Category: Uncategorized

One of the case studies in my forthcoming book on organization culture (due out in July 2010) is on Toyota. I wrote it last December before the news broke of the recalls. Back then, in what now seems a 'hurrah for self' prescient moment I wondered whether the company would survive or die – mainly because the research I'd been doing on strong cultures suggested that too strong a culture had, in effect, built-in blinkers. The assumptions and norms around the ways of doing things – even when they were, as in Toyota's case, aimed at reducing errors and maintaining quality seemed to stop people from seeing patterns and trends that didn't fit on their 'radar screen'.

Gary Klein, in his book Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, remarks on a phenomenon in relation to decisions that result in an undesirable outcome. He talks about three categories of decision making that resulted in error:

• Lack of experience: 'For example, a fireground commander failed to call in a second alarm because the fire did not seem large. He did not realize that the balloon construction of the building made it vulnerable to damage to the supporting framework'.

• Lack of information: For example, a flight crew failed to obtain full weather reports prior to takeoff and failed to identify alternate landing sites. … When the fight ran into difficulties the weather profile was inadequate for selecting an alternate landing site, etc.

• The de minimus error: Decision makers notice the signs of a problem but explain it away. They find a reason not to take seriously each piece of evidence that warns them of an anomaly.

All three categories appear to exist in the current Toyota recall case (today I read that Toyota quickly suspended sales of its 2010 Lexus GX 460 sport utility vehicle on Tuesday after Consumer Reports magazine warned buyers that the model had a dangerous handling problem that could lead to a rollover and possibly "serious injury or death.)

Toyota lacks experience in dealing with what Jeffrey Liker (Professor of Industrial and Operations Engineering at the University of Michigan and author of the best selling The Toyota Way) describes as the highly-charged public and media "inferences about Toyota's quality problems [that] are emotional and have little to do with actual facts."

Akio Toyoda, President of Toyota, in his February 24 appearance before US Congress the company said We pursued growth over the speed at which we were able to develop our people and our organisation and we should be sincerely mindful of that. But under questioning he insisted no faults had been discovered with the electronics of any of its vehicles i.e. there is, so far, a lack of information on what the safety issues are attributable to. Toyoda promised full co-operation with investigators who are seeking the information that will explain this, which is in line with their philosophy. As Liker points out – Toyota's "next step is to do hansei which means dig deeply to find the root cause of the problems, put in place countermeasures, check what happens, then make further adjustments as you learn".

The company made the de minimus error – I am not here talking about in relation to the safety issues – but in relation to the reputational damage that was coming their way. For example, Akio Toyoda "had initially said that he would stay in Japan and not face Congress but changed his mind last week after a formal request from the committee chairman." Because they did not have all the facts they appeared slow to respond to increasing media and government attention. As another commentator said, This contributed to this growing from a problem to a crisis.

Like others I do not know whether the accusations being leveled at Toyota are founded in any facts or if their safety record is better or worse than other car manufacturers'. (From what I have read, it appears better). But whether or not the company manages to repair the reputational damage done seems to boil down to whether they can rapidly learn to apply the principles similar to (or the same as) the Toyota Way in circumstances as nuanced and unpredictable as media attention, emotional responses, and different cultural and mental models of the accountabilities and responsibilities of leaders.

A commonly used framework for assigning project roles – the RACI matrix – allows for only one person to be accountable for each task or deliverable. This might suggest that only one person should be accountable for the culture i.e. the 'buck stops' with him or her. Other people would have responsibilities in relation to it but not accountability for it. Generally it is the CEO who defines cultural expectations and values, and gives specific responsibilities to others to support them.

Speaking some nine months after he was appointed CEO of Unilever, a consumer goods company in 2009, Paul Polman described the 'performance culture' he and his leadership team were aiming for.

Summarised he noted that: Execution is very, very important to us. We drive disciplines of good execution and we celebrate it when we see it. Accountability for execution is an integral part of driving the performance culture. And we're putting in place other elements right now that will help us drive execution higher up the organisation's agenda.

It was Polman who determined that Unilever required 'a performance culture' and he looked to his leadership team and other stewards (in many organizations it is HR people or line managers who have elements in their job descriptions related to culture development) to support him in getting to this. In RACI terminology, it is the leader/CEO who is accountable for the culture and everyone else is responsible, to a greater or lesser degree, for it.

In creating the culture leaders must be able to set expectations about it, demonstrate personally their support of it (in management jargon 'walk the talk'), and take action to address cultural failings and to acknowledge cultural success. This means specifically paying attention to two things:

a) the language of the organization: language allows for swift transmission and sharing of information, ideas, and learning

b) the way work is divided/shared: changing the way work is done changes the trade-off decisions that people can, or do, make in relation to it and this changes the level of cultural ownership people take (for better or worse depending on the job change).

In this example a culture that allowed bribe taking was signalled to change by introducing a change in the way work was done:

NEPAL'S anti-corruption authority has come up with a novel solution to rampant bribe-taking at the country's only international airport – the pocketless trouser.
The authority said it was issuing the new, bribe-proof garment to all airport officials after uncovering widespread corruption at Kathmandu's Tribhuvan International Airport.

"We sent a team to observe the growing complaints about the behaviour of airport authorities and workers towards travellers and we discovered that the reports were true," said Ishwori Prasad Paudyal, spokesman for the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA).

"So we decided that airport officials should be given trousers with no pockets. We have directed the ministry of civil aviation to implement our order as soon as possible," he told AFP.

On its own this change could not work to change a culture of bribe taking. As one person noted

For a measure to produce a genuine and lasting change in public servants so that they condemn bribery and become active contributors to a culture of probity and accountability, that measure must engender a deeper transformation within. Anti-corruption commission officials and senior practitioners have told us about the need for a number of important criteria for building a culture of probity, including leadership commitment to ethical standards, the existence of enforceable code of ethics, and the development of a strong whistleblower protection system.

However committed the CEO/leader is to a specific culture (or change to it) they cannot act alone to create this. He/she must engender consensus within the leadership team about what the culture is or should be and what this means in terms of day to day activities. Common reasons for a lack of consensus include the following:

• A reluctance or refusal by organisational members to go along with the leader's view of the culture

• A lack of awareness on the part of the leader of how the culture is experienced at different levels and in different parts of the organisation, leading to misjudgements about what is achievable in setting cultural expectations

• A lack of understanding on the part of the leader that the stated cultural expectations are interpreted differently in different parts of the organisation

• Cultural accountability given to people who have different views and opinions on what they are accountable for

Leaders cannot abdicate their cultural accountability – learning what this means and working it towards organizational success is more of a challenge.

Last week I noted that Leaders used to leading in a command and control way in a hierarchy with layers and spans are having a hard time changing their leadership style to one that is more collaborative, involving, and recognizes networks of expertise rather than positional power.

An article on the new tie-up aimed at bolstering their offerings in small, energy efficient vehicles between Daimler and Renault-Nissan caught my eye. The new alliance will focus on sharing resources in four main areas: platforms for small cars and light commercial vehicles; small petrol and diesel engines; technology for fully electric and hybrid cars; and bigger diesel engines.

Carlos Ghosn, Renault-Nissan, CEO and President, believes that cross-shareholdings are a critical signal to employees, especially engineers, that the partnership is both long-term and strategic. He and Dieter Zetsche, Daimler's boss, now face the task of convincingly making the tie up work.

Making this work at all levels in all three organizations is a herculean job. Car manufacturers are typically stuck in the 'old' management principles that Gary Hamel, in his book, The Future of Management, rejects: the principles of standardization, specialization, hierarchy, alignment, planning and control, and the use of extrinsic rewards to shape human behavior.

Instead he offers five organizing principles that enable organizations to be "highly adaptable and fully human". To get the tie-up to work will certainly require those characteristics. Because despite (or perhaps because of) Renault's bold attempt to be the first volume maker of purely electric vehicles, investors, according to Mr Warburton [an industry analyst], still see the firm as "a long-term structural loser.

Hamel's five organizing principles are:

• life/variety
• markets/flexibility
• democracy/activism
• faith/meaning
• cities/serendipity

He presents an excellent exercise that Ghosn and Zetsche would do well to introduce to their newly tied-up units. It would help them move from the known into the brave new world. Briefly the exercise is a series of workshops/discussions held with leaders and employees across the organization (or one large-scale collaboration using a collaborative technology) asking questions and seeking implementable answers in each of the five areas:

Life/variety: How would you introduce a greater diversity of data, viewpoints, and opinions into this process? How would you design the process so that it facilitates, rather than frustrates, the continual development of new strategic options and encourages relentless experimentation?

Markets/flexibility: How would you redesign this process so that it exploits the wisdom of the market, rather than just the wisdom of the experts? How might this process be used to help speed up the reallocation of resources from legacy programs to new initiatives? How could we make it easier for innovators to get the resources they need to advance their ideas?

Democracy/activism: How would you change this process so that it encourages, rather than discourages, dissenting voices? How would you make this process more responsive to the needs and concerns of those working on the front lines? How do we give folks on the ground a bigger voice in shaping policy and strategy?

Faith/meaning: How would you use this process to help focus on the higher order goals our three companies claim to serve (or should be serving)? How could this process help employees to identify and connect with the goals they care about personally?

Cities/serendipity: How could this process be redesigned in a way that would help our companies to become even more exciting and vibrant places to work and a magnet for creative talent? How could this process be used to facilitate the collision of new ideas?

What would introducing that approach mean for Ghosn and Zetsche personally? It most probably means changing their leadership styles and demonstrating that they have the courage to try new approaches in a traditional industry with entrenched thinking on the way things are done.

Of the ten skills of anticipatory leadership that I mentioned yesterday the I have seen leaders having most difficulty with is in spotting future trends. The difficulty lies not in spotting the trends, but in then acting on what has been spotted.

The work of human systems theorist, Barry Oshry focuses on the way in which the systemic dynamics created by social structure affects the power and efficacy of individuals and groups.

An article by Michael Sales that discusses a case of an R & D middle management group identifying material trends in their context and presenting them to leaders for endorsement and support illustrates the difficulties inherent in getting action agreed and started. It exemplifies Oshry's view that members of what he terms the Top, Bottom, and Middle of an organization have different agendas. Sales (simplifying Oshry's theory) suggests that these different agendas act as barriers and stumbling blocks to acting on good trend information:

At the 'Top' of a system (or any subsystem within it) specialization will emerge as a strategy for managing information overload (e.g., vice presidents for research, operations, information, etc). The consequence of overspecialization is, ultimately, competition over the strategic direction of an organization (or a subsystem) and rivalry over which particular function should have the highest organizational status and receive the lion's share of the available resources. He [Oshry] refers to these 'Top' dynamics as 'turf' issues.

At the 'Bottom' of a system, solidarity and dedifferentiation become preferred strategies for dealing with the inherent vulnerability of being in a system where others make decisions that affect Bottoms without the participation of the Bottoms themselves (e.g., plant closures, changes in procurement policy). Bottoms 'organically' unite in the face of these conditions, and they frequently resent individual members of their group who attempt to differentiate themselves from others.

In the 'Middle' of the system … individual managers are pulled away from each other, physically, mentally and emotionally. Oshry contends that this 'alienation in the middle' results from both (a) living and working within 'silos' (functional, geographic, business line, etc.) and (b) having to deal with issues that 'Tops' and 'Bottoms' in a particular silo have with each other. In other words, members of 'Middle' groups disperse because they are kept at a distance from each other through the dynamics of the system. The more complex, the more bureaucratic and/or the more hierarchical the system(as with BCC), the greater the level of dispersion in the middle management ranks. Dispersed 'Middles' have difficulty integrating. They are 'dis-integrated'.

Oshry proposes 'Middle Integration' as an antidote to these problems. Middle Integration occurs when the managers of various subsystems consciously make an effort to mitigate the effects of organic separation Oshry outlines eight levels of Middle Integration:

(1) No integration: The common condition, i.e., no awareness of systemic forces that pull middles apart and no self-generated information exchange.
(2) Sharing information: The simple transfer of data about different parts of the system.
(3) Working the information: Diagnosing what the system (or its sub-components) needs.
(4) Coordinating responses to issues identified.
(5) Problem solving: Addressing identified needs through self-initiated experiments.
(6) Mutual coaching: Helping each other with issues faced by individual members of the group.
(7) Sharing best practices: Enhancing organizational learning.
(8) Power bloc: Uniting as a Middle team to affect organizational direction and policy.

Compared with the preceding level, each degree of integration requires a higher level of commitment
between Middle group members to their team effort. And, each higher level may entail greater political risk and, therefore, each demands a higher and higher level of encouragement and understanding from the Top of the organization.

Interestingly the way Cisco (see the The World According to Chambers article in the Economist) is currently structuring itself reflects many of the precepts of Middle Integration. It is likely that having the skills and will to design an organization that enables action on trend spotting is a skill as essential as that of trend spotting itself.

The article quoted is available in draft form on the link in the post or as a journal article: Sales, Michael. Futures thinking by middle managers: a neglected necessity. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, Jul/Aug2002, Vol. 19 Issue 4, p367-375, 9p;

Yesterday, in three separate conversations, with people from three different organizations I listened to the challenges these organizations are facing with their leadership. There were some common threads in the discussions:

• Leaders used to leading in a command and control way in a hierarchy with layers and spans are having a hard time changing their leadership style to one that is more collaborative, involving, and recognizes networks of expertise rather than positional power.
• Leaders are not skilled at managing, and excellent operational management is less valued than strategic leadership – to the detriment of a effectively functioning organization.
• Good leaders are few and far between, and even more scarce are leaders who can also manage well.
• Leaders effective in one context may not be effective in another context (which is costly to both the individual and the organization).

Mulling this over, I remembered a World Future Society blog "anticipatory leadership", and took another look at it. Starting with Buckminster Fuller's question "What is the most important thing we can think about at this extraordinary moment?" Tim Mack, President of the World Future Society, suggests "10 leadership skills that will better prepare you to bridge the gap between the present and the future." These are adapted and excerpted from "The Anticipatory Leader: Buckminster Fuller's Principles from Making the World Work" by Medard Gabel and Jim Walker. (This article first appeared in the September-October 2006 issue of The Futurist). And are presented as part one and part two:

The ten skills are:

• Think Comprehensively. Rather than try to deal with problems in an isolated fashion, take a step back and look at the big picture. Frame the problem within a larger context.
• Spot Future Trends. The importance of spotting trends can't be overemphasized: Anticipating them is critical if you're going to accurately pinpoint upcoming problems and find the best possible solutions.
• Understand the Rules of Gestation. Everything has its own gestation rate. Technological gestation rates are much shorter than they used to be, and they're getting shorter each year. Anticipate the gestation rate for your idea/innovation/service/product and it out there.
• Do More With Less. Any technology that can create more output with less input will rapidly gain influence in today's hyperlinked global economy, Creativity and initiative drive the development process. Resources plus human know-how equals the ability to meet our needs.

• Seek to Change the Environment, Not Human Nature. Instead of trying to force or even simply convince people to change behaviors, Fuller sought to change the environment to which those behaviors were a logical response.
• Take Individual Initiative. Understanding and expertise (unlike wealth and power) are essential to leadership. Buckminster Fuller believed that we all should be leaders. To make a difference in life, you don't need an official blessing or sanction. You just need to be self-motivated.
• Ask Naïve Questions. Why can't we feed everyone on the planet? Why do we do things this way instead of that way? What does it mean to be wealthy? Revisit and challenge basic assumptions using your own insights and viewpoints, especially when critical issues are at stake. To quote Fuller, "Dare to be naïve!"

• Solve Problems Through Action. Identify the immediate next action to start addressing the problem or opportunity, and then take that action. (For the power of the 'next action' approach see Dave Allen's book Getting Things Done.)
• Work Toward the Best Possible Future. Large and inspiring changes are sometimes what's really needed, rather than smaller, safer incremental changes. Again, concentrate on the bigger picture, and strive to develop a strong moral vision. For example: We know that we have the technological capacity to meet the basic human needs of the entire planet and to do so in an environmentally sustainable way. The big questions are: How do we accomplish this goal, how long will it take, and what's holding us back from achieving this?
• Small Efforts Can Produce Big Results. That said, sometimes small, strategic actions can cause large-scale change.

The questions that are not in the two postings are: Are these the skills the organizations I was talking with are looking for? If so, and they are not present in the current leaders can the skills be taught or learned? If yes – how will organizations do this? If not, how will the shortfall be addressed? The skills look fairly unarguable with but what is the next action on checking this and getting leaders skilled up? Will having these skills help leaders manage more effectively? I'll discuss these questions over the next few days.

Successfully joining a new organization is often a challenge. It means getting to grips not just with the job content, the admin stuff – like where are the printer toner cartridges kept – but also with the 'way things are done round here'. At any level this is difficult but for senior people it seems to be even more problematic as they are expected to 'hit the ground running' in both job performance and socialization.

My doctoral research was on this topic and from it I wrote a series of checklists to help senior new hire integrate successful into a new organization. (Available from the UK's Chartered Institute of Management – numbers 202 – 210)

For a newcomer to the organisation learning the culture is almost equivalent climbing Mount Everest – it is not for the faint-hearted. In a survey conducted at IMD (a management school in Lausanne, Switzerland). "Fully 87% of the 143 survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, 'Transitions into significant new roles are the most challenging times in the professional lives of managers.' And more than 70% agreed or strongly agreed that 'success or failure during the transition period is a strong predictor of overall success or failure in the job.''

What makes for success is the ability to simultaneously fit in socially and get on in performance terms. This has very little to do with perceived technical or professional expertise of the newcomer and a lot to do with their personality and their ability to learn the culture. One headhunter made this point succinctly when he said, 'People are hired for their ability and fired for their personality.' – a point reinforced by a head of a coaching firm saying, "The combination of your performance and your personality determines how you're viewed. Probably 95% of firings are the result of failing to fit into a company's culture. If people don't know you, they can't trust you."

Highlighting the fact that personality is key and that integration into the culture takes skill, Judi Bevan, in her book "The Rise and Fall of Marks and Spencer – and How it Rose Again" tells the story of the decision, in November 1998, by the non-executive directors, to appoint Peter Salsbury – an M & S insider – to the role of CEO, describing him as "essentially a competent 'nice guy'". He was a default choice as, aware that they needed someone to transform the company from a "bureaucratic old-fashioned company into a modern dynamic force" the non-executives "had asked headhunters to put up some candidates from other companies in the UK, but, according to them, they did not discover an outstanding retailer who could work with the unique M & S culture."

This example illustrates the reality that people joining an organisation or moving to a new role within their organisation have to learn the culture and subculture(s) in order to operate successfully within them. Although most of the ways that newcomers approach learning the culture are the same as the ways established organisation members continue to learn it for new joiners the stakes are that much higher.

Whether a visitor, an immigrant, or a new employee integrating into an unknown culture requires the individual to have the capability to navigate and network effectively. To do this means being skilled at asking questions, making connections, analysing and interpreting a wide range of new information, establishing rapport, and demonstrating credibility – all without coming across in a way that puts people off. Fortunately it is possible people can learn, or be taught, how to do this effectively if four factors are in place:

1. The joiner has the attributes and the ability to learn 'the way we do things round here', including ways of behaving, operating, and thinking as well as norms and values.
2. The joiner has the capacity to learn this within an acceptable time frame.
3. Established employees are willing to support and help the newcomer.
4. The new joiner can and will pay the 'price of membership'

Each of these are discussed in more detail in my forthcoming book Organisation Culture to be published in July 2010.

An organization design practitioner from a UK City Council emailed me the other day with a question:

"If governments are starting to address the concept of GWB (General Wellbeing) and therefore happiness of the population, could this be a planned outcome of an organization design for public sector? "

His question had been sparked by an article in The Times which notes that:

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, has raised this fundamental question: what is the end of government? Precisely, is it a function of the State to promote the happiness of its citizens?

There has been a surge in the economics of happiness in the United States and Britain too ever since, in 1974, Richard Easterlin pointed out that people in advanced capitalist societies were getting richer but no happier. In Britain, Richard Layard and Andrew Oswald have written in a similar vein and the psychologist Oliver James has gone one step farther by claiming that getting rich is liable to make us ill.

The implication for policy is that, once basic needs are met, governments should abandon a narrow focus on economic growth or gross domestic product (GDP). They should, instead, define collective wellbeing and seek policies that promote happiness. The [UK] Department for Children, Schools and Families recently introduced wellbeing classes. David Cameron has expressed some interest in GWB (gross wellbeing).

The person who emailed me observed that: "I find this particularly interesting working in the public sector because the concept of 'doing more for less', as we are being required to do, does not seem to square with the possibility of creating happy citizens and maintaining a motivated workforce, but I suppose that's one of the contradictions of working in a political environment. However, it's interesting that the likes of David Cameron are talking about GWB and simultaneously talking about reducing public services."

So could happiness be an outcome of a well-designed organization? Perhaps, but it probably it probably isn't as clear cut as a 'yes/no' answer. Happiness is an individual experience that could not be guaranteed when designing at an organizational level. Indeed the Times article implies a warning on trying to design in 'happiness' observing that

"The economics of happiness invariably leads to the politics of paternalism. The happiness gurus would be better off starting with Aristotle's generous account of flourishing, an idea that implies people choosing their own life course."

Dan Baker, co author of What Happy Companies Know: How the New Science of Happiness Can Change Your Company for the Better defines happy companies as those which have, among other attributes, a culture that respects individuals, is free from intimidation, makes ethical business decisions, and follows the precepts of positive psychology. All of these are aspects that can be considered in designing a company. One of the other authors, Cathy L. Greenberg, leads a consulting practice h2c leadership coaches leaders in what this 'new science of happiness'. And Time Magazine published a number of articles on this topic in the issue of January 9 2005 and it's fascinating reading, outlining some of the background and theory behind the 'new science'.

Whether it is an approach that would take off in the public sector is hard to say, and one should have a certain amount of skepticism about embracing something that implies or promises a quick fix or instant turnaround – but the new science of happiness does provide another lens through which to think about how to redesign an organization.

The role of an organization development consultant sometimes seems on a par with that of a marriage guidance counselor. Both are brought in sometimes as mediators, sometimes as advisors, sometimes as therapists (although this last requires specialist training), to help parties resolve issues that they cannot handle alone.

In organizational development work the interests center on power and politics – at an organizational, business unit, team and/or individual level. Tussles between head office and field offices are common, in departmental mergers or downsizing managers fight to protect their turf, personality clashes occur between individuals that get in the way of a smooth work flow, and so on.

In her book Territorial Games, Annette Simmons discusses ten games people play to protect their organizational territory and there's a fun self-assessment included in the book. (In one workshop where I was using this one of the participants remarked that when he came to the workshop he only knew one game to play and by the end he'd learned nine others!)

The classic Games People Play by Eric Berne discusses the various games less from a organizational perspective and more from a transactional analysis view – but this book still makes useful reading for the OD practitioner, as does I'm OK, You're OK by Thomas Harris, and The New Peoplemaking by Virginia Satir.

Once OD consultants are aware of the range of games people play and why they are played it is helpful to look at why they play them. At a very simplistic level the games are often about protecting sources of power. Gareth Morgan in Images of Organization (mentioned in yesterday's post) discusses various sources of power that people fight over including:

• Formal authority
• Control of scarce resources
• Use of organizational structure, rules and regulations
• Control of decision processes
• Control of knowledge and information
• Control of boundaries
• Ability to cope with uncertainty
• Control of technology
• Interpersonal alliances, networks and control of informal organization
• Control of counter organizations
• Symbolism and the management of meaning
• Gender and the management of gender relations
• Structural factors that affect the stage of action
• The power one already has (personal power)
• 'Ownership' of a contract vehicle
• Reputation or credibility

These sources of power provide organizational members with a variety of means for enhancing their interests and resolving or perpetuating organizational conflict. Knowing what type of power people hold and why and how they are interested in fighting to retain are useful questions for OD consultants to get answers to before they leap in to trying to help resolve any conflicts.

The website/organization Beyond Intractability is bylined A Free Knowledge Base on Constructive Approaches to Destructive Conflict, and is an excellent source of information and tools for dealing with organizational conflict.

It includes a detailed description of BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreemen) which is an helpful approach to conflict resolution – one that OD consultants would do well to have in their toolkits as they work with the power plays and politics that dog all organizations.

Additionally short programs on various aspects of conflict (some offering credits through the University of Colorado) are available through their website. Conflict 101 for example focuses on things everybody should know about conflict: why it occurs, how it can be beneficial, and how to manage it so that it is beneficial and not harmful. Its intended audience is college students (both advanced undergraduates and graduate students), people who deal with conflict a lot in their jobs (teachers, managers, health care providers, etc.), parents who want to do a better job of dealing with their kids or spouses, or anyone who wants a better understanding of ways of dealing with conflict.

One of the questions raised by the group I was working with in Shanghai was "What lens should an OD consultant look through and how do I decide which lens to use?" First of all one has to understand the concept of a 'lens'. Two books explain this very well. The first Reframing Organizations by Lee Bolman and Terry Deal suggest four lens through which to view organizations, and Gareth Morgan in Images of Organization describes eight lenses. Briefly what they are both suggesting is that people interpret organizations differently according to their preferred way of looking at the world.

At simplistic level people who are 'glass half empty people', see things differently from people who are 'glass half full' – one sees the world through a pessimistic lens where things are going to go wrong, life is gloomy and people are out to thwart each other. The other approaches the world optimistically as a place of opportunity and adventure where things tend to go well and people act in the best interests of each other.

As Authenticity Consulting points out:

One of the most frequent reasons that organizational consultants argue about the best methods for organizational change is because consultants often have different perspectives, or lens, through which they view organizations. The impact of these differences is often underestimated. For example, you can have two different consultants interact with an organization and they might later provide different descriptions of the same organization. Therefore, it is critical that consultants understand their own perspective and be sensitive to the organizational perspectives of others.

Bolman and Deal argue that having the ability to think of situations from more than one perspective i.e. through a number of lenses "help us decipher the full array of significant clues [in a situation] capturing a more comprehensive picture of what's going on and what to do". The four lenses that they discuss are:

• Structural (factories) ; Goals, objectives, roles, responsibilities, performance, policies and procedures, efficiency, hierarchy and coordination and control
• Human Resource (families): Participation, feelings, fulfillment, communication, needs of people, relationships, motivation, enrichment and commitment
• Political Power (jungles): Conflict, competition, authority, experts, coalitions, allocation of resources, bargaining and decision making
• Symbolic Rituals (temples or carnivals): Culture, values, stories, different perspectives, language, expressions, myths, commitment and metaphors

On page 14 of their book they have a nice example of "Four frames: as near as your local bookstore", illustrating a manager looking for a book that will help her solve a particular management issue – she looks at several (each exhibiting a different lens) and finally picks one that matches her view.

Gareth Morgan discusses organizations in terms of each of the following lenses, ending with a case study inviting readers to interpret the case through each one:

 Instruments of domination: How organizations use and exploit their employees
 Machines: Organizations as mechanical systems
 Organisms: Organizations as growing and living 'beings'
 Brains: Organizations as information processing brains
 Cultures: Organizations as shared systems of meaning
 Political systems: Organizations as systems of government and political activity
 Psychic prisons: Organizations trapped in one view of the world
 Flux and transformation: Organizations as continuous changing entities

The classic book Six Thinking Hats by Edward de Bono is rooted in the same notion that a situation can be looked at from a number of perspectives but none is more right that the other. Consultants who have the skills to look themselves through various lenses and who appreciate that their clients are looking through one or more lenses (that may be different from the consultant's) the better able the consultant is to do a good job for the client.

Monday's blog (March 29) listed a set of questions concerning the handoffs and interdependencies OD consultants have with other parts of the organization. Several of these questions centered on the relationship with HR Business Partners. The UK's Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) has a couple of helpful factsheets on this topic – HR Business Partnering, and Organization Development.

The CIPD describes the role of the HR Business Partner as one based on the so called 'Ulrich Model' that:

involves working closely with senior business leaders on strategy execution, in particular designing HR systems and processes that address strategic business issues: a big departure then for HR from the responsive approach adopted in the past. Most commentators agree that today's HR function needs to be much more business-focused. In practice this means being more customer-focused; cost efficient; innovative, and structured in such a way that it can quickly respond to changing priorities.

The CIPD points out that the role can vary enormously depending on the organization but typically includes
1. organisational and people capability building
2. longer term resource and talent management planning
3. using business insights to drive change in people management practices
4. intelligence gathering of good people management practices internally and externally, so they can raise issues that executives may not be aware of.

And OD consultants require skills such as: strategic thinker, consultancy skills, relationship management, expert networker, business and financial understanding, change management, as well as influencing and political awareness skills.

This description seems to indicate a significant degree of overlap in the 'field of play' of the HR Business Partners and the OD consultants. But this is illusory. OD consultants are process consultants who may or may not have expertise in HR matters. They work as 'systems engineers' always bearing in mind the operation of the whole organizational system and not just the 'people' aspects of it. This means that in any project, piece of work, or intervention, they may draw on expert skills from a range of disciplines including finance, legal, marketing, etc. (It is not a given that HR expertise will be required.) The CIPD rightly confirms that:

• OD work contributes to the sustained health and effectiveness of the organization
• OD work is based upon robust diagnosis that uses real data from organizational, behavioral and psychological sources
• OD work is planned and systemic in its focus, that is taking account of the whole organization
• OD practitioners help to create alignment between different activities, projects and initiatives
• OD work involves groups of people in the organization to maximize engagement, ownership and contribution

In a piece of work I recently did – involving the merger of two business units – the work was spearheaded by the Business Unit Leaders and involved setting up cross business unit teams drawn from marketing, sales, finance, IT, communications, product development, and HR. In this intervention the role of HR was significant but it was not more significant than that of, say, IT – getting the systems right was as important in this instance as getting the people right – or finance (the merger was subject to budgetary constraints and also had to prove re-investment opportunities at the completion).

One of the issues about talking of OD and HR in the same breath is that it gives rise to the perception that HR people can be process consultants at the change of a label. Unfortunately this is rarely the case. Few (that I have come across) have the depth of consulting, facilitation, and project management skills, combined with a credible level of business knowledge that is required by an OD consultant. This is not to say that some could develop the required skills but it may not come naturally, it may be costly to develop these and many HR Business Partners may not want to take what is effectively a different career path into consulting.