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.
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
information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Underwood, J. D. (2002). Thriving in e-chaos: Corporate strategy for uncertain times.
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
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.