The Co-Captain Theory- The Path to Organizational Homeostasis

There has been much discussion and rumination on the how a perfect organization should be structured. We have observed numerous examples of successful and deficient corporations and how their organizational structures contribute to both pathways, but when one must declare how the ideal organization should be designed one must first define what exactly an ideal organization is, and the qualities that are required. First, all the flourishing organizations we examined displayed a strong sense of shared purpose that was pervasive from the CEO to the front-line employees, leading those within the organization to believe in why and what they do to the deepest levels of their minds and to the higher levels of their needs hierarchies. Secondly, the organization must operate on “the edge of chaos” without the burden of “external sanctions” basically meaning that they cannot handcuff themselves to quarterly earnings or short-run sales goals, that the organization and its leaders must be focused instead on the long-run sustainability of their company. By no means are these two aspects an exhaustive list of what an organization needs to be successful but in a sense if people know what they are fighting for, and believe that it is worth fighting for they will always fight until they win, and often what is worth fighting for is not popular by any means nor is it ever easy. Even if these two aspects are met an organization may still falter if not structured properly to allow for maximum adaptability and continual learning, and therefore may fail.
Granted that these underlying qualities are met (especially in an organizations’ leadership) how then does one arrange their personnel to best achieve their purpose? The solution is simple and elegant, inspired by the authors’ main experiences in observing our natural world and on the athletic field. Instead of Executive Vice Presidents, or Heads of Divisions, there should be Co-Captains leading teams in tandem, providing a sense of balance in leadership to their departments and also providing dual feedback to their CEO, all enabling the company to function like a productive ecosystem, and a gracefully structured human body, and an exciting championship baseball team (Please refer to the attached diagram). This theory is in contrast to the individual spirit of accomplishment and burden we love here in the United States, but as stated before our organization requires those who populate it to be committed to the shared purpose, individual pursuits and selfish scheming have no place in the ideal organization and a CEO willing to institute the co-captain theory must not fear letting those whose commitment is shallow and egocentric find their place somewhere else.
So once the “right people are on the bus” how does one pair individuals in order to best utilize the co-captain theory? Well, since balance is a key goal of the theory one must carefully choose individuals that have different and complementing strengths and weaknesses. For example a choosing one captain that has a more risky business philosophy and pairing that individual with another that has a more conservative business philosophy. Or one whose greatest strength is their ability to communicate effectively while the others’ strength lies in numerical analysis. Rarely are there singular individuals who strengths are so wide and diverse that they do not need input and assistance from outside sources. And even if they don’t, such individuals are usually intelligent enough to realize that listening to all ideas only make one stronger. These co-captain pairs must be chosen carefully, therefore the CEO must directly observe individuals that they would consider candidates for the posts, and they must gather evidence from the candidates’ subordinates. The CEO must use their foresight to envision how a possible partnership would function. It is not necessary for these partnerships to be all sunshine and roses either, the co-captains must be able to constructively criticize each other without behaving defensively or immaturely, and their behaviors should always function to serve the organizations’ purpose. In this aspect the CEO must have zero tolerance otherwise the co-captain theory will not function properly. Meaning that if a captain the CEO assigned is behaving out of purpose that person must lose their position of authority immediately, at least temporarily, and if through this removal that individual does not recognize and amend their behavior then it is revealed that being a co-captain of their division is not in their interest nor in the best interest of the organization. Choosing the proper individuals for each co-captain position is a crucial beginning step, following the gathering of information, and the next one is for each individual and each co-captain team to understand and occupy their niche to perfection.
In an ecosystem when one describes a niche it refers to the environmental factors that influence the growth, survival, and reproduction of a species, it is not just a physical location of a certain organism or that organisms’ function and behaviors within that system. The niche an organism occupies is a result of their own morphology, as well as their morphology being a result of the niche they occupy. In a business organization it is recognizing that the decisions one makes are a result of functions of their division, and that the functions of their division are a result of their decisions. The size and shape of the beaks of Darwin’s Finches on the Galapagos Island are a result of the niche they occupy and they continue to occupy that niche because of the shapes of their beaks. Once one understands the reciprocal nature of a niche, then each co-captain can begin to better occupy that role. So each partnership must be aware of, comprehend, and be able to empathize with each other. Then when able to function properly in their niche (as individuals and a co-captain team) they can provide their influence on the system as best suited to the niche they occupy. Therefore it is not just the CEO’s responsibility to build functional teams, the co-captain teams themselves must identify and adapt to their environmental factors to maximize the growth, survival, and reproduction of their division.
Each co-captain will have different responsibilities in their niche operating ideally on opposite sides of feedback loops. Referring to the purpose of each co-captain should be ideally suited to governing either a reinforcing (or positive) feedback loop or a balancing (or negative) feedback loop. Obviously one’s personality and philosophy will reveal a penchant for governing one or the other and that individual should be assigned to that task. Though it is crucial for again for both individuals to understand and respect the others’ assignment as their niche cannot be occupied properly without the dual functioning. Arranging one’s organization to crux upon feedback loops will enable expedient changes of the revolutionary kind, and will also enable the small micro changes needed to correct volatile changes, both bringing the organization along their path of shared purpose and toward homeostasis. It is crucial to remember in a system which functions properly with positive and negative feedback loops input from both is constant, small adjustments are constantly being made from both sides. The co-captains must also not only provide proper input into the system below them but feedback in the co-captain system must travel upward as well. For the CEO is the like the brain which to function properly needs constant feedback from the body in order for it to make proper decisions to help the body survive, grow, and reproduce. Therefore the CEO must seek feedback from BOTH captains to acquire information, and must examine information both positive and negative (not related to the reinforcing or balancing feedback loops). And the organization that utilizes these loops of control, and information will be able to achieve that sustainable productivity and profitability.
Perhaps the co-captain theory is best explained through metaphor. Imagine your organization as a car, and the CEO is the brain of the driver, and the co-captains are the driver’s hands, one for the right and one for the left. Established is the fact that if the road is straight, and the car easily manageable, you may not need more than one hand, or no hands if you’re good with your knees, to keep the car between the lines. But rarely in the business world is the road straight and the car easily manageable. Most organizations are like an eighteen-wheeler, and most industries resemble Mt. Rose Highway. If you picture yourself driving an eighteen-wheeler up Mt. Rose, wouldn’t you want both hands on the steering wheel? Wouldn’t you want to be able to really crank it when you needed to get around a fifteen mph turn? Or wouldn’t you like to make those small corrections when a gust of wind causes your trailer to shimmy on a straightaway? Making it safely over the summit simply requires two hands working together. And an organization functioning smoothly requires the intelligent design of two individuals sharing responsibility for each department. Though the co-captain theory betrays the spirit of
Individualistic accomplishment we are so married to in this nation, it is something to be considered by those who wish their organization to function in the consistently shifting and incredibly competitive global business markets of the future.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON IMPLEMENTING THE CO-CAPTAIN THEORY
· Co-Captains need not only exist at the top of the organization, one should disseminate co-leadership as far as possible. So if need be there should be Regional Co-Captains, then Area Co-Captains, then Local Co-Captains and so on.
· Co-captains should never directly govern teams larger than say 10 individuals. Example being Regional Co-Captains should govern a team of 10 Area Co-Captains, and each team of Area Co-Captains should govern a team of 10 Local Co-Captains.
· The Law of Rotation – Changes in those that occupy Co-Captain positions are encouraged. They should occur probably every few years, or upon request of the Co-Captain, to allow for fresh ideas to emerge
· Co-Captains – should be encouraged to run experiments, gain evidence, for possible changes in their division or to test the effectiveness of their feedback loops at generating the desired results.

Organizational Silence – Manifestation of Our Deepest Fears

Organizational silence, when an organization develops, or encourages, behaviors where employees, managers, and CEOs develop a case of tight lips in controversial situations results from deep insecurities that all human beings possess. Whether it be fear of looking unintelligent, or being rebuked by a colleague or boss, or losing grasp on one’s power, or fear of validating something one’s equals may consider lesser, all work in concert to produce an environment where people will not raise their voices when necessary. Morrison and Milliken state that organizational silence results from “top managers’ fear of receiving negative feedback from subordinates” and from managements’ view that “employees are self-interested and untrustworthy”. On the opposite hand employees fear retribution from their bosses, and past experiences also lead the employee to believe that their advice would be ignored by their superiors. Therefore silence is perpetuated and reinforced on both sides of the coin.
Organizational silence is not just prevalent in the business world but we grow up learning to keep silent as all of societies’ visible, and underlying, caste structures reinforce these same silence starting in grade school. Think of the bully picking on the nerd as you walked home from school. Or maybe you were the bully or the nerd. Anyway, fear of the bully causes you to walk right by pretending that you didn’t notice the hazing, and fear of the tattle-tale label causes you to stay silent when you get home and your mother asks you how your day was. Bullies, most would agree act from insecurity and fear, and maybe that bully down deep really wants someone to say something to them about their behavior because they crave attention or need help correcting a deeper problem. So really we are taught to “mind our own business” at a very young age, and this mindset pervades our work environment. Meaning that if we are doing well in our position we fear rocking the boat, cause unfortunately sometimes when a boat rocks we fall out. But is it really that bad to fall out of a boat? Not if you know how to swim.
Therefore begins the cure for organizational silence, which the authors state lies in managers not “shooting the messenger”, and employees having the courage to “rock the boat”. It helps one to feel comfortable rocking the boat if they have worked on their balance, are wearing a life-vest, and have of course fallen out of the boat on at least one previous occasion. The best way to show someone that falling out of the boat is no big deal, is to of course jump out yourself first. When I used to guide kayaking trips on Catalina Island we had groups of students from Los Angeles whose ideas of adventure were a new video game. So when we would go out kayaking in the ocean obviously for safety reasons we had to teach them how to self-rescue in case they happened to fall out, therefore at the start of every lesson, no matter how cold the water was one of the leaders would go overboard on purpose to show that it wasn’t a big deal, and that it was easy to get back in. So it is on managers to speak first, and maybe it would be most effective at breaking silence if they contradicted their own superiors in front of their subordinates. For example if a new policy directive came down that the manager thought certain aspect of were ineffective, he should first consult his own boss on those specific aspects, but then when relaying the new directive perhaps that manager should confide in his subordinates the aspects that he thinks aren’t effective and then in turn ask his team what they thought were ineffective. That way everyone’s opinion can be expressed and subordinates know that their manager was willing to risk their position to live on the edge of chaos and without external sanctions.
Through ignoring or removal of those external sanctions and not fearing actions without a net, we can learn to let go of our fears of speaking up. I’ll wager that those who read this and think that they would have said something if they saw the bully hazing the nerd in grade school, or possibly did say something in that context, have better communicative relationships with their bosses and subordinates today than those who did not comment. They have a long-time pattern of breaking organizational silence therefore must pass on how they learned to do so and teach others to overcome those fears as well. Organizations should seek out those individuals and learn from their communication skills regardless of their root. Also our society has moved in a positive direction concerning silence in situations, so hopefully as we continue to evolve into better people both in our personal lives and professional, lessons learned in grade school will be positive influences on our future behaviors.

Advanced Change Theory – Adaptation then Evolution, NOT Just Acclimatization

Quinn, Speitzer, and Brown, have developed a very sound theory on how to beget change in one’s organization calling it the Advanced Change Theory (ACT). They advocate that through committing to a series of relatively predictable, at least if one is familiar with previous works, such as The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge, but explained in the language of histories greatest servant leadership advocates Jesus, Martin Luther King, and Ghandi. Using quotations from these three individuals is admittedly powerful, as is the behavioral examples elucidated upon. Some expected principles of ACT are of course examining oneself first, clarifying ones values and aligning behavior along those values, the all-powerful development of a common purpose (though presented with a new twist here), and developing partner-follower relationships. Though these principles are quite valid, their thinking was not as fresh, to me, as two of the other principles: first freeing oneself from the system of external sanctions, and second taking action to the edge of chaos. These two were particularly intriguing and clearly extremely difficult to master, though if one can practice what is right and learn to work without the safety net (of course in concert with all the others… sigh) one will be able to attain adaptive change easily, evolving ones organization into the most fit of their population for the long run, instead of just acclimatizing for the short run.
Obviously I am making a reference to terms that most would consider minor differences in semantics, as many would deem acclimatization and adaptation and evolution to be interchangeable terms. It should be no accident that Quinn, Speitzer, and Brown use the specific term adaptive change (somewhat redundant though) in describing the type of change the ACT produces. What they are advocating is perfectly understandable in biological terms as an adaptation is a trait favored by natural selection making the individual with it more fit than the competition, therefore the trait is passed on to the next generation, an inherited trait. As opposed to an acquired trait, or a “tool” an organism uses to acclimatize to their environment and acquires throughout their lifetime but does not pass on. The simplest example of an acquired trait would be the blacksmith who spends a lifetime pounding his anvil with the heavy hammer in his right hand. He builds a very muscular arm on a fit but asymmetrical frame, this trait makes him more fit as it helps him with his trade, providing food for his family, enabling him to reproduce more offspring. His children however will never be born with a huge right arm. Here lies the difference in traditional change theories, and the ACT. The authors state that “three-quarters” of changes attempted in organizations fail, or do not last, because there is a failure to change the human system. Meaning that corporations acclimatize, they do not adapt. And adaptive changes lead to evolutionary changes where a trait is so beneficial to fitness that it eventually perpetuates throughout the entire gene pool. But first begins adaptation and the ACT presents two interesting ways one’s organization can begin to adapt.
Imagine the first frog/fish-like animal to develop lungs to breathe outside the ocean. His frog/fish friends probably laughed at him hanging out up on the rocks, but when the bigger fish came up from below and ate those with no lungs they certainly weren’t laughing anymore. If that frog/fish had yielded to peer pressure, followed the norm, and not “freed [him]self from the system of external sanctions” where would we all be now. That freeing was crucial to making that adaptive change for the common good of the species. Just as George Zimmer puts his shareholders last in the list of his organizations priorities, and ignores the quarterly return rollercoaster in his decision making, so did the frog/fish. This freeing from external sanctions and influences is a marked quality of successful individuals and organizations, especially those who are successful at bringing about change such as Martin Luther King or Gary Loveman. This principle is especially important with regards to multinational corporations that are committed (supposedly) to social responsibility, such as Coca-Cola or Google. Coca-Cola when operating in countries with less-stringent or nonexistent labor and environmental laws, they should do the right thing and operate in the same manner they do on US soil because it is doing what is right. And when Google went into China they continued to operate their US-based search engine so that when Chinese people logged on in China they could then see what their government was filtering. Though Google did have to submit to censoring by the Chinese Government they came to the conclusion that any flow of information was an improvement, especially when couple with their original site so that citizens could then judge their governments’ actions themselves. These are the bold decisions required of business leaders, or frog/fish, and like Jesus allow public opinion, and short-term focus, to have little influence on them.
Along the same line of “freeing oneself from the system of external sanctions” is the authors’ idea of “taking action to the edge of chaos”, working without a safety net. Think of the risks the frog/fish took jumping out onto the rocks, not knowing what could have come of it, “building the bridge even as it is walked on”. Again evolution can illustrate the authors’ point as radical evolutionary changes have always occurred on the edge of chaos, violent climactic events like ice ages, or meteor collisions with earth. If the chaos is not sufficient enough change will be traditional and fleeting, an acclimatization not an adaptation. Look at our nation’s founding fathers who would have been hung as traitors had we lost the Revolutionary War, they were true ACT practitioners working without a safety net to give birth to their shared vision. This shared vision riding hell-bent on the edge of chaos allows those involved to “stretch themselves to behave according to that vision, they can become a revolutionary force.”
Here finally the authors again use biological terms that ease the understanding of their principles, and uniquely coin the word altruism in their description of vision for the common good principle. Interestingly altruism is a very common behavior shown in animal societies that operate extremely productive organizations, and Quinn, Speitzer, and Brown state that “sacrifice for a purpose when the role model is acting in an altruistic fashion” is essential to the ACT. None would argue that meerkat populations operate in a very common purpose oriented organization, as is their survival imperative, therefore one would not be surprised to see altruistic behavior such as a sentry cat acting as a decoy to draw predators away from a nursery den at great personal risk. Similarly if an employee can observe a CEO risking their own survival for a policy initiative, or a political leader risking re-election in his district to do the right thing for the population as a whole, that will inspire employees to do their job to the best of their ability in service of that vision and citizens to rise up to support what is right.
In conclusion it seems that business leaders have finally begun to learn from historical leaders and perhaps it is time to learn from scientific study, especially the biological sciences. Why should a corporation not function like an organism? Animals are regulated by feedback loops companies should be next. Why should businesses not organize like an ecosystem? A vertical, horizontal and circular inter and intra-dependence between, suppliers, vendors, customers, shareholders, employees, managers, departments and CEO’s. Moving forward as we begin to leave old ideals of paternalistic management styles, and business practices that have been proven short and near-sighted behind, perhaps Mother Nature should be the new business professor as she has truly endured long-term volatility all while sustaining substantial productivity, the basic goals of any business endeavor.