The future of the Organization.
Special Edition of the BetaCodex Network´s white papers on Organizing for Complexity - two papers in one! Illustrations by Pia Steinmann
Organize for Complexity - keynote at Dare Festival 2014 (Antwerp/BE)Niels Pflaeging
This document discusses organizational transformation and different phases of an organization's development. It begins with a matrix that places different types of organizations in sectors based on their level of dynamism and market characteristics. The rest of the document then discusses various models of organizational structure, culture, value creation, and transformation, contrasting traditional hierarchical and bureaucratic approaches with more adaptive approaches oriented around social networks, purpose, and complexity. It advocates an approach focused on connectedness, responsibility, leadership instead of management, and other principles outlined in the "Beta Codex".
Learn how to apply Agile practices to change management and organizational development. This presentation was given at the Toronto Organizational Development Network meetup in March 2014.
Organize for Complexity, part I (BetaCodex12) Niels Pflaeging
This document discusses organizing principles for dealing with complexity in organizations. It begins by summarizing Frederick Taylor's principles of scientific management, which divided organizations into "thinkers" (managers) and "doers" (workers). This created three gaps: a functional gap due to division of labor, a time gap due to separation of thinking and doing, and a social gap due to hierarchical control. The document then discusses the difference between complicated and complex systems, noting that only human beings can effectively deal with complexity. It argues organizations should move from command-and-control "Alpha" principles to self-organizing "Beta" principles based on cross-functional teams with transparency, peer pressure and shared goals. The key is empowering teams
The three organizational structures, powers & leaderships: A closer look.
BetaCodex Network white paper No. 18, authored by Niels Pflaeging and Silke Hermann.
Scalability is currently a big topic in the agile world. Most agile methods and practices often reach their limits when one wants to “agilize" more than a few teams, let alone one wants to achieve real agile collaboration of several hundert people.
The main problem is that many agile methods focus on the team. Kanban follows a completely different path - Kanban is not a team method! Kanban is a management method which focuses on generating value. "Manage work and not workers" is one of the key messages of the Lean Kanban management philosophy. Therefore, scalability is not a real topic within Kanban: if you focus on value generation of work, scaling Kanban simple means doing more Kanban - it’s inherent scalable.
In this session I show how one could use Kanban at scale. Besides the general schematic explanation I will also show a case study where Kanban is used to coordinate work of more than 200 people.
This document contains 6 case studies describing organizations undergoing agile or lean transformations. The case studies outline challenges the organizations face and questions an agile coach might address to help with the transformation. The case studies cover companies in various industries including automotive, databases, banking, healthcare, and restaurants. Kanban and lean principles applied in a healthcare setting are also detailed. The document provides context to help an agile coach develop engagement strategies and initial action plans to assist the organizations.
The major criteria standing in the way of agile adoption or improvement are in the hands of managers, not the teams themselves. But many managers have been trained to think in ways that are a century old.
Agile organisations require a new mode of management and a new style of leadership. This talk discusses why this is and what this new paradigm might be like for your organisation.
The document outlines the rules for a team-based game where players are split into roles to collaboratively build Lego animals. The roles are legs developer, body developer, head developer and tester. The rules describe 5 rounds of play with different collaboration restrictions for each round to encourage teamwork and test different skills. The testers use dice to introduce random defects ("bugs") and determine if completed animals pass testing or must be returned to the appropriate developer role for repairs.
This document summarizes a presentation on improving employee happiness and productivity using Management 3.0 principles. It introduces Management 3.0 and outlines the 12 steps to happiness backed by science, including thanking others, helping others, eating well, exercising, resting, experiencing new things, hiking, meditating, socializing, aiming for goals, smiling, and giving gifts. Examples are given of how companies have implemented these steps, such as having a kudo wall, competence matrix, fitness hours, celebration grids, and work expos. Recommended reading materials on motivation are also listed. The document concludes with contact details for the presenters and information on Management 3.0.
Participative Decision Making (Lightning Talk at LKCE 2014 in Hamburg)Stefan ROOCK
The presentation discusses several decision making mechanisms: "I decide, you follow", consultation by management, majority voting, Konsent and individual consultative decisions.
The slides show how the decision making mechanisms work and discusses the pros and cons. Last but not least the relation between decision making mechanisms and organizational culture ist discussed.
Why stop at your IT department? Or an Agile approach to Change Management
Business agility is more than the organization’s IT shop adopting an agile delivery method. Business agility depends on three core capabilities: rapid delivery, strategic sensing, and customer rapport. As such it builds resilience to change as a strategic imperative and eventually it allows businesses to build a strategic advantage in driving change.
Investments in “agile” from an IT perspective will not increase business agility. So what does a company need in order to successfully drive change rather than react to it?
We’ll talk about how creating a resilient organization starts with rapid delivery and why many major organizations are turning their attention to less costly on-demand releases. We’ll look at how customer rapport is the new driver of operational efficiency, where not building something is invariably cheaper than optimizing the operational cost of building anything at all.
This document discusses agile leadership and what agile leaders do. It focuses on culture change, changing vision, removing organizational impediments, having a clear business vision, and leaders modeling the behaviors they want to see. It provides information on understanding people using various models like SCARF, ARC, and AMP. It also discusses what team members want, which includes more frequent feedback, leaders listening, being present, allowing silence, and reducing hypocrisy. The overall message is that leadership is critical for setting the stage for change by understanding people and removing barriers through modeling behaviors.
The document discusses innovative approaches to management that focus on building meaning, innovating management styles, accelerating learning, running experiments, embracing playfulness, nurturing happiness, and managing systems. It provides advice on delegation, celebrating learning over success or failure, documenting organizational culture, and using both hierarchical and network structures within organizations. Graphics illustrate concepts like the celebration grid and levels of delegation. The overall message is that non-traditional, people-focused approaches to management can make organizations more effective by prioritizing employee well-being, continuous learning, and flexibility over rigid controls.
An Integral Agile Transformation Approach - Miljan Bajicagilemaine
This document discusses a holistic approach to agile transformation that focuses on four key areas: environments and systems, practices and roles, mindset, and culture. It emphasizes that true transformation requires changes across all of these areas, including updating organizational structures and strategies, roles, individual mindsets, and shifting organizational culture. Barriers to agile adoption are also examined, such as culture, lack of buy-in, and traditional mindsets. An integral approach is recommended to drive comprehensive and lasting change throughout the organization.
Designing adaptive and nimble organizationsEmiliano Soldi
What does it mean to design agile and adaptive organizations?
What are rthe necessary organizational archetypes?
What about Value Streams and Lean Portfolio Management?
This is a presentation describing key elements of "Reinventing Organizations" as put together by author Frederic Laloux in his famous book "Reinventing Organizations". In fact this presentation provides an excerpt and useful summaries relating to this approach.
Cynefin and Complexity: A Gentle IntroductionJocko Selberg
NYC Lean Kanban Meetup - Presentation October 28, 2015 - Jocko Selberg
What do we really mean when we say that a problem is "complex"? Do we simply mean to say that a given problem is extremely complicated, or are complex problems something fundamentally different? We typically assume we are operating in a deterministic, ordered system where we can identify a cause and effect relationship, when in actuality we are often operating in a non-deterministic complex system, where these relationships can not be known in advance, if at all. How can we sense which context we are operating in and how might we act under varying degrees of uncertainty.
Complexity Theory is a term used to describe a field that is focused on the study of complex systems. Complexity science is not a single theory— it encompasses multiple theoretical frameworks, seeking answers to some of the fundamental questions about continuously changing, dynamic systems.
Cynefin is a framework developed by Dave Snowden and Cognitive Edge which seeks to helps us "make sense of the world, such that we can act in it". By understanding the fundamental differences between directed (ordered) systems and emergent (unordered) systems, we can modify our approach to match the context of the problem we are facing. The Cynefin framework takes a science based approach to dealing with critical business issues, drawing from anthropology, neuroscience and complex adaptive systems theory to improve decision making.
Complexity Theory and Cynefin have an undeserved reputation for being difficult to grasp. In this introductory talk we will break down these approaches so that we can effectively use them to help us to better act under conditions of uncertainty.
About Jocko Selberg
Jocko Selberg is currently a Project Manager for The Nielsen Company with over 15 years experience in the interactive industry. He is a non-sectarian agilist and does not own a TV.
Organize for Complexity - Keynote by Niels Pflaeging at Spark the Change (To...Niels Pflaeging
1) The document discusses how organizations will become more agile and decentralized as complexity increases.
2) It argues that traditional hierarchical and bureaucratic structures will give way to more networked and adaptive organizations, with fluid and dynamic relationships between parts.
3) Key aspects of the new model include self-organizing teams, an emphasis on results over process, and information sharing to enable coordination without central control.
The document discusses the limitations of focusing leadership development solely on individuals and argues that a systemic approach is needed. It notes that concentrating development on individuals does not significantly improve the organization, and that what happens between individuals is more important. The key points made are:
1) Organizations are systems and succeed when the entire system succeeds as an integrated whole, not just based on the success of individual managers.
2) Focusing too much on developing individuals neglects improving the organizational system surrounding them.
3) Many leadership and organizational failures are due to systemic issues rather than flaws in individual leaders.
4) To truly improve leadership and address challenges, one must think systemically and examine the entire organizational system and
The brain new world - insights for organisations and strategyThe BrainLink Group
The document discusses using the human brain as an analogy to understand modern organizations operating in complex environments. It provides five key insights: 1) Limiting a reductionist approach and recognizing organizations as integrated wholes, 2) Understanding that organizations naturally resist change, 3) Appreciating the powerful non-conscious impact of organizational culture, 4) Valuing pausing before responding to allow new insights, and 5) Protecting self-regulation processes during periods of pressure. Viewing organizations through the lens of the brain provides a new way to develop strategy in today's uncertain world.
1. The document discusses the concept of power and response-ability in the workplace. It argues that people are powerful and make systems work through their human response-ability.
2. It claims that treating people as objects reduces human power and leads to ineffective systems. Respecting the human side of systems releases more human power to support the system and its purpose.
3. The document advocates for balancing purpose fulfillment, relationship management, and knowledge building ("work, play, and learn") to improve organizational success and individual satisfaction. Treating people as people, rather than objects, allows their power and creativity to flourish.
Slides that @HelenBevan created to go with Twitter posts in 2019Helen Bevan
This document summarizes key concepts from several sources about organizational complexity and change leadership. Some of the main points discussed include:
- Organizations are complex adaptive systems with non-linear relationships and unintended consequences. Central control is not effective for complex organizations.
- The top leverage points for transforming systems are setting goals, paradigms and transcending paradigms. Building trust through relationships is also important.
- Mid-level managers play a key role in large-scale change by using networks to drive lasting change from the bottom-up while managing tensions.
- Communicating in a way that connects to audience values and goals, rather than one's own, helps influence change. Small, results-
Teal Organizations: Reinventing organizations to promote sustainabilityKarla Córdoba
A quick introduction to the Teal Organizations concept... to start thinking about how we can create more sustainable organizations
https://medium.com/sustainability-school-blog
Presented at Empowering Sustainability on Earth Conference 2016
http://empowering-sustainability.weebly.com/
Magazine Design Sample: System Oriented LeadershipWPBaba
This document provides an overview of systems oriented leadership. It discusses seeing organizations as living systems rather than machines, focusing on the system as a whole rather than individual parts, and spreading leadership throughout the system rather than concentrating it in one individual. The goal is to tap into the collective intelligence of the system to help organizations continuously learn, grow and evolve in complex environments.
The document discusses several key concepts related to understanding organizations, including sense-making, interpretation, organizational dysfunction, different styles of organizing, perceived divisions within organizations, and images and metaphors used to understand organizations. It also examines the relationship between individuals and organizations and compares espoused theories of organizing to theories in use.
Management challenges while building a healthy engineering culture. Avoiding agile anti-patterns, while promoting a systemic view of the organisation. Team motivation: key drivers and pitfalls.
Management challenges while building a healthy engineering culture. Avoiding agile anti-patterns, while promoting a systemic view of the organisation. Team motivation: key drivers and pitfalls.
How does an understanding of management and organizational behavior .pdfAMITJWELLER123
How does an understanding of management and organizational behavior lead to organizational
effectiveness and efficiency? Why is the study of historical management theories important
today?
Solution
Ans:- Organizational behavior examines how and why people act, think, and feel in corporate
and other organized settings. The field is concerned with timeless questions such as the nature of
leadership, how to motivate people, how to resolve interpersonal conflicts, and how to develop
effective teams. We say “timeless” because the fundamental issues in organizational
behavior—the rapidly changing workplace notwithstanding—aren’t new. In fact, the field’s roots
go back thousands of years. For example, ancient Chinese emperors grappled with how to
efficiently organize a vast work force of civil servants. And in the Roman Empire, experiments
with tenure-based wage classifications (what are called tiered wage systems today) created
problems. But we’ll spare you the details of some 4,000 years of history—you can pursue that on
your own. The point is that concerns about organizational behavior have always been with us.
We’ll jump ahead with our time line to the U.S. in the late 1800s. During that period, several
famous “experiments” in human behavior were conducted in organizations. Robert Owen, for
example, was a textile manufacturer who experimented with “innovations” such as providing
breaks and hot meals for his employees. Likewise, the Pullman factory town was seen by many
as innovative in its day. Today, of course, what was viewed as an attractive workplace in the
1800s comes across as laughable. For example, at the Boston Herald in the 1870s, a company
rule stated that “men employees will be given an evening off each week for courting purposes, or
two evenings a week if they go regularly to church.”6 Up until this point, efforts to improve
worker productivity were largely confined to a handful of behavioral tinkerers. But 1900 marked
the birth of the first systematic effort to scientifically study human behavior. In fact, for the next
40–50 years, scientific management was the dominant behavioral perspective in the U.S. Its
champion was Frederick Taylor. An engineer by training, Taylor felt that applying scientific
principles to human behavior was a practical and efficient way to maximize firm performance.
Just as machines could be designed to optimally perform a certain task, he reasoned, so too could
people be taught the ideal way to perform their specific jobs. Uncovering those “ideal ways”
required a systematic analysis. The idea was to observe people doing actual work, discover the
“human problems” preventing better performance, and then minimize them by training
employees to do things correctly. Taylor conducted many experiments that tested whether
worker movements, action sequences, physical positions, and job locations would raise or lower
production. For instance, Taylor collected detailed information about how workers loaded coal
bins, i.
How does an understanding of management and organizational behavior .pdfrishabjain5053
How does an understanding of management and organizational behavior lead to organizational
effectiveness and efficiency? Why is the study of historical management theories important
today?
Solution
Ans:- Organizational behavior examines how and why people act, think, and feel in corporate
and other organized settings. The field is concerned with timeless questions such as the nature of
leadership, how to motivate people, how to resolve interpersonal conflicts, and how to develop
effective teams. We say “timeless” because the fundamental issues in organizational
behavior—the rapidly changing workplace notwithstanding—aren’t new. In fact, the field’s roots
go back thousands of years. For example, ancient Chinese emperors grappled with how to
efficiently organize a vast work force of civil servants. And in the Roman Empire, experiments
with tenure-based wage classifications (what are called tiered wage systems today) created
problems. But we’ll spare you the details of some 4,000 years of history—you can pursue that on
your own. The point is that concerns about organizational behavior have always been with us.
We’ll jump ahead with our time line to the U.S. in the late 1800s. During that period, several
famous “experiments” in human behavior were conducted in organizations. Robert Owen, for
example, was a textile manufacturer who experimented with “innovations” such as providing
breaks and hot meals for his employees. Likewise, the Pullman factory town was seen by many
as innovative in its day. Today, of course, what was viewed as an attractive workplace in the
1800s comes across as laughable. For example, at the Boston Herald in the 1870s, a company
rule stated that “men employees will be given an evening off each week for courting purposes, or
two evenings a week if they go regularly to church.”6 Up until this point, efforts to improve
worker productivity were largely confined to a handful of behavioral tinkerers. But 1900 marked
the birth of the first systematic effort to scientifically study human behavior. In fact, for the next
40–50 years, scientific management was the dominant behavioral perspective in the U.S. Its
champion was Frederick Taylor. An engineer by training, Taylor felt that applying scientific
principles to human behavior was a practical and efficient way to maximize firm performance.
Just as machines could be designed to optimally perform a certain task, he reasoned, so too could
people be taught the ideal way to perform their specific jobs. Uncovering those “ideal ways”
required a systematic analysis. The idea was to observe people doing actual work, discover the
“human problems” preventing better performance, and then minimize them by training
employees to do things correctly. Taylor conducted many experiments that tested whether
worker movements, action sequences, physical positions, and job locations would raise or lower
production. For instance, Taylor collected detailed information about how workers loaded coal
bins, i.
This document discusses different approaches to management and leadership. It begins by describing traditional "Management 1.0" which treats organizations like machines with top-down control. It then introduces "Management 2.0" which recognizes people as the most important assets but still relies on hierarchy. Most of the document focuses on "Management 3.0" which views the organization as a community where everyone shares responsibility. It advocates empowering teams through delegation, developing competence, and continuously improving. The goal is to distribute control across the organization and treat work as a system that can be managed by workers, with managers focusing on growth and nurturing the whole.
Empowering Agile Self-Organized Teams with Design ThinkingC4Media
Video and slides synchronized, mp3 and slide download available at URL https://bit.ly/2EyA2RM.
William Evans covers the key principles and practices of design thinking and how it can be leveraged by agile teams to collaboratively test new options and create new value. He presents a case study of how an infrastructure engineering team learned the key practices of design thinking to reduce the lead time for delivering services and systems. Filmed at qconnewyork.com.
William Evans explores the convergence of practice and theory using Lean, Design Thinking, Theory of Constraints, and Service Design with global enterprises from NYC to Berlin to Singapore. He works with a select group of clients undergoing Lean and Agile transformations across the entire organization.
Systems thinking for agile transformationsDhaval Panchal
culture change is free - comparison of systems leverage points for transformations
Culture of an organization often gets blamed for lack of transformation success. This session takes a systems view to organization transformation. In organization systems, points of leverage are powerful because a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything. Consequently the higher the leverage point the more the system will resist changing it. Direct attempts at changing organizational culture do not work, they lead to many haphazard attempts at behavior change but do not result in lasting transformation within organization. Many leaders attempt to shift organizational behavior and neglect underlying structures that give rise to dysfunctional behavior. We compare and contrast different systems leverage points, to draw distinction between leaders actions and more importantly mindset towards organizational transformation. Introduction to various systems thinking models with colorful examples from real world coaching situations will help you to think through your transformation challenges and learn why culture change is free, when you replace willpower with knowledge.
The beer game - a production distribution simulationTristan Wiggill
A presentation by Michael D. Ford CFPIM, CSCP, CQA, CRE, CQE, Principal, TQM Works Consulting, USA delivered during the 38th annual SAPICS event for supply chain professionals in Sun City, South Africa.
The Beer Game was developed by Jay Forrester at MIT’s Sloan business school in the early 1960s. It is a simple yet realistic simulator of the supply chain and is used as a teaching tool for systems dynamics. It has been played all over the world by thousands of people ranging from high school students to chief executive officers and government officials. Each participant plays a role in the production and distribution of a product, in this case “beer”.
The document discusses different organizational theories and paradigms including structural, human relations, political, cultural, and open systems approaches. It provides examples of how each theory views an organization, its assumptions, and implications for leadership and management. Key theorists discussed include Mary Parker Follett, Margaret Wheatley, and Peter Senge regarding open systems, power, and learning organizations.
The “Course Topics” series from Manage Train Learn and Slide Topics is a collection of over 4000 slides that will help you master a wide range of management and personal development skills. The 202 PowerPoints in this series offer you a complete and in-depth study of each topic. This presentation is on "Managing Paradox".
Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions and generalizations that influence how we understand the world and take action. They are often implicit and shape our behavior and problem-solving approaches. While mental models can be useful, they also become problematic when they are unexamined and fail to evolve with changing realities. Organizational practices and innovation can be limited by unexamined mental models shared among key decision-makers. Various tools like examining the "ladder of inference" and "left-hand column" can help increase awareness of implicit mental models and make them more open to discussion and refinement. Balancing inquiry of other views with advocacy of one's own can also help organizations and individuals arrive at more informed positions.
Similar to Organize for Complexity, part I+II - Special Edition Paper (20)
Organize for Complexity - Keynote by Niels Pflaeging at Regional Scrum Gather...Niels Pflaeging
The document announces a regional Scrum gathering in Belgrade from November 16-17, 2022 hosted by Niels Pflaeging of redforty2.com. The event will focus on how to create highly decentralized, networked cell structure organizations to organize for complexity. It will provide information on how to establish these types of organizations everywhere and quickly.
Die Erfindung zweier Managements (BetaCodex17)Niels Pflaeging
Wie Follett und Taylor die beiden Schulen der Organisationslehre
ins Leben riefen - und was seither geschah.
BetaCodex Network Associates
Niels Pfläging | Silke Hermann
BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 17 | April 2021 l betacodex.org/white-papers
Deutsche Version April 2022. Diana Mock | Hans Fischer-Schölch | Elisabeth Sechser
The future of organizational learning is discursive & self-organizedNiels Pflaeging
by Silke Herman and Niels Pflaeging.
Workplace learning is not a particularly thrilling adventure these days: Learning in organizations overwhelmingly relies on aged and worn-out formats that produce little learning or impact. The tools in use are often not fit for our time – in terms of content, or learning method, or technology – or all three combined. One cannot help but notice that in the reality of organizations, by and large, Learning & Development (L&D) is a pretty dull affair, clearly lacking innovation. In this paper, we will discuss how that is bound to change. We believe that workplace learning can be as engaging as Maria Montessori envisioned child learning to be, over 100 years ago and as humane, effective and conducive as Ken Robinson demanded in his world-famous TED talks a few years back. Sure, the current reality of corporate learning may look bleak, but there are now signs of a way out of the L&D misery in which most companies find themselves. One of these signs is the platform created by EdTech start-up disqourse.
The small group miracle: Where learning & performance meetNiels Pflaeging
This document discusses how learning occurs at the individual, small group, and organizational levels. It argues that true organizational learning requires disciplined learning within small groups of 4-6 people. When many small groups ("Circles") engage in discourse learning within an organization, their learning experiences inevitably interweave. Intensive discussion within Circles produces both individual and shared knowledge and insights. Participants feel compelled to discuss and resolve ideas with others, leading to spillover of discussions to the larger group and organization. By coupling individual, small group, and organizational learning through parallel Circles, organizational impact and change can be achieved.
Technology, didactics, content: The triad of discourse learningNiels Pflaeging
This document discusses the importance of combining technology, didactics, and content for effective organizational learning. It notes that while many learning technologies focus on individual knowledge transmission, complex problems require collaboration and shared understanding. True impact comes from coupling knowledge with mastery and application through learning opportunities based on social interaction and discourse. For organizational learning to develop high impact and do so quickly, an integrated triad of technology, learning methods (didactics), and subject matter (content) is needed. A one-sided focus on technology alone risks limiting its impact to entertainment and single events rather than sustainable learning and pattern change.
Work the System – keynote by Niels Pflaeging at Comeleon 2021 (Zagreb/HR)Niels Pflaeging
1) The document discusses the need to transform entire organizations to achieve true agility, rather than making small changes, which are ineffective.
2) Real transformation takes months rather than years to shift from a mechanistic, centralized system to one that is decentralized, adaptive, and market-driven.
3) The key is to increase social density within the organization and "work the system", not coerce individuals, to bring about change through interventions rather than attempting transformation as a journey.
- Mary Parker Follett and Frederick Winslow Taylor were the two pioneering founders who established the conceptual foundations for the two parallel schools of management in the early 20th century - the Follettian and Taylorist schools.
- Follett, a social scientist, focused on decentralized, democratic organizing informed by political studies and sociology. Taylor, an engineer, focused on "scientific management" and finding the optimal way to perform industrial jobs.
- Follett's work was broader in scope and more intellectually challenging, dealing with political systems and democracy. Taylor focused more narrowly on industrial production.
- Historically, Follett's work has been misunderstood and misplaced by being categorized as part of other schools like Scientific Management
Performancesysteme und Relative Ziele (BetaCodex 10)Niels Pflaeging
Warum sich Ziele und unser Umgang mit Leistungsmessung ändern müssen. Wie wir von fixierten zu relativen Leistungsverträgen gelangen – und zu einfachen, ethischen,
Selbstorganisation fördernden Systemen für den Umgang mit Wertschöpfung
Niels Pflaeging is an acclaimed international speaker on leadership, complexity, and change. When he speaks, he shakes up conventional management theories and offers practical solutions and concepts to profoundly transform organizations. Audiences and clients praise his highly energetic and humorous presentations that empower people with everyday situations and solutions for organizations.
Change is more like adding milk to coffee! - Niels Pflaeging at Remote Work 2...Niels Pflaeging
The document contrasts leadership approaches needed in the Industrial Age versus the Knowledge Age. In the Industrial Age, an "Alpha" leadership style focused on mechanistic, top-down control was sufficient, but now a "Beta" style is needed. A Beta style is systemic, market-driven, focuses on integrated teamwork, is led from outside-in in a socially dense way, and is decentralized to handle complexity. The document provides insights on organizational change: it is a constant process not a journey; resistance is a response to poor methods not change itself; and problems typically lie in systems while technique is trivial compared to social factors.
Embracing Change_ Volunteerism in the New Normal by Frederik Durda.pdfFrederik Durda
The new normal has not diminished the spirit of volunteerism; rather, it has transformed it, opening up new avenues for individuals to connect with and support their communities. As we continue to adapt, volunteerism will remain a vital force in building resilient, compassionate, and inclusive societies.
Unlocking The Human Element in IT And Service ManagementDario Diament
The book "Unlocking the Human Element in IT" provides a comprehensive guide to understanding and leveraging the human aspects of information technology. Drawing on extensive research and real-world case studies, the book delves into the critical role that people, culture, and organizational dynamics play in the success or failure of IT initiatives.
The Importance of the Human Element in IT
The book begins by highlighting the often-overlooked human dimension of IT, emphasizing that technology alone is not enough to drive meaningful change and innovation. It argues that the true power of IT lies in its ability to empower and engage people, fostering a collaborative and adaptive organizational culture.
Key Themes and Insights
People-Centric Approach: The book underscores the need to shift from a technology-centric mindset to a people-centric approach in IT management. It explores strategies for aligning IT goals with the needs and aspirations of employees, customers, and stakeholders.
Organizational Culture: The authors examine the profound impact of organizational culture on IT initiatives, addressing topics such as change management, leadership, and team dynamics. They provide practical frameworks for cultivating a culture that embraces innovation, collaboration, and continuous learning.
Soft Skills and Talent Management: The book delves into the importance of developing soft skills, such as communication, empathy, and problem-solving, among IT professionals. It also explores effective talent management strategies to attract, retain, and develop high-performing IT teams.
Agile and Adaptive IT: The book highlights the rise of agile and adaptive IT methodologies, emphasizing the need for IT organizations to be nimble, responsive, and customer-centric. It offers guidance on implementing agile practices and fostering a mindset of continuous improvement.
Bridging the IT-Business Divide: The authors address the longstanding challenge of aligning IT with business objectives, providing strategies for enhancing collaboration, communication, and mutual understanding between IT and other organizational functions.
Practical Applications and Case Studies
Throughout the book, the authors present real-world case studies that illustrate the impact of the human element in IT. These case studies cover a range of industries and organizational contexts, offering valuable insights and lessons learned for readers to apply in their own environments.
Conclusion
"Unlocking the Human Element in IT" is a must-read for IT leaders, managers, and professionals who recognize the importance of people, culture, and organizational dynamics in driving successful IT initiatives. By embracing the human element, organizations can unlock the full potential of their technology investments and achieve sustainable, transformative change.
People mentioned:
- Matt Beran
- Deborah Monroe
- NJ Robinson
- Megan Engels
- Gregg Gregory
- Rocky McGuire
Learn more at invgate.com
CAPACITY BUILDING:HOW TO GROW YOUR INFLUENCE, INCOME & IMPACTTochi22
Don't wish for less problems but for more capacity.
In this slideshare, you will discover the importance of capacity and different critical areas you must build to achieve your dream life.
To get the recording of this seminar, join our community on Clubhouse @ High Impact Makers
Organize for Complexity, part I+II - Special Edition Paper
1. How to make work work again.
How to break the barrier of command-and-control –
and create the peak-performance, networked organization
BetaCodex Network Associates
Niels Pflaeging & Silke Hermann & Lars Vollmer & Valérya Carvalho
Illustrations by Pia Steinmann
BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 12 & 13, June 2012
Make it real!
ORGANIZE
FOR
COMPLEXITY
special
2. This paper addresses fundamental questions of interest to
business owners, managers, professionals and change agents
Don't we all ask ourselves questions like:
• How can organizations deal with growing complexity?
• How to adjust a growing organization, without falling into
the bureaucracy trap?
• How to become more capable of adapting to new
circumstances?
• How to overcome existing barriers to performance,
innovation and growth?
• How to become an organization more fit to human
beings, and achieve higher engagement?
• How to produce profound change, without hitting the
barrier?
In this paper, we argue that in order to address these
issues, we must create organizations that are truly robust
for complexity, as well as fit for human beings. We also
discuss how that can be done. You will learn about concepts
that allow to design entire organizations for complexity,
regardless of size, age, industry, country or culture.
3. Part 1.
Complexity: it matters to organizations. Big time.
“Organize for Complexity“ - BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 12 & 13
Crafts !
manu-!
facturing !
Tayloristic !
industry !
Global !
markets !
4. Frederick Taylor’s grand idea and how management was invented:
The division between thinkers and doers
“Thinkers”/
Managers
strategize, steer,
control, decide
“Doers”/
Workers
execute, obey,
follow
In 1911, Frederick Taylor published his landmark book
The Principles of Scientific Management. He proposed
management as a “revolution” that would eliminate the
productivity constraints of the industrial-age
organization. Taylorism achieved just that.
What Taylor pioneered was the idea of dividing an
organization between thinking people (managers) and
executing people (workers) – thus legitimating the
management profession as that of “thinking principals
of the non-thinking human resources”. Taylor also
introduced functional division to shop-floor work.
Taylor's concepts were soon decried as inhumane and
non-scientific, his consulting methods as ineffective.
But hierarchical/functional division became widely
adopted after his death, in 1915, his principles were
applied to non-industrial, non-shop-floor work.
Management, as we know it, is not much different from
what Taylor proposed a century ago. In dynamic and
complex markets, however, command-and-control
turns toxic for both organizational performance and
human/social advancement.
We call tayloristic management Alpha.
5. The price of simplicity: Tayloristic division causes “managed“
organizations to experience three systemic “gaps“
3pm: Thinking
9am: Doing
2 The Functional Gap
Functional division produces a
need of managed/imposed
coordination through process
control, interfaces, planning, rules,
standards, hierarchic power etc.
3 The Time Gap
Personal division between
thinking thinkers and non-
thinking doers causes need
for managed/imposed roles,
complicated IT, strategy,
forecasting, and planning
1 The Social Gap
Hierarchical division and top-
down control cause an erosion
of social/group pressure and
dialog, and a bias towards
management by numbers and
leadership by fear
None of this feels good. None of this is value-creating. The three gaps all lead to waste.
6. Formal part of
value creation
Solution:
machine
Dynamic part
of value
creation
Solution: man
sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamichigh dynamic
The historical course of market dynamics
and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets
The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact.
t1970/80 today
Age of
crafts manu-
facturing
Age of
tayloristic
industry
Age of
global
markets
1850/1900
Spacious markets,
little competition
Local markets,
high customi-
zation
Outperformers exercise
market pressure over
conventional companies
We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”.
7. The difference between the complicated and the complex
• Complicated systems operate in
standardized ways. Here, imprecision is
diminished, non-objectivity and
uncertainty are reduced as far as
possible. Can be described through non-
ambiguous cause-and-effect chains Are
externally controllable.
• Any high-precision machine is
complicated: Everything is done to avoid
imprecision/to increase precision. A
watch, for example, is calibrated to
diminish mistakes, uncertainty and
illusion. It is configured to supply
objective data, certainty and a minimum
of illusion.
• Complex systems have presence or
participation of living creatures. They are
living systems - that's why they may
change at any moment. Such systems are
only externally observable – not
controllable.
• A complex systems´ behavior is non-
predictable. Here, it's natural that there is a
level of error, uncertainty and illusion that
is much higher than in complicated
systems.
A complex system may possess elements
that can operate in standardized ways, but
their interaction would be constantly
changing, in discontinuous ways
8. Consequences of complexity:
The importance of mastery for problem-solving
The only “thing” capable of effectively dealing with complexity is human beings.
What matters in complexity, thus, as far as problem-solving is concerned, is
neither tools, nor standardization, nor rules, nor structures, nor processes – all
those things that used to serve us well in the industrial age and its dull markets.
In complexity, the question isn’t how to solve a problem, but who can do it.
What matters now, thus, is skilful people, or people with mastery.
People with ideas.
Problem-solving in a life-less system is
about instruction. Problem–solving in
a living system is about communication.
Complexity can neither be managed, nor reduced. It can be confronted with human mastery.
9. The improvement paradox: In complexity, working on separate
parts doesn't improve the whole. It actually damages the whole
Working on individual parts of the system
does not improve the functioning of the
whole: Because in a system, it is not so
much the parts that matter, but their fit.
What really improves a system as a whole
is working not on the parts itself, but
on the interactions between the parts.
You might call this attitude “leadership”.
Systems are not improved by tinkering with the parts, but by working on their interactions.
10. Part 2.
People and work
“Organize for Complexity“ - BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 12 & 13
11. Human nature at work - McGregor's critical distinction.
Ask yourself: which theory describes me, and people around me?
Theory X Theory Y
People need to work and want to take an inte-
rest in it. Under right conditions, they can enjoy it
People will direct themselves
towards a target that they accept
People will seek and accept responsibility,
under the right conditions
Under the right conditions, people are motiva-
ted by the desire to realize their own potential
Creativity and ingenuity are widely distributed
and grossly underused
People dislike work,
find it boring, and will avoid it if they can
People must be forced or bribed
to make the right effort
People would rather be directed than
accept responsibility, (which they avoid)
People are motivated mainly by money
and fears about their job security
Most people have little creativity - except
when it comes to getting round rules
Source: Douglas McGregor, ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’, 1960
Attitude
Direction
Responsibility
Creativity
Motivation
12. Human nature at work: McGregor's critical distinction
Douglas McGregor, in his seminal work from 1960, distinguished between two images of
human nature, of which only one is ”true”, in that it holds up to science and available theory.
The other one, Theory X, is nothing more than a prejudice that we have about other people.
There are two reason why this theory, besides being a superstition, is commonplace. Firstly,
it reflects common thinking from our pre-democratic, pre-enlightenment past. Secondly,
while observing other people's behavior, we tend to make conclusions about their human
nature – frequently ignoring behavior-shaping context.
This matters. Because assumptions we have in our minds about other people shape our
behavior, and the way we tend to design and run organizations: if you believe in the
existence of Theory X humans, then command-and-control systems design will follow. In
order to build complexity-robust organizations, a shared view of human nature is needed.
Behavior
Human Nature
Context
Asked which theory about human
nature – X or Y – describes us,
everyone immediately knows: “I am a
Theory Y sort of person!” When asked
about other people, however, the
answer is usually not as clear cut.
Haven't we all experienced Theory X
people many times in our lives? At
work? In our organizations?
13. The nature of motivation and why leaders cannot motivate
People are driven by motives. It is safe to say
that everyone carries all kinds of motives, to a
certain degree. Everyone thus is a “carrier of
motives”, or “intrinsically motivated”. The
specific levels or the dominance of different
motives, however, vary greatly among
individuals.
What this means for organizations, or
employers, is: they cannot motivate. Because
motivation is. The main thing that organizations
can do to stimulate performance is facilitating
options for connection between individuals
and the organization, through purpose and work.
We call the phenomenon, when an individual
connects itself voluntarily to work and an
organization, connectedness.
Unfortunately, belief in the myth of motivational
power of leadership is still widespread. Truth is:
because of motivation's intrinsic nature, leaders,
through their behavior, can only de-motivate.
14. Introversion Extraversion
Thinking Feeling
Sensing Intuition
An individual's behavior is also strongly influenced by preferences. The concept of
“preferences” was introduced by Carl G. Jung in his pioneering work “Psychological Types”.
Attitude. Jung differentiated types firstly
according to their general attitude: Attitude
describes people's way of reacting more to
outer or inner experiences.
Decision-making “functions“. 'Heady’
individuals, who prefer to make decisions
by thinking things through, rationally using
the 'thinking function‘. 'Heart' people prefer
to evaluate and make decisions
subjectively using the ‘feeling' function.
Perceiving “functions“. We view the world
using a combination of ‘sensing' to record
the sensory details, and ‘intuition' to see
patterns, make connections and interpret
meaning.
Appreciating behavioral distinctiveness: People and preferences
15. Making use of distinctiveness in preference
to deal with complexity
There is great variety of behavior within the three categories
of preferences, depending on which position on each of the
three bi-polar scales the person’s behavior is plotted. The
majority of people will not be extreme, demonstrating a close
balance – as such they can be more difficult to read.
Every person has the ability to use either side of the bi-polar
scales, although we will all have preferences for one side
more than the other – most of the time.
When people with different preferences work together, they
can compliment each other.
In complexity, distinctiveness in motivations and preferences can be an asset – or a liability
16. Individual competence vs. collective competence
“We learned that individual
expertise did not distinguish
people as high performers. What
distinguished high performers
were larger and more diversified
personal networks.”
“Engineers are roughly five times
more likely to turn to a person for
information as to an impersonal
source such as a database.”
Cross, Rob et.al.
The Hidden Power of Social Networks.
Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 2004
17. Most organizations are obsessed with individual performance.
But individual performance is actually a myth
Individual performance is not just overrated.
It simply doesn't exist, in organizations.
Why? Because value, or results, never arise
from individual action, but from interaction
between various individuals, or within teams.
A sales person only does part of the sale –
the other parts are being done by people
who may call themselves back office staff,
production and procurement staff,
accountants and HR professionals.
Because interdependency is in
organizations, trying to define individual
targets, or to measure individual
performance, leads to deception. Appraisals
of individual performance can only have a
de-spiriting and de-motivating effect on
people and damage team spirit.
18. People communicate & connect in wildly different manners.
About the “archetypes” of communicators
Hubs draw information and broadcast it
Gatekeepers carefully manage information flows
Pulsetakers great observers of people
Karen Stephenson, Quantum Theory of Trust.
Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd, 2005
Connectors exchange information with many people
Mavens invest more time in people
Salesmen masters of interpersonal communication
Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point.
Boston: Back Bay Books, 2002
It is not important which of these concepts is “true” or “better”:
There is potential in making use of social patterns and these varied ways of acting.
Make use of them, or ignore them at your peril!
19. What makes people complex: putting it all together
An individual's behavior is shaped by motives,
preferences and competencies. Motives as
personal characteristics are quite stable over time
– they describe how important certain goals are
for the individual. Preferences, by contrast, can
partly evolve during the course of a lifetime -
depending on environment, challenges and
personal goals. Motives and preferences,
combined, influence our interest to acquire certain
competencies: There are abilities that are present
or that can be learned. Competencies, thus, are
directly related to learning.
As we saw, only behavior is easily and readily
observable. It is still quite easy to describe an
individual's competencies. With a little more effort
yet, preferences can be mapped and described.
Proper identification of someone's motives require
even more effort and delicacy. Human nature
Behavior (visible)
Competencies
Preferences
Motives
Nature
cannot be observed at all: it is a matter of conviction, or part of the social theories that we
hold. Problem is: observing behavior seduces us to (mis)judge others´ competencies, motives,
or even their nature. An organization fit for complexity requires more reflection!
20. Part 3.
Self-organizing teams and the networked organization:
From the old design principles to new, and better ones
“Organize for Complexity“ - BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 12 & 13
21. “The idea of “chunking”: a group of items is perceived as a single “chunk”.
The chunk’s boundary is a little like a cell membrane or a national border. It
establishes a separate identity for the cluster within. According to context, one
may wish to ignore the chunk’s internal structure or take it into account.”
Hofstadter/Douglas. Gödel, Escher, Bach. New York: Basic Books, 1979
Forming teams
We call the individual chunk a cell, and its boundary
the cell membrane.
We call the cluster of cells (the system), a cell-structure network.
We call the system's boundary or membrane the sphere of activity.
22. Design principle "Alpha":
Groups are uni-functional, or functionally divided.
“Similar Individuals who work next to each other, in
parallel”, eventually competing against each other
Organizing the work: Common forms of team segmentation –
and where the difference lies
Design principle
"Beta":
Teams are cross-
functional,
or functionally
integrated.
“Diverse individuals
who work inter-
connected, with
each other”-
individuals who
commit to work
together to reach a
common goal
23. Design principle "Alpha":
Control through bosses. Information flows up,
commands flow down. Top-down decision-
making. Use of rules for containment.
Design principle "Beta":
Self-regulation within the team. Control
through peer pressure and transparency.
Principles and shared responsibility.
Top-down command-and-control
versus self-organization
problems,
information
commands,
control
radical transparency,
social density,
group pressure
boundary: values,
principles, roles, shared
objectives
boundary: rules,
responsibilities,
job descriptions
Self-organization is not the “right” term: Better would be: Socially dense market-organization.
24. Making use of social pressure
1. Let people identify with a small group.
2. Give them shared responsibility for shared goals.
3. Make all information open and transparent to the team.
4. Make performance information comparable across teams.
Social pressure, used right: far more powerful than hierarchy, no damaging side-effects.
25. Ultimately, organizing for complexity and
self-organization is always about
empowering teams…
… not about empowering individuals
Self-organization must be team-based
The empowerment movement of the 1990´s also missed this point.
26. A seeming paradox: Giving up power and decentralizing
decision-making back to teams actually increases status
> Low, or average performance > High, or superior performance
Success is not a zero-sum game.
27. Design principle "Alpha":
Coordination/communication through a
manager, usually combined with functional
division; taylorism
> Sufficient in dull markets
Design principle "Beta":
not through a manager,
but laterally
> Superior in complex markets
Communication across teams
Centralized coordination is a luxury organizations in complex markets cannot afford.
28. The difference between a “department” and a “cell”
Design principle "Alpha":
A department implies functional
differentiation and thus the grouping
of functional specialists - marketers
with marketers, sales people with sales
people, etc., all of which have to be
coordinated horizontally. Business
processes cross different departments.
Result: groups of people working in
parallel, not teams
Design principle "Beta":
A cell implies functional integration, or
cross-functional teams. Coordination
occurs laterally, among peers.
Business processes flow within teams.
Result: actual teams of people working
for and with each other
Sales Back office
Business team 1
Business team 2
Business team 3
Product
management
Complex markets require decentralization, combined with market-like coordination.
29. Part 4.
Organizations as systems: How to design for complexity
“Organize for Complexity“ - BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 12 & 13
30. The dominant mindset turned into a problem:
To imagine organizations as pyramids is a misguided metaphor
Design principle "Alpha":
The organization as a bureaucratic
hierarchy, steered by managers who
are always in control
Managers commanding/controlling a
pyramid of “followers” from above is
not a smart way to organize. Most of
us sense that, intuitively: Our
experience from practice contradicts
that this can actually work.
This remains, however, the dominant
mindset in companies, since the
development of management theory
about a century ago. When we speak
of “management”, we usually refer to
techniques, tools and models aimed
at improving, optimizing, or fixing
organizations as command-and-
control pyramids.
31. Design principle "Beta":
The organization as an inter-
connected, living network, steered by
market forces. Nobody is in control.
Everybody is in charge.
A smarter and more useful way to
look at organizations is to see them as
a network. This is not only more
aligned with science than the
mechanistic “pyramid” dogma, but it
is also by far closer to reality, and in
several ways.
Because organizations are in fact:
• Networks of individuals
(through Informal Structure) and
• Networks of value-creating teams
(through Value Creation Structure).
Let's take a closer look at these
concepts.
A better metaphor: The organization as a multi-layered network
32. The workplace is networked: The organization´s
informal structure. Based on individual relationships
Informal Structures emerge
out of human interaction. In
any social group. Informal
Structure by itself is neither
good, nor bad. It simply is.
Most social phenomena arise
from informal structure:
Gossip. Networking.
Socializing. Politics. Group
think. Conspiracies. Factions,
coalitions & clans. Resistance
to change. Response to
crises. Peer pressure.
Solidarity. Bullying. You name
it. Fact is: Informal structures
are powerful.
33. The workplace is networked: The organization's
value creation structure, based on team interaction
In an organization, value-creation
flows from the inside-out.
Value creation is never the result of
individual action: It is a team-based
process of working interactively,
“with-one-another-for-each-other”.
34. The workplace is doubly networked:
Putting together informal and value creation structures
You will instead care a lot
about value creation streams,
and on supporting peer
pressure and emergent
networking patterns.
Organizational robustness
comes from the quality and
quantity of the inter-
connections between humans
and teams – not from rules,
bosses, or standards.
Understanding organizations as
value creation networks, under-
fed by informal structures, and
not as command-and-control
pyramids, you will stop caring
much about formal hierarchy
(which is actually “trivial”, from
the point of view of complexity
thinking).
35. To gain a better understanding of value creation, it is helpful
to understand the distinction between center, and periphery
Center
Market
Periphery
36. The periphery: the only part of the organization
with market contact
Center
Market
Periphery
37. The center: no direct market contact.
The periphery isolates the center from the market
Center
Market
Periphery
38. 2 Information
4 Command
Centralized decision-making (command-and-control) in a system
1 Impulse
4 Command
3 Decision
2 Information
5 Reaction
Center
Market
Periphery
Client
!
Design principle "Alpha":
Centralized decision-making,
command-and-control
In dull, slow-moving markets, centralization
of decision-making as shown here is
efficient. Centralized control is obtainable. In
dynamic markets, however, central steering
and thus any system that relies on central
decision-making collapses.
39. 2 Information
4 Command
Solving the complexity dilemma, through decentralization
2 Decision
Center
Market
Periphery
Serves the
periphery,
if needed!
Is in charge!
1 Impulse
3 Reaction
Client
Design principle “Beta”:
Decentralized decision-making,
sense-and-respond
In dynamic markets, the way out of
the control dilemma is consequent
decentralization, or devolution, of
decision-making, which becomes far
more effective: This way, decisions
are taken where interaction with and
learning from the market occurs. The
roles of center and periphery change
dramatically.
40. Part 5.
How to transform your organization into a
complexity-robust network and how to turn
“Beta” into the dominant mindset
“Organize for Complexity“ - BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 12 & 13
41. Designing an organization as a decentralized network
To turn your organization into a decentralized
cell-structure, or to build a new organization as
such a network, one must understand the
elements, or building blocks, of such a design.
Four elements are necessary:
• a boundary, or sphere of activity
• network cells (with a distinction between
central and peripheral cells)
• connecting strings between network
cells, and, finally,
• market pull – connections with the
external market
No line structures. No functions. No
departments. No shared services. No divisions.
No centralized staff. This is a different, and far
more effective way of defining structure, in
complexity.
42. Identity and the sphere of activity
Organization & teams
Sphere of Activity
- (shared) Values
- Principles
- Positioning
- Rituals
- Memes
- ...
43. The sphere of activity
Organization & Teams
Market
Self-organization requires that the system is
surrounded by a containing boundary. This condition
defines the “self“ that will be developed during the
self-organizing process.
The containing boundary has the role to direct self-
organization towards value-creation.
The elements of the sphere should be put down in
writing, e.g. in a “Letter to Ourselves”, a “Manifesto”
or a “Culture Book”.
44. The market and its components
Organization & teams
Market
- Customers
- Owners
- Banks
- Society
- Competitors
- Unions
- …
45. Value-creation flows from the inside out.
Market-pull does the steering.
Center
Market
Periphery
A cell-structure network gains stability and
resilience not through hierarchical power
relationships, or through “resistance to
pressure”, but through the “pull” that comes
from the external market, and from the
complex human relationships it nourishes
internally. Market dynamics do the steering.
Sounds simple? It is.
46. From value-creating teams to value-creating network
We call the links between network cells strings.
We call the links of peripheral cells
with the market market pull.
47. Market pull: Only peripheral cells have direct links to the
market and can thus deliver value externally
48. Step 1 in drafting your organization as a value-flow network:
Start from the outside-in, by thinking about peripheral cells first
Peripheral cells should be:
• As autonomous as possible in their decision-
making, functioning like “mini-enterprises”,
responsible for a business, holistically
• Contain no less than 3 team members each,
with cross-functional capacities
• Measuring their own results
49. Step 2: Design central cells as internally
value-creating supply units
The role of central cells is to
deliver value to peripheral
teams that these cannot create
themselves.
Their role is to serve, not to
rule the periphery. It is not to
execute power, or control.
Ideally, these teams sell their
services to peripheral cells
through priced transactions,
and on an internal market.
Examples for how to do this
exist at companies such as
Handelsbanken, dm-drogerie
markt, and Morning Star.
50. Central network cells
Central services might include:
• Human Resources
• Finance
• System Administration (IT)
• Legal
• Centers of Expertise
• Communities of Practice
• ...
In smaller organizations, there
might simply be central “shops”,
• “Org Shop” – a team delivering
organization services, and
• “Info Shop” - a team delivering
services related to information
51. Step 3: Iterate – involve many, many people
in the process of designing a full network structure
Usually, you will have to go through a
few iterations to arrive at a value-
structure design that is not only better
than the previous formal structure, but
also as decentralized as possible,
scalable and viable in the long-term.
More often than not, an organization
will make adjustments after some
initial learning with the new design.
52. Individuals and “portfolios of roles”:
A normality in decentralized network structures
In a decentralized network structure, “positions” cease to
exist. “Roles” rule. Individuals usually are not confined to
one network cell alone, but will act in different cells, filling
in different roles in different parts of the network.
Consequently, everyone keeps “juggling with roles“, all
the time.
An example: A person with the official title of ”CFO“ on
the business card would play a role in a central cell when
serving other teams of the network, but be part of a
peripheral cell when dealing with a bank. The same
person might also fulfill additional roles within the
organization that might have little or nothing to do with
finance.
54. Promote a result-based achievement culture
Make team performance visible (results only!), to nurture a
team-based “winning culture”.
Never, ever, attempt to manage individual performance,
though, as individual performance simply does not exist.
Stop managing working time or controlling individual
behavior - “behaviorism” has been proven wrong a long
time ago!
What works, instead: The most adaptive and successful
organizations focus on nurturing a culture that highlights
the importance of “fun, while winning in the marketplace.”
You cannot have that controlling individual's behavior.
55. Promote self-development and mastery
You cannot and need not develop people. People can
do that on their own. An organization, however, can
create and should create conditions and forums for
self-development, and it can also take care that
leaders get out of the way by not trying to control or
contain self-development.
Individual mastery is the only viable problem-solving
mechanism in complexity.
We usually tend to overrate talent, and underrate
systematic, disciplined learning. We tend to overrate
class-room training, and underrate learning that is
integrated into the actual work life. We tend to overrate
formal instruction and underrate inspirational
interaction, informal networking and communities of
practice.
Training budgets only serve for control – not for
learning. So scrap them and make learning resources
available to those who learn, on demand.
57. Focus leadership work on the system. Not on individual people.
Self-organization in complex systems is
natural. With a containing boundary and
external markets in place, that should
provide for the steering.
Leadership, thus, has to be work focused
on improving the system, on making the
market palpable inside the organization
through transparency and dialogue, and
on allowing for self-organization and
social pressure to function.
Work on the system, not the people.
58. Practice radical transparency
Information is to entrepreneurial responsibility
what oxygen is to the human body.
In an organization, without fast and easy access to
information – including that on team performance and
financial results or the organization – teams and
individuals will be walking around in darkness.
Transparency is like turning the light on.
Transparency makes ambition, a healthy spirit of
competitiveness, and group or peer pressure, possible.
Having “open books“ is part of that. If you find yourself
thinking about possible ”dangers“ of opening the books,
then you probably haven't thought the topic through, yet.
Then it's time to do that, now.
59. Make targets, measures and compensation “relative“
In dynamic markets, prognosis
becomes impossible. Planning turns
into a futile, if not dangerous ritual. In
knowledge-intensive work, dangling
carrots in front of people not only fails
to work, it actually de-motivates
people, strangles engagement and
team spirit.
Direction through targets, measuring
of performance, and compensation
systems have to consider complexity
and the nature of human motivation.
Let purpose drive behavior, not
numbers or manipulative and
controlling processes.
Fixed & individual targets
Management by Objectives
Budgets & Plans
Performance appraisals
Pay by Position
Pay for Performance
Incentives & Bonuses
…
Transparency & Improvement
Peer team comparisons
Comparisons w/previous periods
Dialogue & dissent
Pay by market value
Result sharing
…
Beta
Alpha
60. A sum-up: Apply the full set of 12 laws of the BetaCodex -
a set of design principles for complexity-robust organization
Law Beta Alpha
§1 Freedom to act Connectedness not Dependency
§2 Responsibility Cells not Departments
§3 Governance Leadership not Management
§4 Performance climate Result culture not Duty fulfillment
§5 Success Fit not Maximization
§6 Transparency Intelligence flow not Power accumulation
§7 Orientation Relative Targets not Top-down prescription
§8 Recognition Sharing not Incentives
§9 Mental presence Preparedness not Planning
§10 Decision-making Consequence not Bureaucracy
§11 Resource usage Purpose-driven not Status-oriented
§12 Coordination Market dynamics not Commands
61. More reading and resources
For more about organizational structures, see our white paper no. 11.
For more about cell-structure design: see our white papers no. 8, 9 and 11.
For more about “relative“ performance management: see our white paper no. 10.
For more about problem-solving in complexity, see our white paper no. 7.
For more about the BetaCodex, see our white papers no. 5 and 6.
All papers can be accessed from this page: www.betacodex.org/papers
You are free to use & share this material. If you make use of this material in your work,
please let us know –we would love to learn about that!
Translations of this paper in French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese are available.
We welcome your suggestions to improve future versions of this paper.
Thanks to Pia Steinmann, who crafted all the illustrations used in this paper,
and to Jurgen Appelo, whose drawings originally inspired it.
64. betacodex.org
Get in touch with us for more information about leading BetaCodex transformation,
and ask us for a keynote or a workshop proposal.
Make it real!
Niels Pflaeging
contact@nielspflaeging.com
nielspflaeging.com
New York, Wiesbaden
Valérya Carvalho
mvaleriacarv@gmail.com
LinkedIn
São Paulo
Silke Hermann
silke.hermann@nsights-group.de
insights-group.de
Wiesbaden, Berlin, New York
Lars Vollmer
me@lars-vollmer.com
lars-vollmer.com
Hannover, Stuttgart