Organizational Ecology

We have discussed what management is, and how to put together a complementary team of managers with diverse styles and viewpoints. But that is only part of the picture.

Staffing an organization with well-trained, well-rounded managers with complementary styles – who have no zeros in their (PAEI) codes, are suited to their tasks and even work together admirably – will not necessarily make an organization well managed. That is a starting point and a necessary condition – but it is insufficient.

What else is necessary? The organization must be structured to attract and nurture those complementary managerial styles; in other words, to allow people to be accountable, so that they can get results and act in the best interests of their team or unit as well as in the interests of the larger enterprise.

And this structure must be able to operate in a compatible climate of mutual trust and respect; the organization’s style must fit and support its management.

Structuring requires a complicated formula that is unique to each company, because it must take into account such diverse factors as Chapter 8 the company’s product mix and market segments; its geographical distribution; its available managerial resources; the degree of innovation it needs to generate in the marketplace; as well as its phase in the organizational life cycle.

So it’s important to read this chapter as no more than a basic template, a platform composed of broad strokes that should be adapted according to lots of other variables. (On the other hand, in making those adaptations, it’s crucial to preserve the integrity of this basic platform, in addition to maintaining the organization’s long-term effectiveness and efficiency.)

Think of this process as a kind of organizational ecology: Organizations must be structured so that there is an environment in which (P) types, (A) types, (E) types, and (I) types can thrive. Without that essential supportive structure, even an ideal complementary team will eventually become twisted and distorted by the biases of the existing structure. I had this insight many years ago when my second son, who is now an associate of the Institute, was a small child.

I had bought him a globe. He looked and looked at it and then asked, “Dad, why is the globe inclined? Why is it not this way [he put it into a horizontal position] or that way [he turned the globe into a straight vertical position]?”

“Because if the Lord had made the globe vertical or horizontal instead of inclined,” I replied, “we would not have many different climates.”

“Imagine what would happen if the whole world were subject to one long, forever winter,” I continued. “Only the polar bears would survive. If a camel wandered by mistake into this North Pole weather, it would have very few choices: It could get the hell out of there, fast, while it was still alive; it could die; or it could adapt and grow polar bear fur in a hurry.”

That was when I had my insight: When you look at the culture of an organization that has become bureaucratized to the core, you might think you’re looking at polar bears, when what you’re really seeing are camels in polar bear fur. In other words, the Bureaucrats who manage Bureaucracies may actually be (E)ntrepreneurs who have, somewhere along the way, given up fighting a losing war. They were hired to be (E)ntrepreneurs, but when they came in and started learning the ropes, they discovered that if the company would not change its culture to accommodate the new (E)ntrepreneurial style, then they would have to change their style to fit into the culture. And guess what happened? Eventually, even hard-core (E)ntrepreneurs will behave like bureaucrats.

Outside their workplace, these managers might be very (E)ntrepreneurial. They might even have a business on the side. But when they come to work, they mirror the behavior expected in that organizational climate.

How can you get those camels in polar bear drag to start acting like camels again? Many organizational development facilitators make the mistake of trying to teach Bureaucrats (E)ntrepreneurial skills experientially of trusting others and taking risks – perhaps by taking them to a weekend retreat, where they practice wall climbing and falling backward into each other’s arms.

But even if these managers truly want to make changes, even if they remain enthusiastic throughout their training, what are they going to see when they return to work on Monday? It’s snowing there. All day long. They experience a painful disillusionment: Yes, they participated in a wonderful, heartwarming weekend – but in reality, nothing has changed. So they retreat into their polar bear fur, and worse, they lose all hope that change can come. The next time a change is attempted, they will be even less responsive.

The only effective way to change a polar bear into a camel is to tilt the globe, to change the environment. True camels will immediately migrate to the Sahara and true polar bears will stay in the north pole. The structural change should create areas that are cold and areas that are hot; thus, every kind of animal will have a place to live and survive. There must be areas in the organization that are structured responsibility, discretion in decision making and rewards wise, for each of the (P), (A),(E),(I) styles because each one of them requires different type of responsibility, discretion in decision making and reward structure.