Organize for Complexity

Under the conditions of the industrial age – in sluggish markets and with relatively low-complexity value creation, efficiency gains could be achieved with management methods such as standards, rules, and planning. Even if these methods, even then, were not considered morally unobjectionable. In the meantime, these methods have become a problem in a variety of ways – both economically and morally

They organize innovation in such a way that ultimately each person shares in it, and can couple his or her motivation to the purpose of the work. Each day and every day. Google and W.L.Gore are notable examples among Beta organizations, in this regard. In these companies each employee can and should initiate research and development projects; financial resources are supposed to follow the ideas, not the other way around. Not mechanical allocation and budgets, but people with ideas. This way, people are far more likely to connect with the purpose of the organization

The future is unforeseeable, it is entrepreneurial. However, prevailing management thought is rooted in the dogma that we are able to somehow master the future, and control it: We just need to think of a goal and make a plan of how we can achieve it! The underlying belief is that the future is obedient to our plans, foreseeable, controllable. In reality, of course, markets are highly dynamic and surprising. And the more dynamic and complex markets become, the more internal control and central economic planning drive organizations into the wall

Basic assumption number two is about organizations and their controllability. Do organizations need hierarchy

If I understand correctly you are speaking of two basic assumptions. The first is related to human nature..

Encourage constructive dialogue and networking. You are a member of the informal structure of your organization. Take advantage of this structure for the purpose of transformation. You will find that you are not alone!

Use existing forums for impulses. Every organization creates communication forums that may be harnessed or “re-purposed” for transformational stimuli. These can be events and conferences, annual gatherings, executive meetings and even Christmas parties. Who are the curators of these forums?

Remove what hinders. It is often easier and requires less influence to clear internal obstacles than to implement something completely “new.” This does not mean that such organizational hygiene would be less effective than creating new practices

”

By combining this with the framework outlined on the previous pages, a completely new kind of change initiative framework emerges. One in which the two different dimensions of profound change – organizational and personal – are intertwined and inseparable. A double helix framework for transformation

A process model for changing teams or the organization as a whole cannot cope with the full challenge of a Beta transformation. There is another, a second dimension to change: one that is not related to the organization as a social organism, but that has to do with each individual’s transformation experience.

Everyone’s communication styles and behavior patterns must change. Thus, to achieve true organizational transformation, another dimension needs to be added to the framework: a process model for personal, or individual change

Resistance to change is as natural as sweating is in professional sports. With an emergent approach to change, resistance gets minimized and workable

Bureaucratization tends to happen by surprise. Just as a strong gust of crosswind coming seemingly out of nowhere can knock over a cyclist. The trigger for this transformation is the organization´s own growth and subsequent diminishing of social density, but crises also plays a role. Suddenly, the cry for “professionalization” gets voiced: alien best practices are copied, consultants brought in, processes and rules established, formal structures drawn up to oppose the “chaos.” Thus, Alpha principles and beliefs are being adopted. Everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn’t we