Organizational Illusions
Part III of the series on organizations, organizational cultures, and change management
Table of Contents
↳ 1.a. The last post about the “mystery of the social” as starting point
↳ 1.b. Why is this important?
2. Illusions of management / control by leaders / managers
3. Illusions of intervention
4. Illusions of anticipation and planning
5. Illusions of personal attribution
↳ 5.a. The scapegoat variant
↳ 5.b. The variant of the heroic leader or heroic management style
6. Conclusion
1.a. The last post about the “mystery of the social” as starting point
A key message of the last post in this series on organizations, organizational cultures, and change management was that the social, understood here as the coordination of human behavior, is a mystery for which sociology, in particular, always tries to come up with new solutions.
Among these solutions, theories of social emergence such as
- The theory of complex adaptive systems (CAS)
- Social network theories or
- Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems
are currently among the most attractive.
Interestingly, none of this is a problem for common sense!
Why not?
Well, most people are usually satisfied if they can resort to
- Simple collections of individuals
- Social containers (such as families, organizations, states/nations, and entire societies)
or can, vaguely, refer to
- Collective phenomena like collective consciousness, collective memory, and so on.
However, in a literal sense, (nested) containers are as nonsensical as nebulous collective phenomena projected from the instance of individual consciousness onto the modes of social coordination
Hint: Insofar as we can’t short-circuit our thought processes with each other, it generally makes no sense to speak of collective phenomena in this context. Ergo: no social mind, no intersubjectivity, etc.
In brief, common sense (non-)solutions tend to be simply metaphors that allow everyday communication to continue — without having to ask too many uncomfortable questions about the social.
In other words, we generally take the social dimension, especially its emergence, for granted and do not question its evidence in everyday life!
1.b. Why is this important?
The understanding of the social in general and organizations in particular, i.e. the associated concepts/metaphors, ideologies and theories, etc., strongly influences which strategies and tactics are recommended or used with regard to organizational dynamics (leadership, formal organizational structures, informal organizational cultures, and all kinds of project initiatives, for example).
Therefore, this third part of our series deals with a few central illusions regarding organizations such as illusions of:
- Management / control (by leaders / managers)
- Intervention
- Anticipation and planning
- Personal attribution
Understanding those organizational illusions can help develop an awareness of the problem of the non-evidence of the social or organizations, because as the German sociologist and organizational consultant, Stefan Kühl, rightly points out in his book Organizations. A Short Introduction (2014):
[..] most of us take it for granted that organizations exist and don`t question what they are and how they work.
2. Illusions of management / control by leaders / managers
A common problem is that many (?) managers/leaders sometimes still seem to believe that organizations are like machines in which simplistic and linear-reductionist notions of
- Causality
- Planning (anticipation)
- Management / control and
- Intervention
apply.
According to this organizational machine metaphor, superiors have also sufficient power, control and knowledge so that any outcome is the result of specific actions or decisions, ignoring the complex interplay of multiple factors (e.g. power plays, influences, micropolitics, streams of communications, professional values/ideologies, network contacts, and, in general, the informality of the organizational culture) within the organizations.
In brief, leaders may believe they have complete control over the outcomes in their organization. This can lead to overconfidence and not taking into account the complexity of the organization that is at play at any given time, especially when it comes to change initiatives!
What can you do instead as a leader / manager? For example, you could:
- Sensitize yourself and develop an understanding of when simplicity or implexity (Jean-Louis LeMoigne) in the sense of reduced complexity are trumps — and when they aren’t (see our series on complexity basics — in particular part IV).
- Involve organizational consultants who have a background in complexity theory and systemics.
- Practice a management style that is based on post-heroic humbleness and insights of complexity leadership.
3. Illusions of intervention
In conjunction with
- The organizational illusions of management and control mentioned above
- The metaphor of trivial machines
- An analytical-reductionist mindset oriented toward a cult of simplicity and linear causality,
illusions of intervention are also cherished.
These often lead to the belief that any intervention will lead to a predictable and desired / anticipated outcome. However, due to the complexity and interdependence of multiple elements within an organization, interventions can have unpredictable and non-linear effects!
Interventionism can also go hand in hand with scope naiveté regarding organizational / digital transformation projects. That is:
- Leaders / managers tend to underestimate the power or inertia of the organizational culture, so that change initiatives are often absorbed, i.e. rendered relatively ineffective.
- Or, vice versa, they overestimate the organization’s ability to implement change effectively and efficiently.
4. Illusions of anticipation and planning
The traditional notions of anticipation and planning have acquired a bad reputation in recent decades. For instance:
- The Agile movement in software development has criticized the view that the future is predictable and controllable by
- Setting clear goals.
- Following a detailed plan in advance.
- Using a document-heavy waterfall model that tends to ignore a changing environment. - The Lean Startup approach has done a similar thing for new business models. This means that entrepreneurs can’t anticipate and plan in detail how customers will react to innovative products or services before they‘re launched on the market.
The reason is that customers’ needs and preferences are often unknown or change quickly in the face of innovation. - With François Jullien’s book A Treatise on Efficacy, the criticism of anticipation and planning concepts of the Western strategy tradition can be radicalized even further in comparison to its Chinese counterpart. Namely as follows:
- Fixation on models: Western thinking often relies on models for planning and action. This approach requires that the model must be validated or proven effective before being implemented.
- Goal orientation: in the Western tradition, the emphasis is also on setting clear goals and then taking actionable steps to achieve them. This contrasts with the Chinese approach, which emphasizes adapting to circumstances and let things take their auto-dynamic course.
- Voluntaristic and direct action to achieve the anticipated results, which often involves overcoming a resisting reality. Here the Chinese tradition resorts to the concept of transformation, which is about subtly influencing situations and, again, allowing things to change naturally.
- Taking advantage of fortunate opportunities that elude rational, voluntaristic planning: this is contrary to the Chinese approach as well, which is about recognizing the inherent tendencies of situations and adapting to them.
What do those approaches have in common?
In my opinion, they’re united by a fundamental uncertainty that concerns the factual, temporal and social dimensions, which are characterized by dynamic complexity and non-predictability.
In order to deal with that uncertainty, other strategies make more sense in the
- Factual dimension: incrementalism and experimental orientation.
- Temporal dimension: a radical shortening of time horizons.
- Social dimension: a quasi-evolutionary adaptability based on immediate feedback loops beyond traditional end-goal-means rationality and ideas of voluntarism.
etc.
All this doesn’t mean that all planning activities are now obsolete!
However, it does mean that non-traditional planning today must take those strategies into account in one way or another (see, for example, agile planning approaches).
5. Illusions of personal attribution
It’s a common strategy that organizations as social sytems tend to attribute socio-systemic characteristics to persons.
This personalization strategy comes in two variants:
- The scapegoat variant
- The variant of the hero-leader
5.a. The scapegoat variant
Organizations like to personalize their issues and especially crises by using various attributions (causality, focus on individual intentions/motives, guilt, etc.).
The search for individual scapegoats and the associated replacement of personnel are then seen as quick, simple and effective solutions to solve problems, restore stability and rebuild the trust of the internal workforce and / or external public.
Nevertheless, these distraction and impression management strategies aren’t suitable for addressing the underlying problems, e.g. of power/influence, micro-politics, formal structure, organizational culture, etc. within an organization!
Therefore, an organization should focus less on the tip of the iceberg and more on analyzing and addressing the problems below the surface. At least if it wants to ensure both its adaptability to a dynamic environment and its success in the medium and long term.
Primarily cosmetic measures based on personal attributions, on the other hand, aren’t enough in this context!
5.b. The variant of the heroic leader or heroic management style
In basketball, the expression hero ball is often used (pejoratively) when a player is supposed to or wants to provide the victories in the decisive moments taking a lot of low-percentage shots.
Similarly, in business, the focus is sometimes on the heroic leader who, as a manager/corporate leader, is supposed to have control over all aspects of the organization:
- This heroic management approach is traditionally characterized by a hierarchical system with strictly defined tasks and responsibilities based on authority and control.
- But it can also refer to playing hero ball in an organization to save projects, meet deadlines or defuse other organizational crises.
- This can go so far that some of these company leaders, e.g. in the case of Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, are given the status of quasi-rock stars.
Of course, basketball is a team sport in which no one can win championships with hero ball alone. Similarly, constant hero ball in organizations is a symptom of the fact that there is a lot going wrong — which goes (far) beyond the control of any heroic leader!
With reference to the German sociologist Dirk Baecker, we could hence formulate that both great sports teams and excellent organizations must be primarily post-heroic — if they want to be successful in the long term!
6. Conclusion
In this Medium post, we’ve discussed some key organizational illusions (and also a few counter-strategies):
- Illusions of management and control where managers / leaders tend to believe they have complete control over their organizations, viewing them as machines that operate based on simplistic and linear notions of causality, planning, etc.
This can lead to overconfidence and a failure to account for the complexity of the organization. - Illusions of intervention: These illusions are often linked to an analytical-reductionist mindset and also the organizational metaphor of trivial machines.
They lead then to the belief that any intervention will result in a predictable and desired outcome, ignoring the complexity and interdependence of multiple factors within an organization. - Illusions of anticipation and planning: Traditional notions of anticipation and planning have been severely criticized in recent decades, particularly by the Agile movement in software development, the Lean Startup approach for new business models and in François Jullien’s book A Treatise on Efficacy.
A common denominator of all those approaches is that the future is neither predictable nor controllable, and that detailed plans often fail to account for changing environments and customer needs. - Illusions related to personal attribution. Here we‘ve distinguished between two popular variants:
- The scapegoat variant where organizations attribute their issues and crises to individuals, viewing the replacement of personnel as a quick and effective solution.
However, this strategy fails to address underlying systemic problems within the organization, such as power dynamics, micro-politics, and organizational culture.
- The heroic leader and management variant: This variant focuses on the idea of a heroic leader who has control over all aspects of the organization, similar to hero ball in basketball, where a player single-handedly tries to win games.
However, just as championships in team sports can’t be won by one player alone, organizations can’t function effectively with constant hero ball.
In order to be successful in the medium and long term, organizations should instead adopt a post-heroic management style.
In sum, those illusions can limit our understanding of organizations (and other complex social systems as well).
However, by recognizing and studying them, we can better appreciate the complexity, interdependence, and dynamism of such systems.
That said, illusions are one thing, paradoxa are another. But that is the topic of our next post on Medium.
Thanks for reading and, hopefully, see you in the next post Paradoxa of Organizations. Part IV of our series on organizations, organizational cultures and change management!
Author for WAITS Software und Prozessberatungsgesellschaft mbH, Cologne, Germany: Peter Bormann — December 2023.
