In reading Larry Grenier's 1998 essay, "Evolution and Revolution as Organization Grow", I found myself writing questions in the margins of almost every page. This doodling is usually a sign I am passionate about a topic so according to the cartoon I just posted, that means I should blog about it!
Grenier describes organizational growth as phases of evolution, in which a management practice or style takes root, and revolution, in which specific structural or behavioral problem must be overcome before the organization can once again expand. Interestingly enough, these same terms have been used by Larry Hansen, a workplace safety management expert, to describe the efforts of companies to improve the effectiveness of their safety programs.
Hanson claims that most companies take evolutionary steps to improve their safety programs by implementing “tried and true” safety activities and “off the shelf” programs, and affixing catchy slogans and warning posters on facility walls. Hansen advises that instead, it takes a revolutionary action for companies to be world class safety-oriented organizations and specifically that management must believe that safety is “good business”. Management must drive the program but give the employees an ownership interest. He says, “To truly impact organizational performance (and results), safety leaders must change ‘what’s inside the boxes’, the basic beliefs, values, and prevailing assumptions of their organizations.” That sounds a lot like CULTURE to me, a phenomena with which I have already happily claimed a love/hate relationship.
Getting back to my notes from the margins…
Can an organization skip a phase? I want to see an organization that addresses the need for revolution “head-on”; an organization where a leader or management team wakes up, stands up and says, "Hey, let's skip this problem!" and decides instead to be proactive about how to get to the next phase of growth. That would be integrative change, i.e. a new and better model. This is also perhaps a bow to the strategic planning process where a robust SWOT analysis can uncover the inherent weaknesses and upcoming threats.
What happens when an organization at a more advanced phase of growth acquires a less “developed” organization? I want to see what goes on with an organization in Phase 1 – Creativity that is pursued by a company that is well into the red tape crisis that follows Phase 4 – Coordination.
How does this model apply to public sector organizations? Is there such a thing as a collaborative public-sector organization or do they remain mired in bureaucracy and red-tape crises?
As for what follows the Phase 5 – Collaboration stage, I love the idea of a dual organizational structure, allowing a habit structure to get the daily work done, and a reflective structure that is responsible for innovating the business and renewing the people. I am going to see if I can find out more about the European company that implemented the structure. I wonder if they’ve since experienced a revolution.
Hi, Rachel,
ReplyDeleteYou're off to a great start with your blog -- these are all three great, thought provoking posts. I also love the design and format of your blog -- very attractive, and it looks very much like you.
I'm going to comment on the idea of "authority" as a requirement for blogging, though, and leave the heavier stuff for others. I am, however, delighted that you are enjoying your readings.
Perhaps traditional blogging arose through commentary that was deemed authoritarian in order for a blog to gain status in the world. Serious bloggers known for expertise in their content area exude that authority in voice. But reflective blogging is a bit different.
You don't have to be an authority on the subject matter to put your comments as a learner on a blog to engage in reflective practice; instead, it is the very kind of questioning that you are doing here that provides the authentic "voice" of your blog that allows other learners to learn from you, and allows you to make your thinking visible -- not only to yourself, but for the rest of us to ponder and reflect upon, as well.
I'm putting some blogging resources up on the wiki to help everyone get a better idea of what we mean by reflective practice. We'll also choose some blog buddies this week. So, keep reading and annotating ... good insights come from that process ... and you are off to a great start.
Welcome to ADLT 625 this semester. We're glad you are with us~
tjc
Hi Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of going back to catch this since we're later in the semester, but I find it interesting to consider our earlier readings at this point.
Aspects of the evolution and revolution issue/question struck me and continue to resonate seeking more clarity. It does seem to me like revolution is about cultural change and evolution about management. It does seem strange that a balance hasn't been found - that it's either or, at least so it seems.
The idea of a two structure org seems interesting, but I would imagine there would be constant tension between the two. One branch would be striving to refine and perfect the daily work, I guess this would be operations, etc. And the other would be seeking to change all of that by innovating in various ways.
I suppose if an entity were to truly become an learning organization, which as I understand means that the reflective side is integrated in with the daily getting things done, then it may be possible to sustain revolutionary evolution. I wonder if there are some organizations that are able to do this. In the Org Learning and Culture class we studied a some organizations that were considered learning orgs. They really seemed to have integrated the reflective side and operations.
One of the things that seems to be characteristic of a learning org is that they engage the whole person (as much as possible) in a participatory system. Learning, dialogue, collaboration are key facets. The thing about learning orgs is that they take a systems view of an org. As such I think they are ever evolving to reach a higher level of learning and systems view integration.
Is a learning org a collaborative org? What is the next phase after collaboration? It's hard to imagine something more than a totally integrated, collaborative organization. However, the times are turbulent and we do need to be ready for change, eh?