Cliff Hamilton wrote:
> I believe Simon Buckingham's responses to the questions regarding
> unorganization, downstructuring, static vs dynamic structure, transaction
> costs and other organizational design issues are both highly insightful and
> conceptually incomplete.
You cannot soundly access the unorganization philosophy on the basis of 4
posts- they are not even to be found on unorg.com yet- to understand
unorganization in any depth it is neccessary to read the book material on
unorg.com- in particular as an intoduction the four fundamental forces in
the unorganized world in http://www.unorg.com/trans So yes, the posts are
conceptually incomplete.
[Host's Note: Simon, I know you've mentioned these in the past, but would
you reply to this msg with a URL or two which would give a satisfactory
summary of unorg? Thanks. ...Rick]
> Downstructuring and unorganizing are really alternate terms for the conversion
> to a more flexible and continuously adaptive way of organizational life.
Yes. We are talking not about no organizations, but about different,
dynamic org forms.
> My concern with these terms is that they are basically negative and focused on
> what we are leaving and "un" doing rather than describing what we are building
> toward. As such, they do not fully convey the direction or nature of the
> change taking place.
This is a problem with the incompleteness of my 4 posts- I wrote books
such as "unorganization: A handbook for company transformation" about
downstructuring because of the anger I felt myself in static organizations
with arbitrary control policies and procedures. But "trans" for example,
sets out from the assumption that traditional organizations are neither
effective nor cost-effective and is about the positive effects of
unorganization on individuals and groups of dynamically organized
individuals as does "Unorganization: A handbook for individual
transformation". I have not fully conveyed the change in my 4 posts, but
hope to have done so in the books- and if not, it is more a problem with
me than a flaw in my theory.
> Fast or slowly, crisis, forced or planned, reality is that companies and other
> organizations ARE evolving. Rather the collective actions of the people who
> make up the organizations are evolving.
Sure they are evolving but that evolution is not enough. People persist in
telling themselves that things are getting better- that they will get
additional responsibilities if they bide their time- and they are
perpetually compromising and selling themselves short. The collective
actions of SOME of the people in organizations- the senior management- are
evolving some unorg clients have seen how whereas downsizing entails
managers deciding who goes from the organization- downstructuring gives
all people the chance to change or leave. (See
http://www.unorg.com/sabc2.htm).
You are not talking about people as I am, but organizations and
environments- these things are vehicles for people to thrive in- and
should not remain the central focus of attention. They matter only in so
far as they help or hinder people from achieving their full economic
potential. Too often static organizations and economics hinder
individuals.
> Some days when I'm weary from
> explaining why folks need to change, I retreat to the undertaker's philosophy
> - "die now, die later, inevitably you must so I can wait!" Then I go back to
> trying to explain again.
I know that feeling.
> You may also be measuring courage, confidence and discipline by the same structural
> yardstick you seek to banish ...
Of course I am subject to my own frames of reference. Its not a problem
if recognized and transcended.
> nature is not a nice place
> either and natural systems are not kind and gentle in all aspects. They are
> not evil, just not nice. There are predators, weaker prey who get consumed,
> accidents, disease, birth, death, . It's all part of the sorting out process.
> Dynamic structure - the living systems way - produces a lot of pain and
> suffering too. These systems are also the most durable on the planet.
And you say my ideas are negative! This is where your view of living
organizations and my view on unorganization differs fundamentally- you
believe in biological metaphors- you say it is okay and natural for
evolution to occur and for some things to die in that transition and so
on. I believe that what dies is the corporation- it collapses- but the
people continue to thrive within this changing landscape. The four forces
coupled with individual efforts to become a brander, achieve voluntary
independence and so on mean that people can avoid becoming the victims of
predators.
Seen from an unorganized thought building (Gedankengebauede) the
fundamental error in biological perspectives such as "increasing returns"
and so on is that they assume that environment is important- it is not.
Unorganization says that markets are contestable- a single individual with
a novel idea can partner and outsource sufficiently to enter into a
collapsible corporation that can easily and profitably enter a contestable
market. This transcends current configurations of power, market share and
so on. As such individuals can enact their environment and create their
own prosperity, if only they realized how much they could achieve. This is
where courage, self-confidence and all that come in.
> In the living
> systems model I would evaluate functions from an "energy" conservation
> approach rather than the transaction "costs" perspective. I believe it gives
> a broader scope for building understanding.
Transaction costs are just one of the four fundamental forces underpinning
the unorganized world- they are falling transaction costs, realization of
the voluntary exchange principle, realization of contestable markets and
increasing bounded rationality. (See http://www.unorg.com/trans). Energy
is only useful is so far as it is expended on business and not busyness.
> Maximal efforts are not sustainable over the long run for any system. Living
> systems (organizations) ultimately seek to optimize energy demands - balance
> the high maximal requirements with the cheap ones in finding their niche for
> sustained survival.
Your model seems preoccupied with avoiding the perpetual threat of
extinction explicit within evolution- you talk of survival. I not not
interested merely in survival- we can survive in static organizations-
most of us still do- I am interested in thriving- in taking away the
things that stop each and evry individual from realizing their full
potential. We are alll disabled, we are all going to die, and the
imperative for each of us is to do all we can with our interests and
talents (lifestreams) whilst we are alive to help ourselves and others.
> I agree with you that static structure is a poor idea. I have trouble with
> defining it as evil.
Static structures are evil because of the PEOPLE who suffer within them.
As such from a human perception that are definately evil.
> Hence, your concern about crises and reinventions
> becomes more real - but a necessary and integral part of the system.
Crises will arise- many caused by intervenors- this does not bother me as
long as the PEOPLE affected by those crises can exit from them and avoid
their worse effects- by avoiding static structures that prevent easy entry
and exit.
> Actually dynamic structures are not really less stable at all. It is simply a
> different kind of stability. We need a new understanding of stability to
> recognize the new paradigm. Dynamic stability is what biological life and
> natural systems have.
This is just the difference between a difference and a distinction. Such
environmental factors do not matter- they are irrelevant if they can be
transcended- which I think they can.
> In the end, I'd like to be persuasive that "downstructuring" and
> "unorganizing" are perhaps catchy titles but not fully accurate or
> comprehensive descriptions of the changes taking place.
A brand and a brander is comprised of an inner and an outer core- the
inner core is the substance and truth reflected in the ideas themselves,
the outer core is the names given to those ideas. I think that unorg has
both a strong inner and outer core- certainly too many people in too many
places doing too many differnet things have found too much truth in unorg
for it to be a fad.
> I'm also
> intrigued by the apparent fact that clients perhaps more readily grasp the
> concept of "un" doing something they already do more easily than I seem to be
> able to explain the "transformation" or "conversion" of what they are doing to
> another way (i.e. living organizations) of operating.
They can understand "un" once I have communicated the imperatiove for
change - they know that they are not dealing with a blank piece of paper-
they know the changes from organized to unorganized were not simply
evolutionary but fundamental- and that evolutionary approaches are
insufficient responses.
Lets look at what is necessary for unorg and living organizations to be
right and true- for unorg the 4 fundamental forces have to be present and
sufficient (feedback from economists on this is most welcome- I have had
none) and the vehicles for the transition to the unorganized solutions:
downstructuring, opporTUNEitizing, collapsible corporations have to be
successful means of taking people safely into the unorganized world.
Living corporations takes like unorg the premise that the world is
changing and becoming more dynamic and global, but expresses the opinion
that this process of environmental change (evolution) is not only natural
but unavoidable. You then offer in your post no alternative other than for
current organizations to remain but evolve themselves to take account of
this fundamental environental change. Most management commentators such as
Ghoshal and Barlett seem to be trapped within this evolutionary
perspective- lets just reconfigure ourselves, that will be enough- and
deterministic environment/ organization perspectives from the 60s still
have not been forgotton.
In sum, Cliff I would say:
1. You do not mention people once, I care only about people
2. You see the environment as important and unavoidable, I see it as
something that can be transcended, enacted and contested.
3. You talk about surviving, I talk about thriving
Simon Buckingham
http://www.unorg.com
unorganization: business not busyness!
--Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>