Weaving Organisations and Communities — Part two

Working towards Communityship
By Dr. Reg Butterfield
20-minutes read

Image: Original image: Peggy & Marco Lachmann-Anke via Pixabay.com Adapted by: Butterfield & Wirth 2022

In last week’s newsletter (14 August 2022) we introduced the subject of communities, both in the workplace and in society generally. The former was in the form of a community of practice (CoP), which is said to be the only successful form of community introduced in organisations. The reasons for this were discussed and my colleague Dr Ross Wirth and I agree that this is probably true given that almost all organisations are still based on designs that maintain hierarchical control. Such controls are not compatible with those associated with successful communities, which are based on voluntary self-identified participation and management.

We finished the newsletter with a short explanation of the important role of communities in natural ecosystems and described some key elements of the systems that we will refer to later in this newsletter; these being foundation species, keystone species, invasive species, community dynamics, and succession, which describes the appearance and disappearance of species in communities over time.

There are increasing numbers of blogs, articles, and research focusing on the importance of building a community spirit in the workplace. They tend to focus on helping workers feel as part of a community as a strategy to improve both organisational performance and personal well-being.

For example, John Harrison is General Manager and a member of the WebMD senior executive leadership team. With more than 25 years of strategic, client, and operational leadership experience focused on driving strategic engagement. Currently, he is focused on empowering organisations and their populations to improve well-being.

He says, “When your employees feel they’re part of a community, you see a happier, healthier, more engaged workforce — and a better bottom line. And right now, community in the workplace is critical as we adjust to a new, hybrid world of work.” (April 2022). [We discussed the challenges of hybrid working in our newsletters of 15 & 22 May 2022]. In his advice on how to achieve such communities, he also mentions the important relationship of community activities and leadership.

Last week we discussed how a hierarchical leadership role tends to move organisational communities from voluntary employee driven to management directed. Yet Harrison suggests that all leadership needs to be involved in organisational communities for them to be successful. He says that the employees will wonder if their community is allowed if no leadership participates within them. However, this implies a culture of tight control where empowerment is only explicitly granted. Further, active leadership in a community will carry with leader participation the power distance of the leader. in this instance, a community will be formed but only as an extension of the formal organisation. Forming an effective community will require leadership to understand this challenge of moving people who are good followers to a coequal role of participating without fear.

The important difference in what Harrison advises compared to other commentators last week is the role of leadership. Last week it was about leadership taking control, whereas this time it is about leaders being part of the community as active participants; an important distinction to remember as we move forward. This requires some conscious recognition that the leader-follower roles shift when forming an effective community.

When Henry Mintzberg called for ‘communityship’ as a way of operating an organisation he wrote about having “just enough leadership” (2009). He goes on to say, “So maybe it’s time to wean ourselves from the heroic leader and recognize that usually we need just enough leadership — leadership that intervenes when appropriate while encouraging people in the organization to get on with things.” This participation as opposed to control sits nicely with Harrison’s advice.

Research commissioned by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) reinforces this idea of communities at work being important and used Facebook as their focus for data collection. Anna Guo (2022) reports that they identified, “Employees who feel like they belong to a community report a higher level of happiness at work. A sense of community is essential for the growth of a company culture where every person feels connected and respected while working towards shared goals.”

When researching the subject of community, the word happiness is often used when defining how people feel participating in communities. What does this recurring word ‘happiness’ mean in the context of business and community?

Well, it is not that easy to understand. In trying to make sense of this we had to cast our net a bit further because it is not just one simple piece that stands out to be seen and thus fit the jigsaw together. We started with some research undertaken by Fox and Beevers (2016) at the Department of Experimental Psychiatry, Oxford University, UK.

To reduce very complex science to something manageable let’s say the research is about the relationship between genes and environment interactions that lead to positive or negative outcomes. In essence, it proposes that environmental events shape the learning environment that work in concert with genetic variation to produce negative or positive cognitive biases that, in turn, have a powerful influence on the development of negative (anxiety, depression) or positive (happiness, thriving) outcomes. Yes, supportive communities may just help to create a sense of happiness as far as this study is concerned.

Thomas Wright of Kansas State University reported his study in 2009, which found that when employees have high levels of psychological wellbeing and job satisfaction, they perform better and are less likely to leave their job, making happiness a valuable tool for maximising organisational outcomes. The benefits of a psychologically well work force are quite consequential to employers, especially so in our highly troubled economic environment, Wright said. Simply put, psychologically well employees are better performers. Since higher employee performance is inextricably tied to an organisation’s bottom line, employee well-being can play a key role in establishing a competitive advantage.

As space and time is limited in this newsletter, please trust us when we say that these examples are not alone. There is an abundance of research and case studies to demonstrate that the feeling of happiness is a key ingredient to improved worker performance and organisational success. However, there is another element that seems to be important in achieving this feeling of happiness and that is a sense of belonging, which community advocates believe is an important part of community participation.

In 2017 Pat Wador was the HR chief for LinkedIn. Her work and views on the engagement of diverse workforces was moving beyond diversity and inclusion. It is well known that innovation and profitability are driven by unique ideas and experiences that come from employees. Diverse workforces also tend to be more engaged, which brings a real competitive advantage to the businesses that support diversity. However, Wador said, “…we’re still not moving the needle enough,” She meant that diversity and inclusion are necessary but not sufficient for employee engagement; belonging is the missing part of the equation.

Wador goes on to say: Diversity and Inclusion + Belonging = Employee Engagement.

Lack of employee engagement is one of the ongoing problems for organisations currently, which makes it even more important to follow on from what Wador is saying; particularly if communities can assist in resolving this issue. [employee engagement was the focus of our 14 August 2022 newsletter, subscribe to ensure that you do not miss future newsletters].

Wikipedia describes belonging as:

“Belongingness is the human emotional need to be an accepted member of a group. Whether it is family, friends, co-workers, a religion, or something else, some people tend to have an inherent desire to belong and be an important part of something greater than themselves.”

Clearly, belonging has a direct relationship with some form group membership, the very essence of communities.

If we return to the HBR commissioned research at Facebook, this sense of employee engagement and belonging comes together a little more. They identified the three most important factors that employees value the most: career, community, and cause, in that order of priority. This order of priority ran across locations and age groups worldwide with the exception that as the participant age groups were older (>45), then their need for a community was marginally less.

It is understandable that career is an important intrinsic priority, particularly for the younger employees. [We discussed the difficulties around having a career inherent with flatter organisations and the increased use of technology in our June 12, 2022, newsletter, Knowledge Workers].

Community and Cause are arguably intertwined, with each supporting the other and, in their turn, creating an environment for both. The first drives a sense of connection and belonging whilst the second builds value and purpose around and within the community.

It is clear to us that being part of a community has benefits for organisations and its workforce ranging from improved mental health through to personal engagement. However, the focus of the wide range of processes to create communities seem to support the idea of many different forms of community across and within organisations. These range from diversity, special interests, hobbies, and so forth, all of which are in line with the types of community groupings found generally across society outside of organisations. It makes sense because the focus is on voluntary grouping of common interests, which are the foundation of successful communities to date. Some recognition must also be made that these communities are not static but will dynamically evolve over time as more is learned and shared. Membership will change as people leave and join the organisation. The area of interest may also diverge into specialised areas or merge with an adjacent area of interest for mutual benefit.

The community of practice (CoP) that we discussed last week is also a specialised subject area that can take the form of one or more communities in an organisation. We argued that the risk of having more than one CoP for a common area of “interest” may reinforce the silo way of working, which could be to the detriment of the organisation.

The challenge that we have set ourselves is to identify what helps or hinders the creation of an organisation that is one working community with all the benefits that have been extolled towards communities outside of organisations. This ‘communityship’ that Mintzberg is so fond of achieving and sought by the workforces today.

Natural ecosystems and communities

We now look to natural ecosystems to see if there are some clues for us to pick-up and use to develop a community as an organisation. Communities in nature are an important part of how a natural ecosystem survives, flourishes, or dies.

Our reason for looking at the natural world is because we know that communities in nature are complex entities that can be characterised by their structure and dynamics. By structure we mean the types and numbers of species present, and the dynamics are how communities change over time. Natural communities also work well and have ways of ensuring resiliency and continuity even after extreme forms of perturbation. The world of business is certainly experiencing perturbation currently.

As with any form of structure, the ecosystem community starts with its foundation. This is represented by the species that are considered the base or bedrock of a community. They are usually the primary producers, that is, the organisms that bring most of the energy into the community. It is also worthy of note that foundation species may physically modify the environment to produce and maintain habitats that benefit the other organisms that use them. [This is an example of mutualism we discussed in our July 17, 2022, newsletter The Hybridity of Organisations’. We also discuss them in outline later in this newsletter.].

If we look at the types of organisations that humans design and build it is usually easy to identify the foundation species at the early stage of its development. For example, a group of software engineers or finance specialists get together to form a business. Each of these two has their own foundation species, software engineer and finance specialists, respectively. However, in larger more complex organisations it may be more of a challenge to identify these foundational people and a journey back in history may assist here. Also, some larger organisations may have different areas of work that are separate businesses altogether, which may mean different foundation species. For example, an account firm may have diverged into training or management consultancy and the challenge is to identify which is the foundation species.

At this stage you may wonder if it matters, and this is understandable when looking at things in a conventional manner. Our aim is to bring things together through different lenses and so, at this stage, everything matters. For example, the accountants who diverged into the training world may be using a foundational approach that is historically based on their original foundation of finance and yet this is not the most suitable for the world of knowledge transfer, which is more than just delivering courses in finance.

Another aspect of the natural ecosystem that is important to understand in business is the keystone species. In any arrangement or community, the “keystone” is considered one of the most vital parts. A keystone species is one whose presence is key to maintaining biodiversity within an ecosystem and to upholding an ecological community’s structure. As such, it is also an organism that helps define the ecosystem itself and without it, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether.

The keystone may not be so obvious as to stand out for all to identify. For example, a small plant may be important for the survival of the ecosystem, or it may be another life form such as an animal or fish; it takes time and experimentation to identify the keystone(s). It is no different in human organisation ecosystems. The challenge in human organisations is to identify what and where these keystones are. They may take the form of a specialist engineer, a minor administrator role that is taken for granted, or both, for example.

In a changing environment some ecosystems might not be able to adapt to meet the necessary changes if their keystone species disappeared. That could spell the end of the ecosystem, or it could allow an invasive species to take over and dramatically shift the ecosystem in a new direction. Human organisations are no different.

The emergence of an increasingly challenging business environment following COVID, the impact of the war in the Ukraine, the materials shortages, insufficient knowledge workers, and so on means that changes in an organisation’s ecosystem are crucial for survival. This arguably makes it even more important to identify the keystone people or give way to those invasive organisations that have adapted and who are now challenging your position in the market.

These predators who are challenging organisations for control of markets and attracting customers away from the older established businesses are important in the larger context of ecosystems. In the natural world predators help control the populations of prey species, which in turn affects the quantity of plants and animals further along the food web. A shark, for example, will often prey upon old or sick fish, leaving healthier animals to flourish. Predators also encourage wider dispersion and stronger ecosystems as a defence mechanism. It is no different in the business world. The important point here is to be aware that the predators can be viewed as a threat or a catalyst to identify other opportunities that were hidden in a world of complacent major market share. In a linear causation approach the risks of being unaware of opportunities are higher than when an effectuation approach is taken where experimentation is encouraged if the possible downside is affordable.

Another important part of natural ecosystems is the ecosystem engineer. This is an organism that creates, changes, or destroys a habitat. There is perhaps no clearer example of a keystone ecosystem engineer than the beaver. River ecosystems rely on beavers to take down old or dead trees along riverbanks to use for their dams. This allows new, healthier trees to grow in abundance. The dams divert water in rivers, creating wetlands that allow a variety of animals and plants to thrive. In creating its own habitat, the beaver impacts on the larger ecosystem because their activities, although not premeditated or part of a conscious design, create and modify habitats that other species rely upon.

As is the case of many European countries, the UK re-introduced Eurasian beavers to some of its rivers after their absence for 400 years. Whilst this was part of a wildlife strategy that started in 2002 in London and then later in Scotland in 2009, its impact is quite important to understand. The recent and current draught conditions across the UK have led to many rivers drying up completely. Yet, where the beavers are living, there are still areas of swamp remaining because of them building their new habitats.

In human organisational ecosystems the ecosystem engineer is also busy building their own habitat, within a wider ecosystem and often without realising its impact. It is crucial to understand where these are and their impact on the wider organisation ecosystem. Some may be keystones that need to be used or developed, whilst others may need to be adapted or removed with care.

In an earlier newsletter (July 17, 2022) we discussed mutualism. For clarity in this section, we provide a brief overview of what this means in the context of natural ecosystems.

When two or more species in an ecosystem interact for each other’s benefit, they are called mutualists. Bees are a primary example of this. As bees take the nectar from flowers, they collect pollen and spread it from one flower to the next, enhancing the odds of fertilisation and greater flower growth. Nectar and pollen are also the primary food sources for the bees themselves.

Mutualism is also an important part of maximising the benefits of how resources are used within an organisational ecosystem and outside, albeit we will stick to the internal ecosystem for now.

By way of example, many technical organisations have both a mechanical engineering and a software engineering department. Both departments sell products or services to external customers as part of generating income. When the mechanical department can use some of the software from their internal software colleagues as part of the mechanical product development, then we have mutualism. Both departments are benefitting from their association, which also benefits the whole organisation revenue generation process. Importantly, the mutualism does not have a detrimental impact on the ability for the software engineering and mechanical engineering departments to sell their products to external customers.

It is important to identify where such mutualism currently exists in an organisation and where new opportunities can be found. This requires breaking out of the product/service revenue generation linear view, which we suggest is endemic within organisations.

Community dynamics are the changes in community structure and composition over time. Often these changes are induced by environmental disturbances such as volcanoes, fire, storms, earthquakes and so forth. Communities with a stable structure are said to be in equilibrium and following a disturbance a community may or may not be able to return to the equilibrium state.

Succession describes the sequential appearance and disappearance of species in a community over time. In primary succession, newly exposed or newly formed land is colonised by living things; in secondary succession, part of an ecosystem is disturbed, and remnants of the previous community remain.

It is the same with human organisations. An example of primary succession is where an organisation uses its current communities and builds new ones that support an expanding ecosystem as they propagate new business areas; arguably Amazon and Haier are two good examples of this process, which includes being a pioneer. Insofar as the secondary succession goes, some may be surprised when we use Kodak as an example. Kodak was broken up, lost or sold its patents and all but vanished from the highstreets it dominated for decades. Now, newly energised as Eastman Kodak, it is a thriving business in many of its old industrial areas as well as some smaller consumer fields. As in nature, it may be a long time before it reaches its equilibrium point, yet it is on its way building its strength again.

A final keystone for this discussion is that of competition, which is also discussed in our newsletter of 17 July 2002. Briefly, competition is a relationship between organisms that strive for the same resources in the same place. The resources might be food, water, or space. There are two different types of competition: Intraspecific competition occurs between members of the same species. For example, two male birds of the same species might compete for mates in the same area. This type of competition is a basic factor in natural selection. It leads to the evolution of better adaptations within a species. Interspecific competition occurs between members of different species. For example, predators of different species might compete for the same prey.

Competitive behaviour can have both a positive and negative outcome and whilst these were discussed in more detail in our prior newsletter, it is important to be aware of this in the context of identifying ways to create “communityship”, a community wide organisational structure and behaviour with the minimal of leadership or management intervention.

In this and last week’s newsletter we have identified that being part of a community can be a way of improving health, motivation, and happiness. We also indicated that they may also attribute to a sense of belonging, which can lead to improved engagement of people and their source of employment.

There is evidence that it is not easy to create an organisation-wide community and that in most cases the communities exist in small groups of like-minded people. This is reinforced from an increasingly common practice of encouraging communities of practice in organisations as a key to organisational and individual learning and knowledge management.

In our quest to find an organisational form that is more a community of motivated and engaged citizens as opposed to a structure that is run via power systems that create compliance, we turned to natural ecosystems. Natural ecosystems have a long history of survival in different forms. We explored how this is achieved by making sense of how ecosystems are created, developed, and their survival mechanisms.

This has led to a series of what may be called Principles, which when brought together can help us explore organisations in terms of how they may or may not operate successfully within broader human organisational ecosystems. This will be the subject of further newsletters.