You are on page 1of 9

An important paradigm shift in the emerging knowledge age is the movement from machine metaphors to biological metaphors.

There is a focus on the whole and the connection of the parts (pieces) rather than on the whole or pieces alone.

Organic Organizational Design

By Gina Hinrichs

A core concept for design is Form follows Function. An organization, like any design challenge should be designed to effectively deliver to its function (purpose). Organizational design would be a straightforward task if organizations operated in isolation or if the external environment was stable. Since organizations are open systems that exist within an ever changing and increasingly complex environment, the task of organizational design becomes a challenge. To add to the challenge, organizations are in the midst of moving from an industrial age to a knowledge age (Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles & Coleman, 1997) that disrupts existing paradigms and structures based on linear models for organizations. Despite many approaches to organizational design, a practical, multi-level framework is missing that can guide organizational designers to deal with a dynamic environment 1 that is increasingly calling for complex adaptive systems2. In this paper, an explanation of organic organizational design (Org2 Design), a case for action of a new approach, the Org2 Design framework, and a comparison of classic approaches are provided. Org2 Design is offered as an approach that builds upon the best of existing organizational design
1. Some theorist use terms such as turbulent, dynamic, permanent whitewater, etc. to describe an environment that is both complex and unpredictable. 2. There is not one definition of CAS but Anderson (1999) offers four characteristics: agents, sustaining self-organizing, co-evolution at the edge of chaos, and recombination and system evolution.

thinking and provides a guide to designing either a part of or the whole organization. A case study of a nonprofit organization is provided with outcomes and implications for profit organizations. Org Design 101 Organizations deliver exactly what they are either intentionally or unintentionally designed to deliver. If there is a lack of understanding or intentionality in the design, what is delivered may not be what is desired. Organizational design should respond to the environment, internal capabilities, and change while maintaining balance, a sense of stability, and clarity. Galbraith (1995) contends that organizational design is a key task for leaders. Leadership in an organization should be as concerned about organizational design as they are about strategic planning since the best strategy without implementation does not deliver value. Organizational design is a creative process for designing and aligning elements of an organization to efficiently and effectively deliver the purpose of an organization. Organizational design is concerned with accomplishing the work to achieve the strategic intent. The basic question is how to distribute the work while maintaining alignment and integration of people, processes, structures, systems, and culture. Design Elements Many theorists have proposed methods to design organizations. Although most theories focus on a different aspect of the

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 41 No. 4 2009

design challenge, there is a commonality of elements. Most of the approaches acknowledge that strategy drives the design. Common elements to be considered for design are: People: the members of the organization, their attraction, capabilities, aspirations, development, and retention Processes: the information and workflows that deliver value to the customer, maintain the business, or enable other processes Systems: Information/knowledge, communication, funding, and measurement systems Structures: configurations and connections of roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, relationships to share knowledge, make decisions, take action, and learn Culture: shared values, assumptions, and approaches to cope with external adaptation and internal integration that are reinforced through norms, artifacts, stories, and rewards Design Choices There are many choice points in designing an organization. The designer must be aware of existing paradigms such as mechanistic, linear thinking as compared to organic and non-linear models. Finding a balance that optimizes the aligned performance of people, processes, structures, systems, and culture is the goal. Design choices involve: Location of power and authority for decision making and resource allocation Role and task differentiation and coordination Configurationentities and alignment that matches the complexity of the environment Responsiveness and stability/ consistency Perspective of the whole and parts Knowledge sharing and feedback loops Design Approaches A comparison of different organizational design approaches is provided in Table 1. It compares such prevalent organizational design approaches as Galbraiths 5 Star,

McKinseys 7-S, Tichys Strategic Management model, Nadlers Congruence Model, Gelinas & James Collaborative Organizational Design, Weisbords 6 Box Model and Chaordic Six Lens. These approaches are compared on aspects of the number of design elements, the description of the design elements, the focus of the design, and differentiators to the approach. Each approach is valuable in addressing important design elements of an organization. Org2 Design builds from aspects of all of these organizational design approaches but especially draws from the Chaordic approach. The situation and type of organization determines which approach would best be employed by the designer. A situation that may point to the use of the Chaordic

Organizations reflected a mechanistic model. This was effective for the era since the need for efficiency was predominate and responding to change was not as essential. Access to information was not widespread nor was there a highly educated workforce. Decision making was concentrated at the top. This authoritarian, hierarchical model provided clarity, consistency, and control. It worked, then. In todays world, information technology, globalization, increasing customer demands, and a more highly educated workforce push organizations to be more adaptive and growth oriented. In addition, there have been several mindset shifts in the perceptions of the nature of organizations and communities. Some of the most

Organizations reflected a mechanistic model. This was effective for the era since the need for efficiency was predominate and responding to change was not as essential. Access to information was not widespread nor was there a highly educated workforce. Decision making was concentrated at the top. This authoritarian, hierarchical model provided clarity, consistency, and control. It worked, then.
or Org2 Design approach is that of globalization, growth, complexity, and change. These two approaches are most effective in using commitment instead of control as an organizing principle. The Impact of Industrial Age Knowledge Age Shift It is widely acknowledged that we are in the midst of an historic shift from the industrial age to a knowledge age. The shift is uneven at both a macro and micro level (Miles, et al., 1997). An important paradigm shift in the emerging knowledge age is the movement from machine metaphors to biological metaphors. There is a focus on the whole and the connection of the parts (pieces) rather than on the whole or pieces alone. From our industrial age roots, organizations were thought to have clear boundaries and assumed a command and control, hierarchical organizational structure. interesting mindset shifts follow: Nature and adaptation are better models for dynamic organizational environments than the efficient but inflexible machine models. Centralized control is self-limiting. Diversity and innovation thrive when authority and information are located where the value creating work is done. Stability change; competition collaboration; freedom self-governance; and individuality community are not opposites. The greatest benefit comes when we think in terms of both/and rather than either /or. Organizations are held together by purpose, shared beliefs, identity and commitmentnot force. Organizations progress through their ability to remain coherent, make sense, and respond effectively to their environment.

Organic Organizational Design

Table 1: Organizational Design Approaches Comparison


Approach/Theorist Five Star Galbraith # Design Elements 5 Categories of decision Design Elements Strategy Structure People Rewards Processes Strategy Structure Systems Skills Staff Style Shared Values 3 System aspects Technical Political Cultural Aligned Mgmt Tools Mission/Strategy Org Structure HR Mgmt Congruence Model Nadler 4 Components Informal Org Formal Org Work People ore Goals & C Values Strategy ork Processes W Structure Systems People Culture Purpose Structure Relationships elpful H Mechanisms Rewards Leadership Purpose Principles Participants Org Concept Constitution Practices Fit Organization as a system that transforms an input to an output through the fit of 4 components. Acknowledges the power of informal. Design Teams use this model to both create their vision and design their organization. Goals are measurable. Values are the how. It is used for unit level design. Focus/Point Strategy Key Points or Differentiator An organization is an information processing entity dealing with uncertainty as it achieves the strategy. Organizational design is a critical leadership role. Matching, linking, coordinating 5 categories. Super ordinate goal. Seeks sustainable competitive advantage. Most prevalent. Top down.

McKinsey 7-S

7 connected circles

Strategy

Strategic Management Tichy

3 X 2 Elements

Alignment of Systems & Tools

Multi-perspective look at change and response needed. Fit of Technical, Political, and Cultural Systems to Management Tools.

Collaborative Organizational Design Gelinas & James

7 Integrated Circles

Core Goals of Future at design team level

Six Box Model Weisbord

6 Boxes

Purpose and Leadership

Clarity and balance important. The model helps the client to visualize his or her organization as a systemic whole without the use of strange terminology.

Chaordic Design Hock & Getzendanner

6 Lenses

Purpose and Principles

High commitment, whole system, growth & change focus. Iterative so elements inform, support, and balance each other. Departure from rationalist tradition results focus.

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 41 No. 4 2009

Table 2: Mechanistic Versus Organic Organizational Factors


FromMechanistic Function driven Closed Parts Top downhierarchical control Centralized Departmentalized Sameness Stability Purpose driven Open Whole Local focus & empowered Distributed/Networked Connected Diversity Growth/Change ToOrganic

The above emerging mindsets call for a more organic organizational design approach. The more appropriate organic approach that focuses on growth and sustainability for the organization is taking root. Many of the traditional approaches in organizational design operate from the concepts that were effective in the From Mechanistic, industrial age side of Table 2. In order to design an effective organization for the future, the ToOrganic growth, responsive side should be the criteria of design. Chaordic 3 Design was introduced by Dee Hock (1999) and refined by Joel Getzendanner 4 to specifically address the ToOrganic side. Their organizational design approach utilizes six lenses to gain perspective on the nature of an integrated organization. Their approach is well suited to support growth, responsiveness, and empowerment for complex adaptive systems. It is especially suited for both global and local communities where participants are attracted by shared understanding and conviction to the purpose of the organization. Org2 Design Org2 design builds upon foundational organizational design approaches. As an adaptation and simplification of the Chaordic approach, Org2 Design also utilizes six lenses (facets) to gain perspective and iteratively design an organization. By engaging in a process of considering each of the facets of the organization, designers gain clarity that leads to decisions to coherently deliver to the purpose of the organization. The approach is not linear and cannot be accomplished in a single pass. Org2 Designs six facets (see Figure 1) are: Purpose, Principles, Practices, Participants, Processes, and Pieces. These facets are dealt with somewhat sequentially and absolutely iteratively. The simplified Org2
3. Chaordic stands for the intersection of Chaos and Order where innovation emerges. 4. A debt of gratitude is extended to Joel Getzendanner. Without his insights, the Org2 design approach would not exist.

Design approach has been accomplished in a two day workshop. In the Org2 Design approach, one discovers that each facet provides clarity while raising questions of the other facets. In a sense, the design approach provides momentary completion but is never really finished since the organization and its environment continue to co-evolve. Some facets have a stable aspect and a changing, responsive aspect. The design must evolve while remaining aligned and integrated. Org2 Designs Six Facets

A brief introduction of the six facets is provided below: Purpose is pursuing what is deeply meaningful; the reason for being is a foundational level of purpose. It is internally focused and long term. Purpose is a clear and simple statement of the worthy pursuit that identifies and binds the organization (stable aspect). Figure 1: Six Facets of an Org2 Design Purpose leads to commitment Purpose which is the ultimate internalized linking and coordinating mechanism. The responsive aspect of purpose that is externally influenced is strategy. Strategy can be considered a set of decisions to achieve the organizations goals
Pieces

for delivering value to stakeholders. The goals change as the environment changes but delivering value does not change. Principles (& Values) are clear, commonly understood and agreed upon statements of what will guide the behavior of the participants in pursuit of purpose. Organizing principles and shared beliefs are intrinsic schemata and values that attract participants, create alignment, and coordinate relationships. Values like quality, integrity, and innovation are core so remain stable. Principles rarely change but can be affected by the environment and local culture (e.g. employee engagement as a principle can be impacted by culture or level of education). Practices operate at a behavioral level. They are specific agreements on how to operate and co-evolve. Practices are more observable than Principles (e.g.

Principles

Processes

Practices

Participants

Organic Organizational Design

location of power/authority, decision making, accountability, acquiring and distributing resources, knowledge sharing, and acknowledgement). Trust is created in the organization when participants can anticipate how others will behave. Co-evolution occurs best when there are a minimum amount of agreements. Practices change to respond to external and internal changes. The changes must be agreed to by Participants and align with Purpose and Principles. Participants are members or agents of the organization. Participants define who is involved and how they contribute, are valued, and valuable. This involves roles, responsibilities, skills, competencies, learning, and movement in and out of the organization. Participants are the locus of distinctive skills that allows collaborative execution to the purpose/strategy. Each agent has both shared and individual schema that determines actions. Processes define the work, information, and feedback flows that produce value for the customer, Participants, and community. There are two main types of processes: customer value creating processes and supporting processes. There is a tension in processes to provide stability/consistency yet responsiveness/flexibility. Variation is both friend and foe. Pieces are the organizational configuration or structure. Pieces are aligned and coordinated groupings of Participants executing the Processes and utilizing resources (especially information) to further the purpose/strategy of the organization. Pieces are the units, networks, patterns of growth, relationships, and connections to the whole. Each Piece of the organization is a fractal in the sense that each entity contains aspects of the whole.

Case Study: Positive Change Core (PCC) PCC is a nonprofit organization created to bring strength-focused whole systems change approaches to school communities. It began in 2001. The purpose was compelling but the organization struggled because it lacked an organizational design that could deliver the purpose. In 2005, after little progress had been made, Joel Getzendanner worked with a design team using Chaordic approaches to design PCC. This approach morphed into a simplified and practical approach referred to as Org2 Design. The design conversations and results are provided. The first session focused on the Purpose and Principles. Since these two facets are foundational, the design team needed agreement to proceed to the other facets. The team knew that any facet could be reconsidered due to the iterative nature of the process. Powerful questions at each facet helped with what was already known and provided access to new insights. The team engaged in dialogue until they arrived at a facet design that provided coherence. It was important for the team to stay open in their thinking so they were willing to iterate as they worked through the facets. PCC Purpose: Since PCC had been in existence for several years, the team had aspirations and experience. This facilitated the conversations for Purpose. The questions that focused the conversation were: What brings meaning to PCC? What do you believe PCC is in service to? What do we want to be different as a result of our work? Different for Participants? For PCC? In the world? As a result of the discussions, the team created a clear statement of meaning and intent. The following and subsequent facet statements are in their completed form. There were several iterations to get to this outcome. The iterations are not provided.

PCC Purpose
PCC provides a strength-focused, whole systems participation and process to school communities to co-create desired futures

PCC Principles: Encouraged by the success in creating a Purpose statement that was aspirational and inspirational, the team moved to Principles. Principles should guide collective behavior and attract new participants. The question that helped uncover PCCs core principles follows: What principles or values would allow us to trust and give permission to enthusiastically and innovatively pursue PCCs Purpose? PCC Principles
Honor each others basic rights Welcome new and returning participants and ideas Be coherent as a whole and understand the connection of Pieces Invite creation of new Pieces to the system Create and honor agreements freely and with commitment Exchange knowledge generously Create solutions and make our own decisions that reasonably represent the relevant and affected stakeholders. Protect who and whats important to us Seek collaboration yet work with whom and how we want.

The real understanding of the meaning of the facets and how they describe the organization is gained by experiencing and having conversations about each facet in the context of each other and the organization that is being designed.

PCC Practices: The first session ended with a shift in understanding and commitment to PCC. The next session continued with a main focus on Practices. The challenge was to discover the minimum amount of agreements that would align and keep the organization coherent. The questions that guided PCCs Practices discussion were: How is power/energy and authority organized?

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 41 No. 4 2009

Figure 2: PCC Processes: A High Level Map

Who decides where and how decisions are made? What agreements are needed to hold the system together as a whole? What are possible paths for growth and adaptation? Is there anything that needs to be commonly owned? How? On whose behalf? How do resources and value flow? Practices emphasized the need to be iterative. The first iteration did not break down the agreements by participant. PCC Practices
Community of Interest (CoI) participants agree to: ersonally commit to work with P schools in a way consistent with the purpose and principles of PCC. rotect and use the PCC logo in P accordance with policies and values ctively share knowledge with the A PCC community. rotect each others personal P intellectual property and confidentiality ollaborate with clear roles and C accountabilities. articipate when and to the level P you choose while providing clarity of your commitments. Community of Practice (CoP) participants are expected to: ransfer strength-focused whole T system capability to school communities articipate in creating a vision and P operational plan e fairly compensated for service B and expertise

Clients Needs/Processes Clients Needs/Processes Value Creating Processes Value Creating Processes
Leadership Processes

Project Project Acquisition Acquisition

Resource Resource Acquisition Acquisition

Project Project Fulfillment Fulfillment

Feedback Processes

Supporting Processes Supporting Processes


Learning Learning Processes Processes Member Member Support Support Information & Information & Communication Communication Partner Partner Acquisition Acquisition

Partners Processes Partners Processes

Center of Excellence (CoE) participants are expected to: perate as servant leaders to O facilitate the distribution of knowledge, authority, and resources to the maximum degree nclude affected participants and I equitably represent the interest of all relevant and affected parties in governance and decision making. nsure no existing participant be E left in a lesser position by any new concept of organization.

resent relevant and affected parties? Who will be requested to participate in governance of PCC? PCC Participant Types
CoI Level: School Community Change Agents olunteers V Resources CoP Level: Mentors Topic Specialists Project Leaders CoE Level: Servant Leaders Administrators Trainers

PCC Participants: The next challenge was to distinguish the Participants of the organization. The goal was to clearly define participation level, eligibility, accountabilities, and benefits. Membership had to allow for growth, diversity, and movement. Movement was a key issue. Participants had to feel comfortable connecting, participating, leaving, and returning based on their energy and interest. The questions that guided the discussion follow: Why would someone be attracted and excited to participate in PCC? What are the respective rights and responsibilities of Participants? Are decision bodies small enough to work efficiently, yet large enough to rep-

PCC Processes The Process facet is a point of departure of Org2 Design from the Chaordic approach. PCC desired more structure and simplification that added Process as a facet. The team was interested in identifying value-creating, supporting, and leadership processes. Defining the work and information flows that provided both consistency and flexibility was critical for a complex adaptive system. The questions that helped us understand and define PCCs processes were:

Organic Organizational Design

Figure 3: PCC Processes: A High Level Map

customer

Champion/ Cultural Guide

Connection, Translation PCC CoP (Youth) Schools & School Community Local/Regional PCC CoP governance
consensus council
Projects Learning Knowledge Sharing Connecting Communicating Accountability

Training Certification

Services

Support Processes

CoP

Products

Practices

PCC COE

Translation, Linkages, and Alignment To Government and other organizations


Members Lead Learner Mentor Partner

What are our (3-5) customer value creating processes? What are our (3-5) supporting processes? What are our (3-5) leadership processes that provide governance, vision, and change? What are our feedback/learning processes that allow us to co-evolve?

PCC Pieces The last facet was the most difficult to conceptualize. It would have been impossible without the insight to the previous five facets. The team used Leggos, Tinker Toys, and various two dimensional drawing tools to create the interaction of Pieces. They worked to provide a visual of the whole and the Pieces as interconnected and interdependent. Several designs were created. Each one strived to depict participation, diversity, novelty, innovation, adaptation, a

blend of competition and cooperation, and the global and local nature of PCC. The questions that guided this facet follow: How is power and authority operationalized in the unit (Piece)? Where are decisions made at each Piece? What work and resources are located at each Piece? How is knowledge shared? Who talks to whom and when? How do the Pieces hold together as a whole? What are the linkages and ways to stay aligned? How is growth and adaptation supported at the Pieces? How does idea generation and innovation occur? How are the local adaptations communicated to the whole and best practices deployed?

The teams models finally evolved into a model of the interaction of a CoI, CoP, and a CoE in service to school communities. The PCC model is depicted in Figure 3. The last design session iterated around all six facets to refine and ensure alignment. By considering and reconsidering each of the facets, the team improved clarity and commitment to the purpose of PCC. The team felt the design could support local school community change agents and PCC Participants. Outcomes The clarity from experiencing the Org2 Design process has encouraged PCC participants to operate simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion. This has supported development of a website, training materials, articles, books, school community transformation projects, regional CoPs, and the formation of a 501(c)(3). Like most

10

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 41 No. 4 2009

social profit organizations (an emerging term for nonprofits), PCC participants are voluntary. They must be attracted to the Purpose, committed to the Principles, willing to act according to the Practices, feel valued and bring value as a Participant, able to execute the Processes, and design their Piece to fit into the whole.

Galbraith, J.R. (1995). Designing organizations: An executive briefing on strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Galbraith, J. Designing the innovating organization. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from http://www.jaygalbraith. com/resources/designing_innovating_org. pdf. Beyond Social Profit Gelinas, M., & James, R. Collaborative organizational design, Retrieved It is evident that Org2 Design is effective November 5, 2007, from http://www. in social profit but it is also effective in gelinasjames.com/what.html. for-profit organizations. The author has Hock, D. (2000). Birth of the chaordic age. subsequently applied Org2 Design with a Executive Excellence, 17(6), 6-7. global Fortune 100 company to guide the Miles, R., Snow, C., Mathews, J., Miles, G., redesign of the global HR function. The & Coleman, H. (1997). Organizing in approach gained purchase because the the knowledge age: Anticipating the organization demanded an approach that cellular form. Academy of Management could support aggressive growth and innoExecutive, 11 (4), 7-19 vation while providing global consistency Nadler, D., Gerstein, M., & Shaw, R. (1992). and local responsiveness. Organizational architecture: Designs for changing organizations. San Francisco: Conclusion Jossey-Bass Publishers. Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1997). An enhancement of organizational design Competing by design: The power of organiis called for to provide efficiency and zational architecture. New York: Oxford effectiveness in global dynamic environUniversity Press, Inc. ments as we shift to a knowledge age. Pasmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective Org2 Design provides a growth oriented, organizations: The socio-technical systems practical framework to guide organizational perspective. New York: John Wiley & designers at any piece of the organization. Sons, Inc. By building on solid theory and providing a Seiling, J.G. (1997). The membership practical application, organizational designorganization: Achieving top performance ers should be encouraged to become more through the new workplace community. organic. Palo Alto: Davies-Black Publishing. Simons, Robert. (2005). Levers of organizaReferences tional design. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Anderson, P. (1990). Complexity theory Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. and organization science. Organization American Psychologist, 45 (2), 109-119. Science, 10 (3), 216-232. Stacey, R. (1996, May/June). Management Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. and the science of complexity: If organi(1995). The boundaryless organization: zational life is nonlinear, can business Breaking the chains of organizational strategies prevail? Research Technology structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Management, 39 (3), 8-10. Publishers. Waterman, R. H. Jr., Peters, T. J., & Burton, M.B., DeScanctis, G., & Obel, B. Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not (2006). Organizational design: A step-byorganization. Business Horizons, 23 (3), step approach. Cambridge: Cambridge 14-27. University Press. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MS: AddisonWesley Publishing, Co.

Gina Hinrichs, PhD, worked for John Deere for over twenty years. She was the Quality Manager for Worldwide Harvesting before starting her OD Consulting business in the US Midwest in 2001. She earned an MBA from Northwestern University before earning her PhD from Benedictine University. Gina is a professor for both Capella and Lawrence Tech Universities online programs. She co-authored the Thin Book of SOAR: Building Strengths-Based Strategy. She can be reached at hinrichs@geneseo.net.

Copyright 2009 by the Organization Development Network, Inc. All rights reserved. Organic Organizational Design

11

You might also like