The term "organizational development" has been around for decades and is now widely focused on in academic curriculum, management books and among leaders and consultants. The term has multiple meanings depending on who is using it. Historically it has referred to a wide array of interventions aimed at improving and elevating organizations' productivity. Usually being applied when performance or productivity are an issue or problem. So, it’s been typically viewed as a fix-it approach, frequently using a transactional and linear framework to address problems.
Other times and more recently, the term "organizational development" is embracing and applying the “developmental” aspect to organizational development, change or evolution. The deep understanding about the developmental qualities of humans was led and influenced by Eric Fromholtz, Lawrence Kohlberg and Erik Erikson, to name a few. Their work shows the stages in the life cycle of humans. Organizations like people go through life stages in which they have challenges or developmental tasks to conquer and integrate. The accomplishment of these developmental objectives builds competencies and capacities which become resources that are needed building blocks to advance, grow, expand and innovate.
The term "organizational development," the level of development within organizations can refer to the characteristic patterns of thinking, interaction, commitment and accountability reflective within organizations.
The same is obviously true when people come together in organizations. Whole organizations, as well as departments or work teams within organizations, characteristically operate from a range of thinking and relating levels.
The point is that organizations, like individuals, reflect different levels of thinking and relating ability and the corresponding competencies that go with those levels. The most important way to think about the development of organizations is to focus first on the development of the levels of thinking and relating within the organization. And this needs to start but not end with the critical levels of leadership.
The reverse is also true. The failure or sub-optimized results of organizational development interventions or of organizations carrying out their missions and strategies are directly related to the levels of thinking and relating operative in these organizations.
Thus, the thesis is that the success of organizations - in the day-to-day operations, in their restructuring, and in their development - is directly related to the levels of thinking and relating active within the organization. This is especially true for people in key leadership, management and technical positions. Hence the development of organizations is inextricably interwoven with the development of its people. The one does not happen without the other. You can have the best strategies, models and technology and they can only can as far and as impactful as the level of thinking that leads them.
The outline in this section will describe the characteristics of the various levels of thinking, relating, and commitment within organizations. Along with describing the characteristics, We will examine the implications for how certain leadership and management activities are carried out when an organization operates from each of the levels.
Since the thinking, relating, and commitment in any organization reflects the leadership and management of that organization, certain levels of thinking will be more common or the norm in an organization. Thus, the levels are identified as types of organizations.
However, keep in mind the complexity of organizations and the fact, like humans, they are dynamic, not static. Every organization will include characteristics from each of the levels. Typically, all the levels will be reflective to some extent in most organizations, even if in small pockets of the organization. Giving an organization an over simplified label will not further constructive understanding and assessment of that organization and the factors that need to be addressed to help it develop.
STAGE ONE (ENFORCER ORGANIZATIONS)
Enforcer organizations assume that they live in a dog eat dog world in which there is not enough to go around for everyone. They believe that other people and organizations are out to knock them off if they can. They assume that in order to survive, they need to use all their resources to defend, control and force the results they need to get.
Enforcer Thinking
Enforcer organizations use unconscious, pre-rational, episodic, projective, immediate thinking.
They confuse fantasy with reality. They cannot analyze or synthesize, think deductively or inductively.
They react. They cannot consciously examine alternatives or evaluate their own thinking.
They live in a series of unrelated episodes. They fail to see the whole picture or how things are related. They do not understand cause and effect relationships.
They are frequently controlled by their emotions and perceive situations in all or nothing terms. They typically view others as against them and project aggressively on the world around them. They are impulsive and find it difficult to wait.
They are prisoners of the immediate moment. They cannot reverse the sequence of their thoughts. Consequently, they cannot tell you what they said five minutes ago. They also cannot project into the future to assess consequences or to imagine how things could be different.
Some implications of Enforcer thinking in organizations are:
• Decision Making: Because they confuse fantasy with reality and are unconscious and episodic in their thinking, decision making in Enforcer organizations can be erratic, all or nothing, autocratic, or nonexistent. Often decisions will be announced without discussion or participation from those who will be affected. They will not be able to consider historically relevant data, nor draw generalizations from the data that they have. Their decisions will be reactionary, most frequently based on fear and suspicion, rather than based on conscious values or alternatives.
• Problem Solving: Problems tend to not get solved in Enforcer organizations because they are avoided and not understood. Their inability to see the whole picture and to understand cause and affect relationships makes it impossible for them to adequately analyze problem situations and create viable alternative solutions.
• Planning: Planning is also non-existent. Being prisoners of the present moment and their emotions, they are too busy putting out fires and impulsively reacting to the immediate stimuli. They cannot plan because they cannot imagine the possibility of anything different than what they immediately have.
• Marketing Perspective: They do not have one. They have no ability to think from the outside in, from a customer or market perspective. They do not have any ability to analyze competitive data (assuming it would ever occur to them to gather the data in the first place) or to create strategies in order to be competitively effective.
STAGE 2 (SCOREKEEPER ORGANIZATIONS)
Scorekeeper organizations assume there is not enough for everyone in the world, and they assume that everyone is looking out for their own advantage. Therefore, they assume they need to be clever and deceptive and outsmart their competitors in order to grab theirs before someone else beats them to it.
Scorekeeper Thinking
Scorekeeper organizations use concrete literal, logical, black and white thinking.
• They can think literally—a form of logic provided they have immediate, concrete sensory data.
• They cannot think abstractly or conceptually. They cannot think about their own thinking.
• They are more defended and will hide their emotions when it is to their advantage.
• They can reverse the sequence of their thoughts and therefore have some historical memory.
• They can project into the future only within the context of what their past experience has been.
They cannot imagine things that have not been part of their experience. They struggle being conceptual.
• They can follow the steps in a process that have been explicitly laid out for them, but they cannot create the process themselves.
• They project their experience onto others instead of perceiving others as being separate.
• They literally interpret rules, beliefs, and instructions—but not contextually. Hence, they will literally hold you to what you say instead of hearing the meaning of your message.
Some implications of Scorekeeper thinking in organizations are:
• Decision Making: Their decision making will tend to be testing and minority controlled. The criteria for a decision will be what they can get away with for their own gain. They will not tend to have open or full discussions. Instead, they will lobby and use 'behind the scenes' bargaining and persuasion. They will be less reactionary than Enforcer organizations unless they feel cheated or taken advantage of by others. They will likely make an impulsive decision to even the score in some sneaky way.
• Problem Solving: They will use literal interpretation of concrete data to analyze the causes of a problem situation and to generate some alternative solutions for themselves. They will be able to identify some cause and effect relations in concrete situations. They will not be able to solve complex problems requiring abstract analysis of data.
• Planning: They can do immediate or short-term planning related to their own explicit experience. They will tend to project the present into the future because they cannot imagine the possibility of anything outside of their own
experience. They cannot do strategic planning that requires thinking in abstract concepts such as missions, values, and strategies.
• Marketing Perspective: They cannot think from a marketing perspective. While they know that their customers have needs and interests that are different than their own, they have limited insight into these needs and limited or no capacity for empathy to care. They are only concerned about meeting their own needs and getting their fair share or as much as they can. Their marketing motto is "If it is profitable and to our advantage, then it is good for everyone." They will not think in terms of a marketing perspective: what they want to be known for by others. To be able to do this, they would have to be able to think from the outside/in.
STAGE 3 (PEACEMAKER ORGANIZATIONS)
Peacemaker organizations believe they live in a world governed by right ways of doing things that have been traditionally established by people in positions of authority. They assume that in order to be successful, they need to follow the rules, respect authority, and be appropriate and not embarrassing -- which means do the right thing according to what others think. They view life as a test to see how much acceptance they can get for looking good or meeting the prescribed expectations.
Peacemaker Thinking
Peacemaker organizations use uncritical, abstract logical thinking.
• They have the ability for third person perspective. This enables them to create a logical sequence of thought that is not based on immediate, concrete sensory data. They can think in terms of abstract concepts. In following a logical sequence of thought, they can recognize and disregard irrelevant thoughts.
• Their thinking is conscious. They can step back from themselves and consciously think about their own thinking. They are consciously reflective.
• They can intentionally shift the focus of their thinking.
• They can reverse the sequence of their thinking which enables them to be consistent or logical.
• They can create the steps in a process.
• They can imagine the possibility of something different. They can create an ideal picture that has not been part of their concrete picture, but they struggle with appropriate risk taking and innovation or change necessary to manifest or lead to the new picture.
• They have an historical perspective which enables them to understand causal relationships between events.
• They can symbolize to construct meaning. They have the ability to listen to the meaning of others' messages instead of listening literally.
• Their thinking is uncritical. They accept as truth the values and rules given to them by sanctioned authority. They do not step outside of their belief system and critically evaluate it. They try to live up to the standards given to them and judge people who live by others' standards as being wrong.
Some implications of Peacemaker thinking in organizations are:
• Decision Making: They will settle for a majority vote and they will follow Robert's' Rules of Order to get the vote rather than having an open give and take discussion to reach consensus. The decision will be patriarchal or executive dominated. Others may be consulted, but the leader will maintain the authority to make most decisions. The criteria for decisions will be whether authority approves the decision, what others will think, and whether the decisions are consistent with tradition. It is important to not make any decisions that will be embarrassing or make anyone look foolish. People in organizations will be conscious how a decision will affect their status and career opportunities. Indecision will occur when people are concerned about making the wrong decision or when they are unclear about the expectations of authority or others.
• Problem Solving: They will use abstract logical thinking to analyze data and to generate solutions. They will consider historical data and try to understand causal relations. Since their thinking is uncritical, they believe there is an "ideal" or "right" way for people to be and everyone should try to live up to these expectations. Thus, they look for the right answer to a problem, and they blind themselves to other options that might be available. They think in terms of doing it right rather than in terms of what needs to be done. They can consciously create steps in a problem-solving process and adjust the process to be more effective. Since they assume that truth is already defined and controlled by authority, their solutions tend to be traditional, non-creative, based on how things were done in the past. They are good at maintaining the status quo.
• Planning: Since they are capable of abstract, rational thinking, they can begin to do long range planning, but they will tend to do so within the confines of their traditional beliefs. How it was done in the past defines how it should be done in the future. This will limit their ability to do critical and honest analysis of the environmental factors affecting their business. This in turn limits their ability to generate creative and effective new strategies for accomplishing their objectives. Planning in Peacemaker organizations tends to be done at the top using formal processes. Only the results, appropriately censored for the masses, are communicated.
• Marketing Perspective: They have the ability to begin to think from a marketing perspective. Because of their third person perspective, they have insight into and empathy with others' experience. This enables them to begin to think from the outside/in and to therefore understand customer needs. This also enables them to think in terms of a marketing position. They want to be seen as the traditional standard, in the mainstream, as an organization that can be counted on to be around and to provide known value. Their marketing motto is "We do it the good old-fashioned way.”
STAGE 4 (REBEL PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS)
Rebel Producer organizations believe the world is their oyster and they are out to prove how much of it they can suck up. They are growth and goals oriented and are not content to do things as they were done in the past. They enjoy breaking the rules and new ground to prove what they can accomplish. They assume they need to be independent and innovative to achieve the results they want.
Rebel Producer Thinking
Rebel Producer organizations use critical, "either/or"—abstract logical thinking.
• They can do everything Peacemaker organizations can do and more. They can step outside their traditional systems and to critically evaluate what makes sense, what is supported by their data, what is logical, and what works.
• They focus on differences. This allows them to challenge, to push against tradition and socially sanctioned authority. This sometimes causes unnecessary conflict because they fail to see the similarities or common objectives. They tend to focus on "either/or" extremes.
• They will be more creative and diffuse since they are willing to experiment with innovative ideas.
• They have the analytical ability to break problems down into their components.
• They will be more convinced by empirical evidence and logic than by theories, authority, or how it was done in the past.
Some implications of Rebel Producer thinking in organizations are:
• Decision Making: Their decision making will be based on pragmatism. The primary criterion is "what works!” Challenging authority and how it was done in the past will be encouraged. Their process will tend to be informal, ad hoc, and involve lots of people. Leaders in Rebel Producer organizations will frequently work with people one on one to arrive at decisions rather than work publicly with the group as a whole. As a result, all the people do not always get the information they need, decisions sometimes get held up if the leader is undecided, and the organization does not get the broadest creativity
• Problem Solving: They will use critical, dichotomous thinking in solving problems. This causes them to focus on extreme options and not see all the opportunities in between. This also causes them to focus on one side of a situation and not always look at the entire sequence or picture. Thus, they may focus on the supply side of their business and ignore the distribution side. Or they may be so intent on developing an innovative new product that they fail to do adequate market research to determine if they can ever get it into distribution.
Because they need to prove what they can do on their own, they tend to jump to premature solutions and to argue for their solutions. This also causes them to miss other options. It also causes them to focus on differences and to arm wrestle with others. Typically, when someone raises an idea, Rebel Producer organizations respond by saying, "That's a stupid idea." or, "That will never work." They then proceed to explore why it is a good idea or why it will work. They like to argue and prove what they know. Because they are afraid things will not work or that they will not be enough to carry it off, they focus first on the negative rather than on building positively on what others say. They are willing to look at data that does not fit in their conventional frameworks, and they enjoy coming up with innovative, different, technically superior solutions.
• Planning: They are capable of doing long range, tactical planning but may be impatient about spending the time doing it. They would rather be in action, getting something done than spend the time thinking about what they want to achieve, thinking through strategies, and laying out plans for doing so. They will not want to spend the time doing such soft things as defining values or such intensive things as critically scanning and evaluating all aspects of their environment. Their planning process will tend to be informal. The plans are more likely to be in the head of the leader. They are more likely to develop annual sales plans than to do long range strategic plans. Their rationale will be that things change too rapidly, and they do not want to be tied into a plan. Rebel Producers like to be free, independent, entrepreneurial and opportunistic.
• Marketing Perspective: They are capable of outside/in thinking and therefore, think in terms of customer requirements. As a marketing position, they will want to be known for their technologically superior, innovative products. They will want to be known for their expertise. Their marketing motto will be "We can do it better. We are the leading edge." Because of their impatience and ambition, they will tend to sacrifice quality for volume or growth. They may talk about quality, but the real message in Rebel Producer organizations is to make or exceed your monthly quotas.
STAGE 5 (GENERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS)
Generative organizations view the world as abundant and full of opportunities. They trust they will get more than enough. They believe they can be up front and direct with others and collaborate for the mutual benefit of all parties. Because they trust themselves and others, they are more relaxed and confident and can afford to be generous.
Generative Thinking
Generative organizations use 'and/both', multiple perspective, principled thinking. Also known as dialectical thinking.
• They use explorative thinking rather than judge data against fixed standards.
• They can see the whole picture and appreciate the relevance and value of each person's perspective.
• They can see the relationships among multiple perspectives and weigh their relative merits.
• They assess complex, causal relationships in solving problems.
• They can see through structures and behavior to understand underlying values and needs.
• They are conscious of what is going on in themselves, in others, in their relationships, in their processes, and in the content of a discussion - all at the same time.
• They have the complex, analytical ability to break problems into their components, and to separate the problem issues, the relationship issues, and the process issues from each other. They have the flexibility to quickly shift their focus and address each of these issues when needed. In this way, they can be simultaneously diffused and focused in their thinking.
• They can step back and look at what is happening and be emotionally present at the same time.
• They can see through paradoxes and perceive the unity in polarities. They are able to see what they have in common with others as well as what separates them. In perceiving the integration or unity in polarities, they also appreciate the value of the polarities.
• They have an historical perspective. They recognize patterns and do not just focus on single events.
• They think in terms of principles that frame the best solutions instead of jumping to directly to the solutions.
Some implications of Generative thinking in organizations are:
• Decision Making: They will tend to have decision-making authority clearly defined on all levels. It will be clear who has ultimate responsibility, who has veto power, who needs to be consulted, and who needs to be informed. Thus, decisions will be made on appropriate levels. The criteria will be what makes sense after considering all the data. They will not be tied to traditional limits or the approval of others. They are more concerned about what really needs to be done. Their process will vary depending on the nature of the decision. They will be conscious and patient about taking the time to reach intellectual and emotional consensus with others when it is an important decision. They know that good decisions only get carried out if they have the support of the people responsible for carrying them out.
• Problem Solving: They use multiple perspective thinking to thoroughly understand the problem, its causes and impacts, and to clarify the different results or outcomes they need before jumping to any solutions. They assume that if everyone can come to agreement about what the real situation is, the options or what they need to do will become obvious. They support developing as many alternatives as possible instead of jumping to one solution and defending it. They do not get stuck in extreme options but rather see the unity in apparent paradoxes.
• Planning: They will do continual long-range strategic planning in which they think from multiple perspectives to analyze and understand their internal and external environments. They clearly define their mission and values and know that these will likely continue to evolve as their environments change. They are clear about what their overall thrust is as an organization - what they want to accomplish and what they need to do organizationally to support that effort. They think through what strategies are needed to be financially successful, to provide sustained and unique value, and to stay focused. They develop specific, measurable objectives and plans of action to direct and measure their performance. They have a system for measuring their milestones. They are not concerned about being tied to or limited by their strategic plan. Their plan is a part of their ongoing management process. It is how they think. It is their common vision. It is their guide for continuously re-traditioning and re-generating their organization, because they involve a broad base of people in their planning processes. The process is a central way that they build Generative thinking, relationships, and commitment throughout their organization.
• Marketing Perspective: As indicated above, they think from multiple perspectives to understand their markets and the needs of their customers. They understand the difference between being a sales driven organization and being a quality driven and marketing driven organization. They want to be known as the standard setter for sustained quality and innovation. They want to be known as a good citizen of the world and as the organization that is as good as its word. Their marketing motto is "We will do what is in the best interests of the customer." They recognize this means that the organization must sometimes absorb short-term losses or missed targets in order to be congruent with their values. They believe that nothing creates success like integrity.
CLOSING NOTE
Organizations like individuals are not static, but dynamic and will usually touch several levels of development for brief periods of time. But, will spend a majority of the time at a specific developmental level that reflects patterned behavior and attitudes of that level. As a result, the organization will manifest the results reflective of the competency, thinking and relating of that developmental level that is most patterned and coded in the organization. This will also be reflected when you talk about the cultural patterns that exist in the organization. Like individuals, organizations can develop expanded competencies of thinking, relating and behaving, altering the course of who they are, what they do, the value they create and the impact they have. Ultimately the power of their brand and reputation.
Thom Walters: thom@thomwalters.com