Organizational Design Perspectives: An Ontology of Organizational Design Elements

Adaptability and Agility. Two related watch words needed to survive in a "White Water" world characterized by patterns of Complex Adaptive Systems. It's a bigger picture issue here where one not only one needs to try to recognize those complexity patterns for prediction purposes (good luck!), nor is it the frameworks or methodologies that are tried and sometimes true, rather, it is the organizational structural that needs to consistently "gardened" and "weeded" to help the organization "stay in the game" ~Corsi.

This presentation recognizes some of these concepts and identifies some of the organizational design elements that need to be considered to create a sustainable organization that supports both Adaptability and Agility.

Transcript

1. Organizational Design Perspectives . An Ontology of Organizational Design Elements Kim Petersen, Ph.D.
2. Kim W Petersen, Ph.D. https://drkimpetersen.ghost.io/ https://speakerdeck.com/kimpetersen Occupation: Auto Club of Southern California, Project Lead (four years), Scrum Master (five years) Education: Ph.D. Information Technology, Master In Information Systems (MISM), Bachelor Science in Project Management Certifications: Enterprise Agile Coaching (ICP-ENT) (2024)·Coaching Agile Transformation (ICP-CAT) (2024)·Certified Product Owner (CPO) (2023)·Certified Aware Leader (2022)·Certified Agile Leadership for Teams (CAL-T) (2022)·Certified Agile Leadership Essentials (CAL-E) (2022)·Certified Agile Leadership for Organizations. (CLT-O) (2022)·Certified Scrum Professional-Scrum Master (C) (CSP-SM) (2020)·Advanced Certified Scrum Master (A-CSM) (2019)·Certified LeSS Practitioner (CLP) (2019)·Certified Scrum Master (CSM) (2019)·Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) (2008)·Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator (MCSA)·(2008)·Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) (2008)·CompTIA Security + (2008) Agile Open SoCal 2024
3. The Agile Manifesto emphasizes "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools" to highlight the importance of human collaboration in software development.* Key Points: 1. **Human-Centric Approach**: Agile values people and their interactions more than rigid adherence to processes or reliance on tools. It recognizes that effective communication and collaboration among team members lead to better outcomes. 2. **Flexibility and Adaptability**: Relying too heavily on processes and tools can stifle creativity and adaptability. Agile promotes an environment where teams can respond to changes and challenges dynamically, leveraging the skills and insights of individuals. 3. **Empowerment**: By prioritizing individuals, Agile encourages team members to take ownership of their work, fostering a culture of trust and responsibility. This empowerment can lead to higher motivation and productivity. 4. **Collaboration**: Effective collaboration often leads to innovative solutions that might not emerge from following a strict process. Agile practices promote regular interactions, such as daily stand-ups and retrospectives, to ensure continuous feedback and improvement. 5. **Context-Specific Solutions**: Every project is unique, and a one-size-fits-all process may not be effective. Agile encourages teams to tailor their approaches based on the specific context, leveraging the knowledge and expertise of individuals. In summary, this Agile value underscores the belief that successful projects are built on strong, collaborative relationships among team members and stakeholders, rather than just on processes or tools. *From CHAT GPT 4.0: Can you elaborate on this Agile Manifesto value, "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools?" How Do We Achieve This?
4. How to achieve agile, flexible, adaptable organizations? By creating simpler organizations! https://less.works/blog/2020/03/02/more-with-less-seven-tools-for-simplifying-organizations.html
5. “…unless you fix the organizational design elements that are consistent with what you want, you're not going to get what you want because it’s far deeper than just behavior and attitude.” Organizational Design Elements w/ Craig Larman AgileByExample 2022: Craig Larman - Organizational design for L-scale adaptive product development Agile Open SoCal 2024
6. Larman's Laws of Organizational Behavior https://www.craiglarman.com/wiki/index.php?title=Larman%27s_Laws_of_Organizational_Behavior After decades of observation and organizational consulting, here are Larman's Laws of Organizational Behavior. These are observations rather than laws to follow ;) 1. Organizations are implicitly optimized to avoid changing the status quo middle- and first-level manager and “specialist” positions & power structures. 2. As a corollary to (1), any change initiative will be reduced to redefining or overloading the new terminology to mean basically the same as status quo. 3. As a corollary to (1), any change initiative will be derided as “purist”, “theoretical”, “revolutionary”, "religion", and “needing pragmatic customization for local concerns” — which deflects from addressing weaknesses and manager/specialist status quo. 4. As a corollary to (1), if after changing the change, some managers and single-specialists are still displaced, they become “coaches/trainers” for the change, frequently reinforcing (2) and (3), and creating the false impression ‘the change has been done’, deluding senior management and future change attempts, after which they become industry consultants. 5. (in large established orgs) Culture follows structure. And in tiny young orgs, structure follows culture.
7. Larman's Laws of Organizational Behavior https://www.craiglarman.com/wiki/index.php?title=Larman%27s_Laws_of_Organizational_Behavior Elaboration: A longer form is, In big established groups, culture/behavior/mindset follows and is influenced by changes in the organizational system and design. That is, in large established organizations, if you want to really change culture, you have to start with changing the organizational system (groups, teams, roles and responsibilities, hierarchies, career paths, policies, measurement and reward mechanisms, etc), because culture does not really change otherwise. Said another way, the organizational system is strongly influential on mindset and behavior. The systems-thinking advocate John Seddon also observed this: "Attempting to change an organization’s culture is a folly, it always fails. Peoples’ behavior (the culture) is a product of the system; when you change the system, peoples’ behavior changes." This is an observation in big established organizations; in contrast, in small start ups, it's the reverse: structure follows culture. That is, the (probably simple and informal) organizational design reflects the mindset and culture of the small number of members in the start up. As the organization grows, at some point it usually reverses to culture follows structure. And "culture follows structure" (in large groups) is why purely “mindset” approaches such as organizational learning are not very sticky or impactful by themselves in large groups, and why frameworks such as Scrum (that have a strong focus on structural change at the start) tend to more quickly impact culture — if the structural change implications of Scrum are actually realized.
8. More with LeSS - Simplifying Organizations with 7 Design Principles: Descaling Organizational Complexity 1.From Specialist Roles to Teams 2.From Resource-Thinking to People-Thinking 3.From Organizing around Technology to Organizing around Customer Value 4.From Independent Teams to Continuous Cross-team Cooperation 5.From Coordinate to Integrate to Coordination through Integration 6.From Projects to Products 7.From Many Small Products to a Few Broad Products
9. The characteristics of a feature team are listed below: •long-lived—the team stays together so that they can ‘jell’ for higher performance; they take on new features over time •cross-functional and cross-component •co-located •work on a complete customer-centric feature, across all components and disciplines (analysis, programming, testing, …) •composed of generalizing specialists •in Scrum, typically 7 ± 2 people A feature team has the necessary knowledge and skills to complete an end-to-end customer-centric feature. If not, the team is expected to learn or acquire the needed knowledge and skill. A common misunderstanding: every member of a feature team needs to know the whole system. Not so, because •The team as a whole—not each individual member—requires the skills to implement the entire customer-centric feature. These include component knowledge and functional skills such as test, interaction design, or programming. But within the team, people still specialize… preferably in multiple areas. •Features are not randomly distributed over the feature teams. The current knowledge and skills of a team are factored into the decision of which team works on which features. Within a feature team organization, when specialization becomes a constraint…learning happens.
11. Scope and Specialization Chart What is a component? What is a feature? What is functional specialization? So far, we’ve looked at them as binary, but the answer exists along a continuum. One group has individual class ownership whereas in another group the team owns a whole subsystem. Both of them are component teams. A similar scale exists related to functional specialization, as some product groups have five levels of testing, which gives “include test in the team” a very ambiguous meaning! Drawing these scales in a graph gives some insights in feature-team adoption and the kind of organizational change you can expect
14. “Living In a White-Water World”~ John Seely Brown According to JOHN SEELY BROWN, “the environment is radically different.” To survive in this radically different environment, you must be more like a whitewater kayaker who skillfully reads the currents and disruptions of the context around you. You need to feel, gauge, and interact with the flow of information passing all around you, living in an ongoing conversation with the flow. You must interpret the flows, the ripples, the rapids, and understand what they reveal about what lies beneath the surface. You must operate with both body and mind, living totally in the moment, experiencing the immediate at-hand circumstances, and quickly analyzing information from all your senses — sight, sound, touch, and force feedback from the paddles — to understand the environment and how it is responding to you. What keeps the whitewater kayaker afloat? What keeps him right-side-up for the run? What helps him roll right when he flips over? Well, it’s the way he uses his center of gravity in terms of the line of balance. It is the axis of balance that gives him the confidence to take on the whitewater and increase his levels of risk-taking. In this metaphor, this line of balance is analogous to authenticity and integrity. Authenticity is simply the capacity to know yourself, your core strengths, weaknesses, values, and motivations, and to work from them and for them. In a radically contingent whitewater world, decisions and actions need critically an authentic place to work from. That is your base of operation. This is a different world — a world where skills matter, tools matter, but expertise and authenticity are also required. It’s a world with powerful tools galore and immense opportunities available only if you are willing to unleash your imagination and invoke your skills.” According to JOHN SEELY BROWN, “You are in the living in a whitewater world.”
15. M. Jackson, “What help can decision‐makers expect when tackling the “messes” and “wicked problems” that proliferate in this age of complexity?”
16. …systems thinking as the only appropriate response to complexity ~M. Jackson Critical System Thinking (CST) “CSP espouses systems thinking. It argues that the traditional scientific method, based upon reductionism and objectivity, is inappropriate in confronting complexity.” ~M. Jackson • The first commitment of CST must honor systems thinking (holism) • The second commitment of CST must honor critical awareness recognizing that it is impossible for any systems approach to understand the whole system • The third commitment of critical systems thinking follows from the finding of critical awareness that different systems methodologies see the world differently and recommend intervening in problem situations in a wide variety of ways. • The final commitment of critical systems thinking is to bring about improvement in the real world
17. https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVKg637vA=/?share_link_id=705725095208
18. Critical Systems Practice (CSP) “CSP espouses systems thinking. It argues that the traditional scientific method, based upon reductionism and objectivity, is inappropriate in confronting complexity.” ~M. Jackson Critical Systems Practice (CSP) multimethodology
19. (Galbraith, 2011). The Star Model
21. https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVKlV1qc0=/?share_link_id=321765804815
22. Large-Scale Scrum (LeSS)
23. LeSS Principles
24. Leader Character
25. Leader Character (Crossan, Furlong, & Austin, 2023) (Crossan, Seijts, & Gandz, 2015)
27. Dimension Type Behavior Elicited: "WHEN THE DIMENSION IS PRESENT, LEADERS…" Courage Put themselves in “the line of fire” to support ideas that may be unpopular but the right move- Will vocally support the right thing to do, even in the face of strong opposition Drive Pursue projects with dogged determination- Show unrelenting energy in the pursuit of objectives- Strive for excellence in everything they tackle Collaboration Understand how to work with different people and personalities in a productive way- Leverage others’ ideas, opinions, and contributions to build better solutions- Stay open- minded in the face of opposition- Invite constructive dissent Integrity Walk the talk- Are honest and transparent in their business dealings and hold others to the same standard- Bring the organization’s values to life in their own behavior- Don’t ask others to do things that are morally questionable Temperance Are calm, cool, and collected even in difficult situations- Demonstrate restraint- Have an appreciation for the risks associated with decisions and actions- Know when to stop talking and listen Accountability Don’t shirk responsibility- Own their mistakes- Don’t deny reality- Don’t skirt the difficult questions Justice Reward good performance and confront poor performance- Remain objective when hearing others out- Are respectful of others’ differences – don’t treat people in a “one size fits all” way- Will vocally support others who have been wronged Humility Talk about accomplishments as “we” versus “I” - Are aware of their weaknesses and delegate accordingly- Acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of others- Don’t feel compelled to talk about their accomplishments- Are not bullies Humanity Genuinely care about their people- Are available and generous with their time and resources- Can move past a bad experience with someone and maintain a productive relationship-Invest in the development of others Transcendence Can recognize good ideas that are ahead of their time- Truly appreciate excellence in the work of others- Show a strong sense of purpose that inspires others- Bring a fresh, creative, elevated perspective to problems- Help others see things in new ways Judgment Consistently make good business decisions- Add insight, direction, and clarity to problem-solving discussions- Don’t make assumptions or jump to conclusions- Tailor solutions to the situation How Leader Character Dimensions Translate into Behaviors
31. Integral Agile Transformation Framework (IATF) (Spayd & Madore, 2020) =
34. References Crossan, M., Seijts, G., Gandz, J., & Stephenson, C. (2010). Leadership on trial: A manifesto for leadership development. Ivey School Of Business. Crossan, M., Furlong, W. B., & Austin, R. D. (2023). Make Leader Character Your Competitive Edge.MIT Sloan Management Review, 64(2), 40-47 Crossan, M., Seijts, G., & Gandz, J. (2015). Developing leadership character. Routledge Galbraith, J. R. (2011). The star model. The STAR Model. Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity. John Wiley & Sons. Jackson, M. C. (2020). Critical systems practice 1: Explore—Starting a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(5), 839-858. Jackson, M. C. (2021). Critical systems practice 2: Produce—Constructing a multimethodological intervention strategy. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 38(5), 594-609 Jackson, M. C. (2022). Critical systems practice 3: Intervene—Flexibly executing a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 39(6), 1014-1023. Jackson, M. C. (2023). Critical systems practice 4: Check—Evaluating and reflecting on a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 40(4), 617-632. Spayd, M. K., & Madore, M. (2020). Agile Transformation: Using the Integral Agile Transformation Framework TM to Think and Lead Differently. Addison-Wesley Professional
35. Contact Information kimpetersen@organizationaldesignexperts.com
37. What help can decision‐makers expect when tackling the “messes” and “wicked problems” that proliferate in this age of complexity? • Decision-makers tend to follow and assume a forecast, plan, organize, lead, and control approach. • This approach relies on there being a predictable future environment in which it is possible to set goals that remain relevant into the foreseeable future; • on enough stability to ensure that tasks arranged in a fixed hierarchy continue to deliver efficiency and effectiveness; • on a passive and unified workforce • on a capacity to take control action based on clear measures of success. These assumptions do not hold in the modern world, and classical management theory provides the wrong prescriptions. This is widely recognized and has led to numerous alternative solutions being offered to business managers and other leaders, for example, lean, six sigma, business analytics, value chain analysis, total quality management, learning organizations, process reengineering, knowledge management, balanced scorecard, outsourcing, and enterprise architecture. Occasionally, they hit the mark or at least shake things up. It is sometimes better to do anything rather than nothing. Usually, however, they fail to bring the promised benefits and can even make things worse. They are simple, “quick‐fix” solutions that flounder in the face of interconnectedness, volatility, and uncertainty. They pander to the notion that there is one best solution in all circumstances and seek to reduce complex problems to the particular issues they can deal with. • They concentrate on parts of the problem situation rather than on the whole, missing the crucial interactions between the parts. They fail to recognize that optimizing the performance of one part may have consequences elsewhere that are damaging for the whole. They often fail to consider an organization’s interactions with its rapidly changing environment. Finally, they don’t acknowledge the importance of multiple viewpoints and internal politics. Fundamentally, they are not systemic enough. In the absence of more thoroughly researched ways forward, however, managers are left to persevere with their favorite panacea in the face of ever diminishing returns or to turn to whatever new fad has hit the market.
38. Structure Processes Rewards Policies People Strategy