking.

Once you are clear about their thoughts, as L&OD practitioners, the job is to ask key questions and provide consultation regarding talent implications and gaps. Why? The reason is alignment. Yes, it is the best way to ensure L&OD work is focused and cohesively meeting the organization's needs. Key questions you could ask and collaboratively answer once you are clear regarding the environment, strategic goals, and objectives include:

1. What must leaders and staff know?
2. How must they behave/act? and...
3. What must they be able to do in order to respond to environmental challenges, execute the strategy, and achieve the resulting key strategic goals and objectives?
4. Which, if any roles, are missing or need to change?
5. How will knowledge, skills, behaviors, roles, and goal accomplishment be reinforced?
6. How will knowledge, skills, behaviors, roles, and goal directives be quickly adjusted as environmental challenges dictate?
7. How will differentiation in rewards for success be leveraged to motivate leaders and staff? 
8. How will you continuously improve and tie outcome metrics to your L&OD efforts?

To be strategic, the big picture or vision is of critical importance and so is some sense of the appropriate level of details or plans. Chaotic and complex times demand some non-linear and inclusive thinking. In these times, to borrow another Amy-ism, we should consider "both/and" when comparing alternatives rather than risk the fallacies of either/or decisions.

After all, truly strategic people should be able to show meaningful outcomes that support their claim of "strategery"! As you may recall, "strategery" was coined by James Downey on Saturday Night Live in a sketch where Will Ferrell played President George W. Bush. The term was later adopted by some in Bush's administration as a joke. Yes, I am joking a little and I am very serious at the same time!

In the next blog, strategic agility will be the topic. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

This post contains a phrase I adored from one of my former leaders. Her name is Venita McCellon-Allen. She gave me an opportunity, the encouragement, and the motivation to grow! Thank you Venita. The phrase or Venita-ism is "wears me slick"! This post also contains another Amy-ism from Amy Tawney. She could produce these nuggets of gold in a split second flat. This time its "both/and". Don't you love it!

References


Grant, R. M. (1998). Contemporary strategy analysis (Third ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom:

      Blackwell.

Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis (Seventh ed.). Chichester, United      
     
      Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hansmann, H. (1996). The changing roles of public, private, and nonprofit enterprise in 

     education, health care, and other human services. In V. R. Fuchs, (Ed.), Individual and 

     Social Responsibility: Child Care, Education, Medical Care, and Long-Term Care in 

     America (pp. 245 - 275). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from 

     http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Hansmannthechangingroles.pdf

Underwood, J. D. (2002). The new corporate strategy. Oxford, United Kingdom: Capstone

     Publishing.

   

For the Love of the Leadership and Organization Development Profession

                                              A Point of View from the Desk of Phyllis Wright, Ph.D.


Before proceeding to the next post on Leadership and Organization Development by Design, some may be wondering why I am including names of theorists and references to their work in my blog. I am so glad for the curiosity.

I have chosen to be a continuous learner in leadership and organization development (L&OD) because knowledge is changing rapidly and one can never know everything. Further, Ryan C. Mack, said the first half of success is knowledge. But, knowledge by itself is not power.

The second half of the success equation is action. So, knowledge plus action equals power. As such, I am as much of a proponent of having a strong theoretical foundation in L&OD as I am for being able to demonstrate flexible and practical application. Why?

Yes, action is the second half of the success equation. It's the effectiveness and efficiency of the actions taken that make the difference. Too often in my career across four industries and working with other colleagues from across the country, I have witnessed or heard of programs designed by well meaning people not delivering anywhere near desired outcomes. I have often wondered what the causes might have been. After all, most of these programs required huge investments of money, time, and energy.

So, I have speculated and asked myself questions such as:

1. How many of these failed programs were not established based upon sound design principles and clear outcomes?
2. What barriers hindered success? What could have been done to overcome the barriers?
3. Are users or clients putting into them what they expect out of them?
4. How often are some of these programs favored or not by very influential people and/or managed by people who feel they can't push back because they want to protect or build their careers while hundreds of thousands of dollars continue to be poured into the programs despite the performance evidence or lack thereof?

Nonetheless, one of my wise and wonderful mentors said when failure happens for one person on the team it tends to reflect on all. Consequently, writers like Dr. Barbara Kellerman, author of The End of Leadership, can rightfully question the viability of L&OD practices when sufficient evidence of success is scarce.

As a member of the L&OD community, my desire for this blog is to bear my portion of the responsibility for the success of the profession by sharing what I have learned. To be an effective contributor means one must commit to getting and keeping their house in order through continuous learning...academic and experiential. Then, and only then, does contributing make sense.

So, my hope in sharing is to ensure underlying L&OD theory and knowledge of how and when to place resulting programs into practice are not the predominant reasons for failure. As with any profession, whatever the reasons for failure, the impact can ignite a spread of mistrust and disrespect of L&OD practitioners and their work.

A body of research and knowledge exists for L&OD. My hopes are:

1. The work is understood and known by those who are "hanging out a shingle" and/or printing L&OD professional titles on their business cards, and/or claiming expertise on their social network profiles, websites, and/or blogs.
2. Practitioners are striving to practically apply their knowledge.
3. Practitioners have made the commitment to continuous and deep learning in the field, measurement rigor, sharing of learning and even adding to the body of knowledge.

The integrity of the profession demands admission of knowledge gaps and pursuit of proper understanding from all who are practicing.

Why is this important? To illustrate...If one needs a triple bypass, then who will be selected to perform the operation? Will the person needing the triple bypass typically select someone to perform the surgery who does not have a proven track record supporting their background and/or experience in performing the surgery? If you said not intentionally, then I agree.

Likewise, if an unproven investment of $50 billion is placed into a development program annually of any type, then do you think a valid question could be who is supporting the investment decisions? Accordingly, while very helpful, would you agree L&OD practice is not just a matter of practitioner popularity/likeability? Further, unless agreed to for very clear, aligned, specific, short-term, and monitored pilots or development activities, would you agree the L&OD practice is not the best place to host consultants who are using the organization as their "guinea pig"?

I am sure this would never happen. Nonetheless, would you also agree L&OD is not the best place to play out influential leaders' career legacy and/or attention grabbing projects and/or political favors for service providers selling products or services that are not aligned with supporting the accomplishment and sustainability of business goals? Further, unless there are agreed upon benefits and clear understanding of risks, would you also agree L&OD is also not the best place to sell services and/or products that undermine or compete with programs already in progress because of the potential breakdowns in program cohesiveness?


Additionally, while mistakes will be made and lessons will be learned, would you agree consistent patterns of fragmentation, errors, and poor quality must be addressed sooner rather than later due to the organization wide impact of most L&OD programs? Do you think there is a chance unsuspecting clients are counting on "expertise" from their consultants and clients may not know when they are not getting the best advice?

The crude reality is months or even years could pass before consultation errors or program failures surface when intentional and well placed metrics are absent. The passage of time may even make course correction almost impossible. By that point, do you think it likely, practitioners/consultants may have already collected their pay checks and may be happily working with their next client as a result of the great recommendation the unsuspecting organization has unwittingly given them? Perhaps, this is why Kellerman suggested leadership development industry consultations come with a warning.

Maybe I am the only one in my career who has observed what I will share next. So, this is purely my perspective and to borrow a Martha-ism, "Lord deliver me from" those claiming to be L&OD practitioners that don't know that they don't know what they are supposed to know. Further, deliver me from those who figure out they don't know what they are supposed to know and decide arrogantly to continue to defy logic and to continue to move forward as they abide in "la-la land".

Accordingly, would you agree it best for practitioners to always be willing to challenge themselves on what they think they know and always be willing to learn and obtain proper support and promptly course correct? The L&OD profession, leaders, and staff within organizations utilizing their services are counting on practitioners' recommendations adding long-term value and establishing a sustainable return on investment of dollars (ROI), energy, and time spent. Value measurement is the hard aspect of the soft work done in L&OD.

Accordingly, do your observations align with the following statement? As much as personal popularity/likeability helps and is needed, the strongest ROI, professional credibility, and trust comes from knowing and being able to put what one knows into practice efficiently and effectively. Is it unreasonable to believe if interventions are well chosen, then their efficiency and effectiveness can be enhanced when there is executive and unwavering support for the removal or reduction of the impact of inevitable barriers? Would you agree common barriers include:

• political "pork" (i.e., anything that is unnecessary and added and maintained per the desires of those with influence)
• political power plays and/or resistance from influential personalities
• organization barriers such as:
• problematic organization structures
• fragmented systems,
• programs, processes, and procedures that clash with or undermine the intervention

...just to name a few? Would you agree the list is longer?

As Dr. Kellerman has so eloquently argued, there are 50 billion reasons to get L&OD work right. I tend to agree. I hope we can engage in dialogue about how to do just that.

In the next post, I will get back on schedule by posting Part II: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Organization Strategy. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

 
Follow @PhyllWright Twitter      


This post contains a Martha-ism. The Martha-ism is "Deliver me Lord". Martha Moten is my husband's barber. As he acts out Ms. Martha's tales, he typically has me laughing hysterically after his visits to the barber shop. Yes, my husband is somewhat of a comedian at times. I am, typically, in tears from laughing so hard. Thanks Ms. Martha for your consistent and humorous stories! Laughter is truly good for the soul!

References:

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Mack, R. C. (2011). Living in the village. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Part I: Leadership and Organization Development by Design Series - Organization Environment

Upon which foundations and according to what structural plans have organizations’ leadership and organization development (L&OD) programs been designed?

Josh Bersin, principal and founder of Bersin by Deloitte, recently noted in a LinkedIn article the following conclusions from 50 or so chief learning officers:

• Leadership development is a critically important challenge.
• To understand leadership, one must understand followership.
• Leadership development programs are too fragmented and not focused enough on company specific and current business strategy.

The first two posts for this blog were focused on conclusions one and two. The next series of posts are dedicated to exploring causes and solutions for the third conclusion...program fragmentation and lack of specific business focus. The discussions will include:

• Organization Environment
• Organization Strategy
• Strategic Agility
• Strategic Organizational Frameworks
• Environmental Dynamism and Complexity
• Munificence: Resource Scarcity or Abundance
• Distributed Intelligence and Accountability
• A Leadership Development Program Model

Let’s begin with organization environment.

Henry Hansmann said there are fundamentally three forms of business ownership in the United States. The three forms of ownership are for-profit, private nonprofit, and public or government-owned. Private nonprofits are categorized as either donative or commercial. Donative nonprofits receive their income from donors who are in effect purchasing services and/or goods to be delivered to a third party. Commercial nonprofits receive their revenue from fees for services and/or goods charged directly to the payor. 

Regardless of the form of business, what is done by organizations should create value. An organization’s environment should inform how leadership practically and strategically guides the creation of value. What is value? Robert M. Grant describes value as the monetary worth of a product or service. If L&OD programs align with building capabilities that increase the worth of products and services, then L&OD programs have a better chance of adding value. So, what is an organization’s environment? 

Ricky W. Griffin proposed an organization’s environment consists of internal and external forces that must be understood from the perspective of change. Forces include economic, government, legal, media, etc. Thomas Cummings and Christopher Worley correctly said major disruptions in an organization’s external and internal environment have the possibility of triggering transformation in response to or in anticipation of those changes. The most recent United States industry illustration is health care. 

Additionally, Jim Underwood described marketing and technology forces as dictating the rate of change. The two combined indicate the level of turbulence or competition in the environment. Why is this important? Two words describe current business environments across the world. They are chaos and complexity. Technological evolution is causing the rate of change to be exponential.

John W. Payne proposed, when uncertainty and complexity increase, leaders take mental shortcuts to quickly reduce the number of options available. Their decisions are based on limited information search and evaluation.  So, what? The question is perfect. Under chaotic, uncertain, and complex conditions, Scott Julian and Elton Scrifres proposed leaders are more likely to mismatch the response of the organization and the demands of the environment.

Potential for mismatch is essentially why L&OD practitioners, executive sponsors/leaders, and leadership industry experts need environmental clarity specific to the business. It provides a pathway to program alignment with the organization’s response to its environmental demands. After all, appropriate response is the stake upon which value creation hinges. 

The next post is dedicated to organizational strategy. Until then, ask and seek answers to the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see. Let the conversation begin!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

References
  
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organization development and change (Sixth
        
      ed.).  Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis (Seventh ed.). Chichester, United 

     Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Griffin, R. W. (1990). Management (Third ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 

Hansmann, H. (1996). The changing roles of public, private, and nonprofit enterprise in 

     education, health care, and other human services. In V. R. Fuchs, (Ed.), Individual and 

     Social Responsibility: Child Care, Education, Medical Care, and Long-Term Care in 

     America (pp. 245 - 275). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from 

     http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Hansmannthechangingroles.pdf

Julian, S. D., & Scifres, E. (2002). An interpretive perspective on the role of strategic control 

      

     in triggering strategic change. Journal of Business Strategies, 19(2), 141. Retrieved from 

     http://www.questia.com/read/5000638778

Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An 

     information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human 

     Performance, 16(2), 366-387. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.

Underwood, J. D. (2002). Thriving in e-chaos: Corporate strategy for uncertain times. 

    New York, NY: Writers Press Club.