Human Systems
Everybody knows we live in dynamic, constantly changing society. Every entrepreneur knows in the end static, passive organizations won't thrive, possibly even won't survive. How do we make these organizations dynamic, flexible and agile again? That depends on your point of view. According to the Taylorian mind it is a scientific issue. Organizations are rational constructs. So, let us draw the right model. We define everything in measurable parameters, including employees. We monitor the numbers. If necessary we adjust specific numbers. And everything will be fine. To Taylor an organization is a craftable, managerial system.From a different point of view an organization is just an empty, meaningless system, until you start talking about the people of the organization. Without human beings no organization, no business.
Maybe because of these different mindsets there is a confusing misconception of leadership and of management. Leadership seems to focus on the people, while management seems to prefer focussing on the system (organization), wherein people collaborate.
Self Directing 3.3
Writing this post, I realise that creating Keridwen's Self Directing 3.3 was my response (more or less rebellious) to the still dominant Taylorian discourse in Organizational Science. In our complex, fast-moving society we need both approaches guaranteeing thriving, sustainable organizations.It's vital for good governance to approach organizations from the outside, too. Look at them as rational systems, for making the understanding of interdependencies inside and outside possible, and making necessary adjusting successful.
Maybe it's even more vital "getting your feet wet", focussing on the people keeping the organization alive. There is far more than meets the eye in the first place. Do System Thinkers really acknowledge the people? Do Human Thinkers really acknowledge the system? Everybody has got a blind spot! Professional know organizations have got there own undercurrents, "things" we don't see, but we do perceive on a subconscious level. In those organizational undercurrents the most imminent forces dwell, both threatening and empowering forces. We can ignore them and stay on the outside, or we can get our feet wet and make good use of them. It is up to us.
So, no living organization without people. No sustainable successful organization without a collaboration between people and system. That's not a new concept. Since the Fifties of the 20th century most Organizational Scientists explore diverse perspectives and differing paradigms aiming for good collaborations. For instance, look at the Agile concept. Quite a business hype nowadays.
Agile
Agile representatives stress that Agile is not so much as a fixed set of rules or a fixed working method, but rather as a way (or style) of thinking, working and perhaps even a way of living. Agile's Values tell is, that Individuals and interactions are more important than processes and tools. Working software more important than comprehensive documentation. Customer collaboration more important than contract negotiation. Responding to change more important over following a plan. Sounds great isn't it?Despite the great focus on human aspects, the Agile concept is very much a system and a model. Lots and lots of diagrams, graphs, tables and flowcharts are used to clarify the Agile philosophy and process. Naturally the system oriented mindset needs the diagram and flowchart language to appreciate the beauty of the human approach of Agile. Still, to me Agile looks like a human oriented concept caught in a system. Too much system kills the human contribution. The end of creativity and innovation. What we need is a good collaboration between people and system.
Organization Jester
Indeed, for sustainable business successes we have to go back to the people máking the business. We need to explore the organizational undercurrent. We don't just go for mainstream knowledge and skills. We look for the minority's wisdom, too. In the old days the kings kept Jesters at their courts. Jesters could say anything to their rulers. They saved them from serious misjudgments and grave mistakes. They told them what they didn't know, but should know. They shared with them the varied wisdom of all factions. They preserved them from too much ignorance and arrogance. Jesters did do that with a smile and a joke, so their rulers didn't take him too seriously. And they themselves didn't get in to too much trouble.For me the organizational Jester stands for the organizational rebel: different, provocative, confrontational, abrasive, unsettling, not afraid, creative funny, in short: disruptive. The Jester helps the boss to cross no man's land between system en people. He supports the ruler to let human en system collaborate optimally.
Who is afraid of the Jester?
I hope and wish that contemporary rulers (ceo's, boards of directors, leaders and managers, etc., etc.) cherish their organizational Jesters. It helps you to become a better ruler, a better leading manager (or what so ever). In my opinion the Jester position should arise organically and spontaneously. If not, then create a Jester position close by. Even if the Jesters' remarks are abrasive, embrace them, listen to them, take them seriously.Dynamic Human System Collaboration 3.3
Paradoxically DHSC 3.3 needed to be system model, too. We do need a model to convince the system thinkers to collaborate, don't we? We need also transcend the model, in order to convince the people thinkers to collaborate. So I invented a dynamic tetrahedron.
Both Agile and Lean are part of the model, because they already try to combine system and people (in system and in philosophy). Lean focusses on manufacturing and environment. Agile focusses on product development. Lean goes for functional sobriety, for as less as redundancy and waste as possible. Agile supports an effective innovative organization.
From Keridwen's Self Directing 3.3 derive Jester and Director as part of DHSC 3.3. Keep in mind that Jester refers to all the people inside and around an organization. Director, is a word I like very much, for its divergent implications. For example, in "Managing Director" it refers to organizational leadership and management. On the other hand, "Director" in "Stage Director" has e very different meaning. As both a business consultant and stage director myself, I like helping managing directors to improve their professional performance by using stage director's insights and skills. The first steps are teaching managing directors to enlarge their frame of mind adequately by learning how to change perspectives and how to shift paradigms.
DHSC 3.3 guarantees a smooth balance between autonomy and customization, between scenario thinking and improvisation, between scientific designing and human nature and culture. DHSC 3.3 brings different, agile frames of minds into organizational systems. DHSC 3.3 stands for collaboration and co-operation between two worlds, two different professional discourses, two apparently excluding paradigms.
Straying on new ways
Since 2002 I follow this road myself. Being a guest lecturer on Change Management and Organizational Development in Higher Education, I started to shake up a little the world of management and business administration by lecturing on enlarging the professional frame of mind. The lecture titles I used, derived from the Self Directing 3.3 concept: The Dance of the Hero, Sentry & Lamppost and The Gordian Egg. Intending to do as a preached I applied DHSC 3.3 in coaching and consulting. Often I found that only then the road ahead became visible, when I started walking. I still do this walking... who dares to stray will find new ways, isn't it?Do you want to know more? I would be happy to accompany you on new professional adventures. Maybe as a fellow traveller or even as your travelling guide. At least I can tell you lots of stories and meaningful parables to enlarge your frame of mind. For stories follow me also "down the rabbit hole": soon a new story, "Who is afraid of the Jester?", will be told.
Marcel van der Pol
Keridwen
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
