The Power of Positive Reinforcement

Bringing out the Best in People – 3 Things that will work for me!

Aubrey Daniels presents a lot of great ideas on management and I especially liked his commentary on The Scientific Approach to Leadership and pinpointing precision which I may find applicable in future career endeavors. However, currently I work for a non-profit organization whose mission is to provide experiential education opportunities to students related to environmental science. As most of our funding is derived from grants, we are a rather non-results driven organization; in fact only our development team currently has actual fiscal goals to achieve. Despite the lack of concrete (or fiscal) goals or any true system to measure success, there are three behavior models described by Daniels that I could see implementing in my current organization and also utilizing to improve , or ensure high, performance. These models are:

· Goal Setting to Shape Behavior

· Teams and Empowerment

· Increasing Creativity and Managing Change

Goal Setting to Shape Behavior

Daniels’ explanation of understanding and properly setting goals is certainly affecting. As someone who has worked in an aggressive sales environment, and a lifelong athlete, goal setting has always been a major part of my psyche. And I have often found myself personally disappointed in my performances because I did not reach that stretch goal I have visualized for myself whether in the office or on the playing field. What I did not understand about setting goals was not just that one shouldn’t stretch them out too far, but also that when setting them one must consider what one can and cannot control.

As a youth softball coach I worked a lot with my players on setting “proper” goals. It would be futile as a pitcher to set a goal to strike out every batter one faces for example. One may throw a great pitch, in fact the exact pitch that was intended, but the batter may simply make a good swing and hit the ball, or they could get lucky and get a ‘texas leaguer’ to advance to first. Therefore I would coach my players to formulate goals that they could control, so an acceptable goal would be instead to ‘throw pitches down in the strike zone when one has two strikes on a batter’ or to ‘keep the ball on the outside half of the plate’. Both these goals being not only achievable but also controllable. So the same logic could be applied to employees, that goal setting be assuredly controllable for each individual.

The continual reinforcement strategies outlined by are certainly intuitive, and would be effective if applied in my current organization. However I think that Daniels missed an opportunity when describing stretch goals. I understand and accept the theory that workers only meet goals to avoid punishment, and that high achievers will reach their goals and stop working, but if one replaces the rather rhetorical and meaningless stretch goals with a solid shared vision and purpose for the organization, employees still have that idealized state which to work toward. Therefore as a manager I plan to create, and share, a compelling organizational vision and mission to replace the setting of stretch goals.

Teams and Empowerment

My current position and organization operates in a lot of team, or committee, environments to accomplish projects. There is a lack of competitiveness in my organization that I believe sometimes inhibits radical success, but it also contributes to a harmony between people, and among departments. However I have observed the effects of positive reinforcement among team members, though I wonder if it is possible to positively reinforce too much and/or too frequently? It is possible that my organization does this and I believe that it results in mediocre achievement, though I cannot say mediocre effort as it is tough to judge what someone’s true effort capabilities are. Perhaps if we instituted a large reward for the highest achieving team member on a given project, then employees would be inspired to go above and beyond the regular mediocre achievement I observe daily, and that has become relatively acceptable within my organization.

What really caught my attention in Daniels’ chapter, was the emphasis upon providing very clear initial direction when embarking on a team project. When working with highly educated, reasonably competent, but possibly lacking in task-specific skills, it has become apparent from my experience and reading Daniels’ analysis that the providing of direction initially, then reinforcing, is crucial at creating the desired behavior patterns. This is definitely something I will keep in mind, to be sure to clearly delineate the desired direction of the team’s project and then show trust in my employees to let them loose to accomplish their tasks.

Increasing Creativity and Managing Change

Daniels’ chapter on reinforcing creativity as a behavior, I found very enlightening. I feel that creativity is often underrated. Maintaining a high level of creativity is what truly enables an organization to remain at the top of their industry for a sustainable period of time. To be able to foresee the direction an industry is headed and formulate a strategy that enables an organization to capitalize upon changing business environments is crucial. As stated by Daniels it is that continual reinforcement of the creation of creative options on action items that keeps the creative juices flowing within an organization.

Much like reinforcing effort and achievement that goes above and beyond the expected for an individual or a team, as a manager one must consciously reinforce that creative initiative. To never do anything the same why twice keeps one’s competition on notice of the prowess of an organization. Also as a manager one must remember to not engage in negative reinforcement of non-creative solutions, but remember to reinforce only through positive acknowledgement of truly creative solutions. For my own organization it will be important to remember to only acknowledge such creativity that effectively advances the purpose of an individual or team related to a task; and not to fall prey to awarding averagely creative solutions.

7 Habits... Management or Parenting Guidebook?

7 HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE – A Critical Analysis and Summary

INTRODUCTION

I understand that this book is a seminal work in modern business literature, probably widely considered a classic. However I find Covey’s work overly simplistic, and his recommendations things that have been ingrained in me since childhood by parents, coaches, even public school teachers, as keys to being successful. As someone who was not raised with religion my parents let me develop my own moral compass through everyday activities, and I attempt to apply these values I have developed to my professional and personal life. What made the true difference for me morally were the punishments I received as a young child when perhaps I was a bit ‘too big for my britches’ and thought I could get away with poor behavior, and was filled with the shame of disappointing my folks and of myself acting in a cruel or stupid manner.

Covey’s text ignores the true shaping of a leader that occurs as a child. I think executive who don’t already embody these habits will find it near impossible to adopt said habits. This is the second time that I have read this book, and still I struggle to find the innovative thought in it, and struggle to find the arena in which I believe it could actually change things for the positive. Perhaps though Covey may succeed in molding leaders who are close to reaching these ideal behaviors on their own to reach a highly effective state, or may give those who educate young people a platform on which to stand and pass along to their students these effective habits with dynamism to inspire their own internal motivation for a lifetime.

PART I – Habits 1, 2, and 3 – Covey takes credit for common sense and strong parenting…

HABIT 1 – Be Proactive

In this part Covey introduces the concept of taking control over one’s life, developing a strong internal locus of control. Doing so allows people to be more effective leaders as they are not focused on the negativity of situations, or behaviors of others, in which they cannot control. The best way to better understand this habit is to use baseball as a metaphor. One may be a great hitter, doing their best to succeed at the plate they hit a screaming line drive toward left-center field, but the center-fielder makes a great diving play and catches the ball before it drops to the pitch. Could the batter have done anything better in that situation? No, he hit the ball as well as possible he could not control the outfielder’s excellent effort, and to dwell negatively on this event would only serve to cloud his ability in his next at bat which, as Covey states, he should be proactive and be thinking about as soon as that hit died in the center fielder’s glove. Goals and personal vision must be controllable, realistic, and measurable, and if one gives their best effort in pursuit of such properly crafted goals, then most likely one will achieve that goal, and if one does not it is most likely because of a factor outside of one’s personal control. Therefore, one should not dwell upon the negativity of the factor they cannot influence and instead should move on to focus upon what can be done differently to succeed the next time.

HABIT 2 – Begin with the End in Mind

Having a clear vision of what one wants to accomplish is key to success in business according to Covey. The idealized future state is crucial to forming a strategic plan to reach that vision, though crafting the implementation is crucial as well. The clearer one can illustrate one’s accomplishments in their mind the easier it is to formulate the plan to reach that idealized vision. Some of our greatest leaders have religiously practiced this habit, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. But something that Covey misses is that just as essential to having a vision that is clear and based upon deep, fundamental, classic truths is the ability to share that vision with others and to help others picture that idealized future as plainly and vividly as the leader himself does. Otherwise one is just another Don Quixote charging windmills on a grassy Spanish plain. But how does one transfer that vision? Personally I think that through integrity and passion shown by a leader’s communications with their employees and displayed in their behaviors not only quarterly and annually but over the long-run of an organization’s life is the only way to achieve “buy in” through the entire organization.

HABIT 3: Put First Things First Principles of Personal Management

Covey states Habit 3 as the execution step. So already one is proactive enough to not dwell in a blame game therefore one is free to craft their idealized vision of the future, but the question still remains… how does one reach that glowing picture of success and happiness? This is probably the most difficult step of all, as many people can learn to focus on the future, and many can sufficiently picture a realistic, achievable ideal state, but channeling their energy and resources to reach that state is quite difficult. If it was easy we would have been living in utopia millennia ago. Here Covey presents his four quadrants of time management, with the axes being ranges of a specific activities’ importance and its urgency. Covey states that to be effective one concentrate upon the activities in quadrant II, activities that are important but not urgent. The idea being that one can tackle all of one’s important activities before they become urgent. Unfortunately those of us whom operate in the medium and small business sectors know that urgent and important activities often crop up without warning, and if one is not prepared to meet the requirements of such events because they are always wearing the rose colored glasses as a result of their retentive personality, any sort of abnormality in routine brings on such a high level of stress that anxiety is transferred onto one’s employees. This is hugely detrimental to one’s organization, and if it happens too often can be crippling to an organization. Therefore strict adherence to the quadrants, I think will ultimately cause a business especially a small one to become ineffective.

PART II – The Scientific Method of Management

HABIT 4: Think Win/Win

Covey states that thinking win-win is one of the six philosophies of human interaction. When one is a win-win person one seeks symbiotic relationships based in principle behaviors where one is afforded mutual benefit. This is opposed to other situations where one views the world as a zero-sum equation, or one seeks to win at the expense of others or their own values, or one is the “doormat” for the world always the victim or one refuses to play the game if they cannot win. There must be integrity in order to establish trust in the relationship and to define a win in terms of not only one’s personal values but in terms of the values they have instilled in their organization as its leader. And in a win-win situation one is focused on the relationship they are building with the stakeholder instead of on the immediate transaction of the situation. Therefore, creating a long-term symbiosis that will help one sustain productivity in one’s organization for the long haul. Occasionally though one may be forced into a win-lose situation because of a coveted resource, then one must do business and lead to win but not at the personal expense of their competitor. And what happens between the lines should always be left between the lines because one does not know what the future holds, and to burn bridges or create enemies could surprise one unpleasantly on their path to their idealized vision.

HABIT 5: Seek First To Understand Then To Be Understood

This is my favorite of all the habits as it speaks to the scientist that is fundamental in my personality. I always seek to gather information and observe before deciding or acting unless required by the situation. Only when one deeply understands all the parameters and variables in a situation, can one come to a conclusion as to how to best proceed in pursuit their personal and organizational vision. Effective listening and empathy is the key to this habit, again something that was ingrained in me as a child. Our prejudices and stereotypes are ingrained very early in our psyche and are extremely difficult to break, and heavily influence the depth of our understanding of our co-workers, customers, investors, and employees’ issues. These mentalities act like a brick wall between true understanding and listening for show. When one truly listens empathetically one gains the trust of the other person, therefore when one speaks with that same individual in the future one’s voice is suddenly highly respected. And most likely that individual will pass their experience of the boss being an empathetic and understanding leader further widening and deepening one’s “circle of influence”. Additionally I like this habit because empathetic listening will pay off hugely for a leader when one attempts to share one’s ideal organizational vision. The wider and deeper the circle of influence the more effective the sharing of personal vision will be, and the more able the organization will be to proceed with the end in mind.

HABIT 6: Synergize, Principles of Creative Cooperation

Synergy means the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and the essence of synergy is to value and respect differences, to use them to build on strengths, to compensate for weaknesses, and to remain adaptable and therefore prepared for whatever the future may hold. Key to synergy is recognizing one’s own weaknesses and failures and not fearing them. To create a team more effective than the sum of their parts one must integrate parts that complement. If one is open with their own weaknesses as a leader one will not feel threatened by others contributing ideas because they will be secure in their position of authority and their ability to be the most effective person for that leadership position. If one doesn’t truly believe that then one probably shouldn’t be in that position in the first place, and perhaps one should care deeper about the success of the organization than one does about their own interest, and if a better candidate comes along be prepared to improve oneself for the sake for the organization or step aside for its benefit. Our human bodies operate in a way to be in a productive state of homeostasis through the existence of positive and negative feedback loops that make small adjustments to keep the body functioning smoothly. If it wasn’t for these wonderful loops that slow our hear rate to allow our brain and digestion to function at higher levels then perhaps we would just be lumps of flesh in a primordial sea or monkeys in a jungle. An organization is the same way, if it doesn’t have the dual feedback loops it is mired in a blame-game of negativity or a runaway group think sycophantic mentality. Balance is the key to synergy, and complementary skills and personality types are the key to creating those synergistic highly effective organizational teams.

PART III – Lucky Number Seven, and Bringing it all Home to Roost

Habit 7: Principles of Balanced Self-Renewal

Number seven is holistic approach to management which insists that every aspect of one’s life is a crucial component of one’s managerial effectiveness. It is the insurance that one’s gun will always be fully loaded with bullets to attack any situation that may arise. It is the belief in the preparation of the batter before he steps into the batter’s box, that one’s preparation can fully enable you to do your absolute best effort to reach your realistic and measurable goal. So that there is no excuse for not being proactive and equipped. Covey extols upon the necessity of keeping your mind sharp by reading, writing, organizing and planning. Reading

broadly and exposes oneself to great minds, thereby absorbing the thoughts of great thinkers and leaders so that an effective course of action will present itself readily when needed.

Covey finishes with the potential effects of following the seven habits and the benefits they can help one’s organization realize. Following the habits will enable courage in the face of challenge, projects will be seen to effective completion, conflicts will be resolved without ineffective resolution, and the most important things will be tackled first and directly. Most importantly though the habits will help a leader achieve that desired state of a shared organizational vision and purpose. Through this team members will achieve a deeper sense of ownership in the organization and their role within it. Teams will be enhanced by desired diversity and creative solutions and pathways will abound.

I understand what Covey is trying to say and perhaps my low opinion of this text stems from the fact that these are things I have been instilled with since childhood. Perhaps what Covey has wrought is less a management manual and more a guide book to parenting and raising a child that can think critically and problem solve; a child with empathy that listens deeply to their fellow citizens and acts effectively on the information they observe and gather. Something our nation desperately needs to foster in its youth. So instead of this book being a seminal text in a business school perhaps high school and university professors should be the ones adapting this to enhance their own character building curriculum.

Leadership Constellations: Examining Collective Leadership as a Way of the Future

Denis, Lamothe, and Langley have continued their research examining the collective leadership structure. Through interviews and case studies, when institutional change was desired, the researchers realized that there are enabling forces, destabilizing forces, and obstructive forces that can arise. The authors’ name “three levels of coupling” that is necessary to be enabled in order for change to occur, however the destabilizing and obstructive forces must be combated at the same time for changes to transpire and perpetuate. The authors present a very interesting view of leadership for pluralistic organizations, and in light of recent failures in leadership when perhaps power was too centralized under a single individual such as at GM, or the Oakland Raiders, it is a viable alternative corporate structure. As we move toward a new age of responsibility and ethical behavior in business, the formation of collective leadership groups at organizations’ highest levels is an attractive option for the future. This study has revealed an adequate model, but has also revealed ways for that model to operate more effectively to sustain a productive organization over the long-term.
The researchers studied the Canadian health care sector particularly large Quebec hospitals, where the leadership collective, and in turn the “diffuse power arrangement has been regulated by law since the early 1970s” (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001). Each collective has been termed by the authors to be a “leadership role constellation” because it implies the existence of “multiple actors”, and a separation of duties. The difference between the “leadership role constellation” and a “top management team” is the complementary nature of the skills of the members, directed at leading the organization as a whole. As opposed to the more typical silo structure of a top management team where all members have very similar skills and leadership styles as the individual heads of their particular division.
The authors stated four key observations following their extensive case studies: first they assert that united leadership is crucial in affecting change; second the leadership collective is a fragile entity; third they discovered the cyclical nature of change in these particular organizations; and lastly that the credibility of a constellation is critical at perpetuating changes. The breakdown of each of these observations is fundamental because ultimately they all speak mostly to the formation of the constellation; the careful compilation of the leadership group in order to achieve maximum effectiveness. In the opinions of the authors there wasn’t a single collective that achieved greatness in their case studies. So one must take these observations to the next step, examining the weaknesses they reveal and using imaginative thinking to find solutions to how the leadership constellation could function more effectively for the long-term, and in a private sector setting.
The authors’ first observation is rather straightforward but crucial, skills MUST be complementary in the personnel of the leadership constellation, and actors MUST be united. However the authors do not specifically delineate ways of accomplishing this. They state how personnel is elevated to the collective in a multitude of ways; such as by seniority, by election, and in one instance the top position was filled almost by default as individuals were rotated through that position on a schedule. This wide variety of promotion rationalization led to a lack of long-term effectiveness at instilling lasting strategic change. There was, and is, too much turnover in the system and not enough deliberate appointment to the leadership collective. Granted this variety is most likely a result of the public nature of the study subjects, therefore if collective leadership was employed in a private organization more assiduousness should be applied to the formation of the leadership constellation. Leaders should be chosen for their traits and behaviors, which should be in complement to the other members of the team; seniority, politics, and ego should be ignored, as much as is feasible. Basically members’ skills should congruently cover the gamut of leadership styles, and should also include those with manager-type skills, therefore collectively forming a group with maximum effectiveness potential. Once an effective constellation is formed, each leader should adopt a tyro (not the proper title, however for lack of a better word…) to mentor, therefore molding a potential replacement if needed, aiming to develop effective sustainability.
Even when a leadership constellation is effective in the short-term, the sustainability of their success is hampered or nullified by the inherent fragility of the constellation. The authors state that fragility results from internal conflict between individuals (lack of “Strategic coupling”), detachment as a whole group from the follower base (lack of “Organizational coupling”), and detachment from the true capabilities and available resources of the organization (lack of “Environmental coupling”). Firstly, the potential for conflict between members, lack of strategic coupling, must be combated by better choices of individuals; and secondly, through the promotion of a shared vision among the constellation members. If the members are united in their pursuit toward a shared vision, then conflict is easier resolved as personal concerns can be separated from strategic ideas. The Community Hospital constellation in the study proves this as when “diverging conceptions” exist; it leads to conflict and disconnection (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001).
The lack of organizational coupling can be addressed through proper selection of an individual for the constellation, but also through the use of the apprentice figure. An effective “second-in-command” can allow a leader to maintain an authoritative distance with the organization’s members. Congruently, this apprentice can maintain a warmer and more intimate connection with organization’s members. The importance of this communicative relationship cannot be ignored; especially in the hospital setting where the “front-line” employees are highly educated physicians and nurses. The same would be applicable in high-technology organizations, biotechnology companies.
The input of these employees is crucial at maintaining the organization on path toward achieving its shared vision. The more comprehensive and comprehensible the communication relationship is between the base and the leadership constellation, the more considerate of the base’s stance the constellation can be when forming change strategies. Therefore, strengthening the “organizational coupling” through “conformity between objectives it [the leadership constellation] is pursuing and the interests” of the key members of the organizational base (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001). Subsequently combating the forces of fragility, and enhancing the long-term effectiveness of the leadership constellation.
The tenuousness the authors observed in these particular leadership constellations, was so inhibiting it bears extra attention. Especially when compared to their following observations that “change is cyclical” and sequential in addition to “credibility is crucial” which are negotiable. Understanding that when an organization has a new CEO who must first strengthen the organizational coupling before tackling the environmental coupling problems. In addition when a leader’s credibility affects the ability of that leader to act within the leadership constellation, consequently affecting the leadership constellation as a whole to act as an agent of change. Both of these observations speak to the proper selection of the individuals selected to be a part of the leadership constellation. Also, adoption of a tyro who possibly had existing ties to the organizational structure would be ideal to assist a new leader in building their credibility through better communication to the ranks. Granted an apprentice figure could have his own Machiavellian aims, however the leader should utilize their skills to select the fittest candidate avoiding those who may seek to undermine the constellation’s effectiveness for personal gain. To reiterate these recommendations the most important task when establishing a leadership constellation for an organization should be the careful selection of the individuals involved, coupled with a determined effort to communicate and establish rapport with the organizational base (the followers). This will bestow the constellation with the capital to then begin to affect change in the organization and the foundation to sustain that change over the long term.
The ability of a leadership constellation to withstand both strategic and organizational uncoupling has been discussed at length because both are closely associated with the immediate effectiveness of the constellation and are directly related to the complementary nature of the skills of the leadership constellation. However, once an effective constellation is in place, and has a strong coupling with the organization, the next step is to create strong coupling with the organization’s environment. This is achieved through the existence and utilization of the slack resources available to the organization, as it allows stability combating fragility and empowering the leadership constellation to “move more aggressively” (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001). Then through the creation of stronger environmental coupling the leadership constellation has the tools to effectively execute the change strategies they envision for the organization. Without the adequate slack resources to implement change, strategies will appear rhetorical to the organization’s followers, and ineffective in the short and long-term.
The existence of slack resources also imparts the time needed and the buffer for creative opportunism that were recognized as forces of stabilization by the authors. “Social embeddedness, inattention, and formal position,” were also recognized as forces of stabilization (Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001). However, these would arise again from proper attention to selection for the leadership constellation, and effective communication networks between the constellation and the follower base. Therefore to better understand how to achieve change, one must examine how to achieve better environmental coupling.
The usage of slack resources by an effectively established, though even relatively new, leadership constellation is a function of the degree of control the leadership constellation must have over the slack resources, and also the timing to which strategic change is attempted in the organization. Attention must be paid to the timing at which the leadership constellation attempts their change initiatives. It should be a time where adequate resources exist, that can be utilized without negatively influencing operations of the firm that must continue as unaffected as possible throughout the change process. Otherwise personalities within the follower base may feel neglected or devalued, therefore detracting from the organizational stability that has already been created. This situation is analogous to when organisms within an ecosystem choose to breed. As breeding, and weaning, takes an incredibly high toll on an organism, most have adapted to breed at the ideal time when the conditions of the system have enough slack to support them. These adaptations result from millennia of natural selection, where organisms that attempted this costly endeavor at the inopportune moment were proven less fit than those who chose a better time to breed. Pacific Salmon are an adequate illustration as their breeding practices, of swimming hundreds of miles to return to a hinderingly specific spawning ground, are so narrowly effective the slightest change in available resources render large numbers of them unable to spawn. Therefore that species is particularly fragile. Similarly an organization that attempts change strategies without adequate slack resources, will not be able to sustain itself through the high toll that the initial changes take on the organization, and the strategies will falter in infancy never realizing the future vision for the organization, and consequently damaging the leadership constellations stability.
In order to utilize slack resources at a time when they can best assist the implementation of change strategy, a leadership constellation must have actual control over those resources. This seems more easily accomplished in a private organization, versus the Canadian public health care sector that Denis, Lamoth, and Langley studied. Proposed budget cuts and the production of rationonalization were stated as reasons for mergers between hospitals in the merger cases studied by the authors. Which represents a failure in foresight by the governing bodies that mandated the mergers. It would therefore behouve an organization on the precipice of change to ensure not only that there are adequate resources but that the leadership constellation is empowered to use this slack to facilitate the changes required. If adequate power is not imparted to the constellation, the constellation must unite as a whole to influence whomever needed in order to gain that power. If this is impossible then their change strategies must be down-graded until slack resources are adequate to achieve the change, or they must attempt to secure additional resources to achieve their change strategies.
Achieving sustainable positive change in an organization is not effortlessly done with a collective leadership model, as is proven through Denis, Lamoth, and Langleys study. However change is possible with the proper construction of the leadership constellation, the subsequent steps to overcome the inherent fragility in the constellation through effective coupling, as well as the existence and proper utilization of slack resources at the implementation of change strategies. Whether a leadership constellation would be more effective than a single leader at affecting change remains to be seen. Examining the food web of an ecosystem yields clues; as when the web is more complex with greater numbers of mid and upper level predators the system has a greater productivity (biomass) and greater species diversity, such as in a rainforest. If a predator is removed from the system, the system can recover more quickly to its levels of productivity, therefore making it more sustainable. When an ecosystem’s food web resembles more of a chain, with a single keystone predator such as a kelp forest, when that predator is removed the effects on the productivity of the system are devastating and often the system cannot recover from the loss without seriously active intervention (Molles, 1999). In conclusion, as parallels between organizations and ecosystems are increasingly drawn, we cannot deny the validity of exploring further the leadership constellation; even experimenting with new leadership models so that the effectiveness of an organization that functions more like a food web instead of like a food chain can be examined.
SOURCES
Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic Change in Pluralistic Organizations. Academy of Management Journal , 809-837.
Dubrin, A. J. (2007). Leadership; Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Koehn, N. F. (2003). Leadership in Crisis: Ernest Shackleton and the Epic Voyage of the Endurance. Havard Business Journal , Havard Business School Publishing.
Molles, M. C. (1999). Ecology; Concepts and Applications. New Mexico: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Structural Inertia and Organizational Change

STRUCTURAL INERTIA AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE,
By Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman:
Review and Application

Michael Hannan and John Freeman, in their paper Structural Inertia and Organizational Change, present an argument regarding the ability of organizations, of various size and age among other aspects, to change course either at their core or their peripheries. Using the base biological principle of the Theory of Natural Selection as a guide, the framework for an organization to change, and even more so what hinders an organization from being able to change is theorized. The hindrance of change is referred to by the authors as “structural inertia”, the Newtonian concept that an object, or in this case an organization, will remain at rest (or in motion) unless acted upon it by an outside force. This paper was published in 1984, and perhaps because of its importance, many of the ideas presented have disseminated throughout popular research since, making the hypotheses proposed here familiar and anticipated. However, Hannan and Freeman elucidate upon a few points that are especially revealing when one regards organizational change including the ruminations of whether “social change, like biotic evolution, [can] be blind”, and the concept of “organizations arise[ing] to fill the gaps created by market failures” and what are the characteristics of such organizations, as well as the assertion that organizational size lessens the probability of death (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). These three specific concepts, though fresh and interesting, (and the focus of this review) do not fully encompass the depth of the theory presented here, which in summary is that organizations are subject to selective pressures, just as organisms are in the natural world, from their environment and from within, the influence of which varies dependent upon the size, age, reproducibility, and accountability of the organization.
At the start of their paper the authors present a section titled “Transformation and Replacement” beginning it with an excellent explanation of Natural Selection:

Innovations are not produced because they are useful: they are just
produced. If an innovation turns out to enhance life chances, it will be
retained and spread through the population with high probability. In this
sense, evolution is blind. (Hannan & Freeman, 1984)

Thusly they provide the basis for an extremely interesting debate about whether or not organizations, change upon the supposed conscious directives of their human occupants, or whether organizational change can occur as blindly as evolution does in the natural world. Key to understanding these concepts is comprehending that just because evolution proceeds blindly it does not do so without purpose. Evolution is purposeful in that it is constantly moving organisms toward a genetically “more fit” version of themselves. Like the constant evolutionary pressure on an organism to become more fit, individuals within an organization can apply a similar pressure to attempt to drive organizational change or strategy. However, in turn these pressures may manifest themselves in totally unexpected ways throughout a firm, therefore resulting in a random evolution toward more fit processes and structure in an organization. So, organizational change, like evolution in the biosphere, is blind when instituted with the objective of improving the organizations’ fitness. Conscious innovations however are subject to human motivations which may hinder their viability toward the organization as a whole. For example, new policies introduced may be self-serving to a certain individual within, and not contribute to the overall fitness of the organization; recent political endeavors by the US government illustrate a real world example of this. The lesson, for organizational leaders, is that strategy must always serve to improve the organizations’ fitness (make the firm a better competitor) and the successful structures, and processes, resulting from the implementation of such strategies should then be further selected and reinforced by top management to perpetuate and accentuate the effects of such successes. Until of course environmental conditions require leaders to again formulate and implement new strategy, following which the same process of “cream of the crop rising to the top” can occur, and failures can be adjusted or abandoned.
Just as the authors’ correct application of biological principles was evident in their presentation of evolutions blindness, so is the concept of organizations arising out of ashes of market failures, or their own firm’s failures, will regenerate more fit than before because it offers the opportunity for restructuring into a more competitive machine. This hypothesis is best demonstrated through metaphor. For example, one can visualize an industry as a forest ecosystem populated with different species of firms each operating within their own niche, competing for resources, and continually struggling for survival or dominating the competition and thriving. Now imagine that a fire rips through that community decimating resources, injuring species, restructuring the environment (not unlike the current global economic crises we are experiencing now). Every occupant of this ecosystem will now experience the scramble to reorganize in order to compete effectively in the new environment because structures and processes that once conferred competitive advantage may no longer apply, or may in fact be detrimental to a species’ fitness. One of these detrimental factors, according to Hannan and Freeman, may be size meaning that the larger an organization the lesser it’s ability to adapt to revolutionized market conditions, such as insurance giant AIG, or even GM, is experiencing today. This is especially true if the giant is resistant to radical restructuring, known in the business world as declaring bankruptcy. When a cataclysmic event changes an environment the first species to successfully repopulate the area have certain characteristics, one of which is crucial to prompt evolution enabling successful adaptation to the new environment. These species are known as R-Selected, the first-movers of Mother Nature with smaller body sizes, decreased investment in their numerous offspring, and the crucial aspect of which should be applied to a firm is that of short maturity time, which in turn would decrease the time of generational cycle giving more fit adaptations the ability to quickly proliferate throughout the gene pool. An organization can accomplish this feat by decreasing the cycle time for their strategic initiatives, (also committing as few resources as possible to each new initiative thereby decreasing the cost of innovation which in such a situation, if too high can prove deadly) that way effective processes and structures will show quickly and can then be selected and perpetuated effectively evolving the organization to the new environment as quickly as possible. The counter to R-selected species, are K-selected species which have a longer generation time, larger body sizes at maturity, later in life reproduction strategies, and increased investment in offspring. Organizations though, unlike organisms in nature, have the ability to switch from R to K-selected if consciously undertaken by management as a requirement to making the organization a better competitor for the long run. So following a cataclysm a firm should reflect R-selected characteristics, but as the environment becomes more stable the firm should move toward a more K-selected strategy to carry it through the long-run.
Sustainably successful productivity in an organization is usually a key goal of its leaders and with this longevity comes an increase in size which in turn leads to a high level of inertia in an organization, or a resistance to core changes. Though size is stated as a weakness of a firm Hannan and Freeman also see it as a strength, for they assert that this large size reduces the possibility of organizational death. Interestingly this theory parallels that of K-selected species because with a firms’ longevity also comes the increased investment in new generations (increased R & D spending, and available organizational slack), and the longer maturity time (or long-run strategic initiatives). So it is these abilities, congruent with size increases but distinctive, impart important resistance to negative environmental pressures, and allow a firm to remain highly competitive in the face of anything less than a cataclysmic event. The numerous generational cycles that a mature firm has undergone enables the Natural Selection process to mold it into perhaps the fiercest competitor within its industry. The firm becomes similar to the Great White Shark, the Alligator, and the Crocodile, who are extremely resistant to disease and other threats (human technologies are disregarded in this case) because they are ancient species who reached the pinnacle of their evolutionary processes millions of years ago, and who are able to weather ice ages and asteroid collisions that wiped out numerous other species. So the more generational cycles, or strategic implementations (not necessarily size), an organization experiences, as long as the costs of such are monitored to be adequate and not exorbitant, the better a competitor it will become making it more resistant to organizational death, and the increase in size is just a side effect. (Anonymous, 2000)
In conclusion, the application of Natural Selection theory to organizational processes and structure in the attempts to explain and enhance organizational strategy changes can be highly successful as the correlations between biological systems, from the level of organisms to the biosphere, can be used in direct comparison. It is important to remember though that everything in nature exists on a bell-shaped curve or on a sliding scale, and everything is continually dynamic the only absolute being that nothing is absolute; there is no such thing as static, and to sustain profitability and productivity one must always be selecting to keep evolution always moving forward toward increased fitness. Therefore organizational leadership must take a lesson from Mother Nature and act as that agent of random selection always assisting their firm in achieving a better state of fitness, through regularly examination and renewal of strategic initiatives and implementation and constant adjustment, to maintain productive organizational homeostasis and repeatedly reach organizational goals.

RESOURCES
Anonymous. (2000, June 15). Biosphere Field Notebook. Chiracahuas National Monument, New Mexico: N/A.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Socioligical Review , 49, 149 - 164.

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.