Hack:
Organizations as Living Systems - Crafting a New Story to Get New Results

By Michelle Holliday - Principal at Cambium Consulting

January 7, 2011 at 7:55am

living systems theory

organizational theory

Moonshots

Focus the work of management on a higher purpose

Enable communities of passion

Rethink the philosophical foundations of management

Summary

It is difficult even to imagine truly dramatic innovation in management until we develop a different concept of the organization. In contrast to the current machine metaphor, there is overwhelming evidence that organizations are living systems. Our key challenge is to craft a new guiding story based on this insight.

Problem

The problems we face (in organizations, in the natural environment, in society) are a result of today's dominant guiding story, which tells us (1) that we are all separate from each other and from nature, (2) that the universe, including our organizations, operates like a machine, and (3) that we exist primarily to compete and consume. The actions that seem logical and inevitable according to this story have proven to be unsustainable. And only with a new guiding story will we be able to conceive of a full set of economic behaviors that are at once "logical and inevitable" and sustainable.

This new story is emerging all around us, though few have connected the dots. Why does a flat, networked organization now seem the better choice, when we've relied on rigid hierarchy for so long? Why do we need to engage the passion of people within, when for so long we've considered them simply "labor"? Why do we need to engage customers in meaningful conversation, when for so long it was enough to deliver a quality product? The answer is that each of these is a move in the direction of resilience, adaptability and creativity. In other words, it's a move in the direction of life.

Without a clearly articulated and comprehensive alternative story, these new strategies remain awkward and unnatural to implement. They continue to encounter resistance -- despite clear evidence of their success -- because they are at odds with the machine story.

It's time to update the organizational operating system so that it can comfortably, naturally accommodate these new strategies and so that we can respond to the serious problems created by the outgoing system.

Solution

The solution involves two levels of activity: (1) a practical framework to guide strategy and action, based on the view of organizations as living systems, and (2) a global open-source conversation to update the guiding story about organizations.

1. The Practical Framework: Derived from extensive research into the common pattern of thriving living systems and successful organizations, the Engagement Competency Model is a comprehensive framework for engaging customers and employees on a sustainable basis. It has been tested and honed over the past five years at a wide range of client organizations. (See Helpful Materials below for a quick overview of the model. And see www.cambiumconsulting.com for case studies.)

The pattern of living systems (including organizations) involves four defining characteristics:

1. There are individual parts (people in the organization, along with their unique contributions). The more divergence, the more the living system will be resilient, adaptive and creative.

2. There is a whole (formed in organizations by convergence around a shared purpose -- usually service to a customer or community). The more convergence (for example, the more compelling that shared purpose and so the more the organization remains consistent and recognizable even as individual people come and go), the more the living system will be resilient, adaptive and creative.

3. There is a dynamic pattern of relationship (the physical and conceptual infrastructure of the organization). The more open and free-flowing the relationships, the more resilient, adaptive and creative the living system will be.

4. There is what biologists call a "self-integrating property." This means that by itself, the living system integrates divergent contributions into a convergent whole in dynamic relationship internally and externally, in an ongoing process of self-organization and self-creation. In other words, it's what makes the living system alive. That's life.

When we recognize that organizations follow this four-part pattern of living systems, we see that we need to build the intrinsic capability to:

* Enable individual people within the organization to bring the fullness of their divergence.

* Engage the loyalty of the customer or community being served (this provides convergence).

* Design an infrastructure that connects and supports the first two things dynamically and sustainably.

These are the fertile conditions necessary to enable an organization to thrive at all levels.

At face value, this may appear to be nothing new. We've known for decades about the importance of diversity, shared purpose, and team-building, for example.

But a few things happen when we acknowledge the fourth part of the living systems pattern (life).

First, we begin to add depth, detail and meaning to each of these three strategies, which until now have been applied quite mechanistically and superficially.

Second, we discover a new role for ourselves as hosts or gardeners creating the fertile conditions for life to do its self-integrative thing, rather than mechanics re-engineering the machine.

Third, we begin to recognize the emergent collective wisdom of the ecosystem that is the organization (including people within, customers and community). And with this recognition, we can begin to listen for the voice of the whole even as we honor the needs of the divergent parts.

Finally, we begin to recognize that life is the true bottom line and that contributing to life is our ultimate reason for coming together in organization. And that changes everything.

One last note: every living system has mechanistic properties. Your heart is a pump. Your lungs are filters. These mechanistic characteristics are just not the most interesting or powerful aspects of who you are. And the same is true of our organizations. There is no need to abandon all the strategies we've developed to date. We just need to add a layer of living tissue to the machine.

2. The Global Conversation: Our economic entities need a viable and compelling new operating system -- a new collective story about how organizations and economies work and what choices and actions are appropriate. By the same token, we need a comprehensive field guide to move forward into that new story.

To this end, our intention is to host a global open-source conversation to co-create the new operating system. We will offer the basic pattern of all living systems and our research and experience around its practical implications as the original kernel to get things started, just as Linus Torvalds offered the original kernel of Linux. The global community will then add to it and improve on it.

The starting pattern and research will be offered in a variety of forms:

* In written detail online

* In short documentary videos about the theoretical research and about existing paradigm pioneers

* In a series of online slideshows like Humanity 4.0

* In live presentations and workshops around the world.

We will engage people in crafting the field guide in several ways:

* Online moderated discussion on specific aspects, with emerging insights integrated into the field guide.

* Local monthly self-organizing gatherings (like Thrivability Montreal) supported with a series of compelling questions, a prescribed format and facilitation guidance -- their harvests would be posted to the website, with emerging insights integrated into the field guide. More than just intellectual explorations, these gatherings would also guide people into new ways of thinking and acting together.

* A series of summits like the Amplify festival and Wisdom 2.0 designed to teach (both intellectually and experientially) and also to add collectively to existing wisdom.

* Online opportunities for people to share their stories, examples, wishes, visions.

This way, the new operating system will not be "our" framework -- it won't belong to any one person or organization. It will be humanity's framework. And so it stands a better chance of being "right," valuable and broadly adopted.

Though a new guiding story is needed in most facets of our lives, we will start with the one that shapes organizations because (a) organizations are arguably the most influential – and destructive -- force on the planet and (b) a critical mass of individuals is ready to cross into new ways of thinking and behaving, but they are held back by the story at the level of their organizations. The core question we'll explore is "What are the guiding principles and what is the strategic framework for creating thrivable organizations?"

Then in future years the same process can be conducted for healthcare, government, education, built space, and possibly other topics. If we can transform business, it will be much easier to transform other spheres of our lives.

Early in the process, we'll sign on a publisher to publish the collective work at the end of 2011 (or whatever timeframe seems appropriate). This will give the project a clear deadline and a practical convergent intention (the larger convergent intention being to save humanity and to usher in better ways of working and living).

We'll also release a feature-length documentary film in 2012 documenting the process, summarizing the field guide's main points and highlighting paradigm pioneers.

We will fund the movement through a mix of foundation grants, sponsorships and crowdfunding.

Practical Impact

It is difficult to overestimate the potential impact of a global conversation to craft a new story about economies, organizations and our own working lives. Similarly, a comprehensive and practical framework for stewarding organizations as living systems has the power to change every aspect of our lives. We all interact with organizations, either through our work, through our purchases or through our roles in society. As the common understanding of organizations evolves, so will their every interaction.

On a smaller level, we have seen the following practical impact in our client organizations:

- Higher levels of employee engagement and participation

- Increased customer loyalty

- More powerful branding and communication, emanating from the passions of people within as much as from the desires of customers and community.

- More efficient and effective ways of working together, with solutions suggested and stewarded by people within

- Higher levels of creativity and innovation.

In short, we have seen our client organizations become more resilient, adaptive and creative. We have seen them become not only more sustainable, but more thrivable.

First Steps

In reality, the Engagement Competency Model contains elements that we already know. For example, the three competencies necessary to engage the (divergent) passions of people within are Mastery, Membership and Meaning. Many organizations are already working on these things -- in most cases, at a superficial level. The Model invites them to consider going deeper. In one example, Mastery becomes not just skill at doing the job, but the mastery of an artisan, in which people are able to bring something unique of themselves into their work and in which they have a high level of autonomy over their work. In this way, the Model can be used immediately as a simple diagnostic tool and prescriptive guide. In particular, it offers a holistic and comprehensive view of all an organization's strategies, supporting coherence throughout the organization's activities.

To get the full value and impact of the model and the new story that underlies it, though, the best starting point is to gather a small group of leaders for a conversation to determine their openness to this new way of thinking -- and to new ways of thinking about their role, in particular. If there is a reasonable level of openness, the conversation can be extended to the entire organization.

Living systems theory need not be explained to every person within the organization. Paradigm pioneers like W.L. Gore, Semco and Whole Foods operate according to the pattern of living systems without ever explicitly acknowledging it as such. Most important, however, is that leaders embrace the role of host, creating the fertile conditions for life to self-organize and self-integrate.

Documents

Introduction to Engagement Competency Model_0.pdf

Videos

Humanity 4.0

View more presentations from Michelle Holliday.

You need to register in order to submit a comment.

Sort By: Latest Oldest Likes Replies

June 30, 2011 at 5:34am

Ellen Weber

As I read your thoughtful words I framed this mind-bending hack into 10 questions we each could ask client groups as starters . All based on new neuro discoveries that may also help us to leave behind baggage from broken systems in favor of brainpowered tools for the finer narrative you invite.

Thanks for the inspiration, Michelle, you model well what you invite in your words!

Brainpowered Questions from Michelle’s Challenge for a New Story – to Trigger new Entry Points:

1). What does your organization do daily to support stories of innovation from all?

2). If you could create a new guiding story for this organization what would be your first line and your takeaway?

3). What part of current dominant stories could improve with your help and a risk you take today?

4). How can the mechanistic organization that leaves behind humanity become a fluid human and intelligent approach to propel finer human stories of growth?

5). How can marketing become more of what John Hagel describes in his book, The Power of Pull – where small moves in your day, smartly made, can set big things in motion?

6. How can Dan Oestreich’s Team Trust Survey help to build trust it takes to restore people as capital – ahead of competition that puts down many to raise a few – often unfairly – and without innovative results for all?

7). How can you add to the dialogue generated here engage thoughtful and respectful tone to plummet the surface of deep issues raised in ways that promote innovative solutions?

8). What mental equipment will you engage to improve trust and move deeper as opposed to groups that create gridlock based on Michelle’s description of a broken story?

9). What will be your ROI for care, diversity and trust today?

10). How could your reconfigured story today – add new acts of novelty that could help to rejuvenate stories that better serve humanity and intelligence?

Good luck on your PhD, Michelle! We often do professional development with university faculty and enjoy the process – yet find many of the same troubling speed-bumps you identified here. The change you suggest and we support sounds refreshing!

My Mita approach to new stories – based on research in the Mita Manifesto for Renewal would embrace your directions fully! I especially value parts that show evidence of innovative growth. Like you, I see change, and I see others hold out for more of the same structures that frame stories without ROI for many. On the good side, there’ve been several PhD’s on Mita now (in several countries) and I am watching amazing change as a result of people adding their stories with the spirit and story concept you addressed here brilliantly. Stay blessed!

June 23, 2011 at 11:45am

Dan Oestreich

What I love about your model, Michelle, is that fourth piece, "the self-integrating property," which relates, as I see it, to all levels, individual, group, organization, society, and globe. If I read you correctly, you are especially honoring this property by convening a conversation to create a new story. In a way, although the word hasn't been used much here, this seems like a primary function of consciousness itself, which always has the capacity to step back, recognize patterns, and with disruption, re-integrate: telling a new story. As I look at organizational cultures, I see again and again the patterns, but not necessarily this meta-consciousness, and even when it is reported, and people agree on the existing patterns, they may have some difficulty changing them, per Argyris's work on defensive routines. What I find profoundly encouraging in the transcending of mechanistic views is the release -- and trust in -- ever higher forms of integration. It's, to me, very much like simply trusting in the patterns of the universe, which are out there to reawaken a deeper sense of self, a more congruent sense of team, a wholistic view of organizations, and global possibilities. Talk about alignment with nature! We become exponents and exemplars of an evolution that is natural expressed through our choices to follow a deeper thread.

June 23, 2011 at 8:07pm

Michelle Holliday

Thanks very much for this thoughtful, insightful comment, Dan. I'm with you about that fourth piece. And yes, I often talk about it as consciousness itself. More often, I refer to it as life, though, in part because I think that will help us reconnect with our sense of awe about the marvel that life is; it will help us sense our unity within the whole of life; and this combination will invite the deep and expansive compassion we need to move toward more sustainable ways of being. As we recognize the pattern of living systems (or thepatterns of the universe, as you say), we can intentionally work with that pattern at all levels, as you point out. Very exciting!

You might be interested to know that I've gathered a Community of Practice of organizational leaders and consultants around the organizational framework described above (the Engagement Competency Model). We're dividing our time between (1) the tangible aspects of the model (representing the first three characteristics of living systems) and (2) actively developing our "thrivable leadership" - our ability to host that self-integrating property. For this second piece, we're talking about it as evolving our consciousness.

June 27, 2011 at 8:49am

Dan Oestreich

You are very welcome, Michelle. Your work is a stunning opening into new thinking. I believe as we embrace our own personal learning edges -- and help one another with those edges -- the self-integrating property comes forward to support us in quite wonderful and mysterious ways.

I wonder, if and when you have time, you'd mind dropping by my own most recent hack. I could certainly use your perceptive feedback to help me with my own evolution!

June 7, 2011 at 9:42am

David Arella

Michelle,

I enjoyed your challenge to evoke and invoke more of our humanity into organizations. The Humanity 4.0 presentation was inspiring, too. I'd like to propose a practical extension to your suggestion about the value of "conversation" and add on another biology analogy for seeking a better understanding of organizations.

In the middle 1800’s Louis Pasteur and Agostino Bassi proposed the radical idea that something invisible was killing the animals. Their hypothesis, known today as germ theory, was highly controversial, but their carefully designed experiments gradually gained converts and lifted a shroud that led to numerous breakthroughs. This work, coupled with advancements in the technology of the microscope, was the foundation of Microbiology.

I propose we are on the verge of a similar breakthrough in the “biology” of enterprises. Similar to animal cells, information exchange is the smallest component of an action that results in a new outcome. The interpersonal exchange that creates action is the dialog that takes place between a requester and a performer. Like cells in our bodies, how well these conversations are functioning (i.e. how well they are crafted, nurtured, tracked, and evaluated) has a direct relationship on how well the whole organism-enterprise performs.

By deconstructing, we can readily see that all initiatives are the result of a network of requester-performer conversations. We know these conversations are going on, but there is currently no effective means to evaluate their “health” and impact on the enterprise. Technology, analogous to the microscope, is coming which wil enable us to “see” these in-progress conversations, and once we can see them, we will open up new opportunities to improve the health of the whole organism. You can read more at my blog article (http://4spires.com/blog/2010/11/something-invisible-is-killing-the-anima...).

June 8, 2011 at 7:02am

Michelle Holliday

Hello again, David. I'm afraid my previous response must come across quite harshly. I'm sorry if it did. I'm quite passionate about all of this, and brief written comments aren't the best way to convey emotion - it often comes through as something negative.

Besides that, what brought me back to comment again is that last night I participated in a meeting that was run according to Robert's Rules of Order. Those rules were extremely helpful in supporting the group in their conversation. It didn't feel very natural, but it was productive. It made me think of your software system and that the software may provide the similar guidance and containment so that the group's objectives can be met. In the Robert's Rules of Order example, their goal was siimply to share information and make decisions collectively. There was no creativity, no invitation to new commitments. So it was appropriate to use quite a mechanistic methodology for the conversation. But this wouldn't necessarily be appropriate for all conversations.

June 8, 2011 at 12:38pm

David Arella

Michelle, thanks for the comprehensive replies. Passion is a good thing. I did have a couple clarifying comments to share.

As you point out Robert's Rules, albeit unnatural and confining, does support the group's conversation. Our solution is intended to be much more natural. We like to think about more as a kind of third party who is facilitating the conversation between the two parties. We've worked hard to make it feel more like an email dialog with just a little bit more structure. In fact the most likely user is someone who already carries on task and delivery conversations in email, but is frustrated by the difficulty of tracking and following up on all those email messages in their out box.

And just to clarify, our solution does not only support requester-to-performer conversations, but also conversations between an offeror and a customer. The key in both cases is that two parties have made a clear agreement to change the future.

June 8, 2011 at 6:27pm

Michelle Holliday

Well, OK! That sounds very helpful, particularly in requester-to-performer or offerer-and-customer conversations. I didn't understand this at first glance, so I'm glad the Robert's Rules of Order experience brought me back for a second look. Thanks for graciously offering clarification.

June 7, 2011 at 10:54am

Michelle Holliday

Hi David! Thank you very much for this fantastic, thought-provoking comment. I enjoyed reading your blog post. And I'm excited by the differences of opinion it brings up. It's always fun to explore and learn from the places where people diverge from each other.

First, I agree that there is value in providing the means to improve our ways of communicating and collaborating. And sometimes that means assessing the quality of commitments and conversations.

However, you may have seen in the Humanity 4.0 slideshow that living systems have 4 defining characteristics: individual parts, an emergent whole, a network of relationships and a self-integrating property that can be thought of as the spark of life. All of these are present in organizations, too. The first three are the basic fertile conditions necessary to engage the fourth, to bring a system to full, vibrant life. You're talking about the quality of certain interactions - this falls under the category of relationships. But when you started to talk about the smallest component of action in organizations, I thought you were going to say the self-integrative life within the system. That, to me, is more analogous to the germ theory of microbiologists. It's invisible, but we see its effects. And without nurturing the life that animates the system - that creates the will to connect and collaborate --tracking and assessing every conversation stands a hit-or-miss chance of leading to desired outcomes. We can have a hyper-efficient phone line, but if it's connecting people who have little to say to each other, it's not going to bring about very interesting results.

Think about conversation-based OD methodologies like Appreciative Inquiry, that helps groups explore what is "life-giving," or the World Cafe and Open Space Technology, that invite the collective wisdom of the group to emerge and be articulated. These are powerful processes, and not because every word is tracked and assessed. They are powerful because they invite people to be fully alive in the process. When you unleash will, passion and purpose, you get amazing results, generally without any monitoring or measuring needed (though, of course, supporting infrastructure is helpful).

You compared the health of our cells to that of conversations, saying that their performance is a function of "how well they are crafted, nurtured, tracked and evaluated." To me, that creates the image of a person living in a laboratory, with every cell being monitored and evaluated, moment by moment. This is not a prescription for optimal health for our bodies. On the contrary, it would quickly sap the life out of a person. And I can't imagine it would be fully nurturing for our conversations either. By its nature, life is self-managing. And it's too complex for us to manage on its behalf.

Also, you've said that "all initiatives are the result of a network of requester-performer conversations." This is a very mechanistic conception of what happens in an organization. Sometimes this will be the case, but more often (especially in situations of complexity and creativity), conversations are emergent, living processes, where ideas are generated by the group and commitments are offered in service to a convergent purpose rather than at the specific request of a supervisor. I would be nervous about a software program that locked a group into only "requester-performer conversations."

Still, I can imagine the value of software that were fully in service to what people chose to commit to, prompting them to input information where it would serve their goals, helping them make connections. And I can imagine the value of feedback about how well information and commitments are flowing through the system. With that information, the group could then assess why things aren't flowing effectively in one area. They could potentially discover, for example, that there isn't much passion behind one initiative and decide to scrap it or to change the people involved. And maybe that's what you have in mind.

In this case, my only caution would be that we shouldn't put people in service to the tracking and assessing machine. The machine has to serve the people. It has to serve life.

January 18, 2011 at 8:08am

bob farey

I agree trying to "change" ineffective senior managers is hard. In fact I believe it is impossible. This is because the CEO is weak or does not understand the problem. Why do CEO's not keep abreast of "up to the minute" thinking with respect to improving business performance? One housing association, in an extremely short period of time, reduced time to complete notified repairs by 75% AT HALF THE COST. Are other housing associations clamouring to find out the approach used? No. Do firms that are struggling in this "recession" see that they must become more effective? No! - they make valued members of staff redundant rather than becoming more efficient and effective and grabbing a bigger slice of the cake.

January 13, 2011 at 7:59am

Rick Trask

Hi Michelle - thanks for writing this article. It, and the comments, provide a large number of topics and it is hard to know where to start. For many years I have believed that organisations are alive and that living systems provide excellent reference points for how to manage them.

On a practical note, I think I understand how your Engagement Competency Model works - I've also found it useful to look at organisations as organisationally closed, materially and energically open, and constantly evolving and self-creating. I think your matrix topics would fit into these areas. If I can support this initiative in any way please let me know.

January 13, 2011 at 10:06am

Michelle Holliday

Rick, thanks for your supportive and friendly comment. I'm so glad to know about you -- I found my way to your website (www.livingteams.com) and it's clear that we're on the same journey.

Would you like to share a bit here about your approach or about an example from your work? I'm eager to learn more, and it might help shed light on what I'm talking about.

January 17, 2011 at 10:11am

Rick Trask

Michelle, up to now I've struggled to explain my approach in a way that allows people in organisations to relate to it. While a living systems perspective has informed my work I haven't used it as my USP when talking to clients. However, and I know it sounds cliched, I've now started playing around with talking about the 'health' of an organisation or team. In a way this assumes that the team/organisation is alive without having to get into the definitions of what that means. Once we have established the discussion in terms of health, there are many metaphors that can then be used that people seem to understand.

For example: Is the team conscious and coherent (able to keep its integrity and purpose)? How mature is it (can it self organise and manage key relationships)? Is it flexible and resiliant (respond appropriately to key feedback and adjust)? Is it able to sustain itself (are the right resources available and are they being utilised effectively)?

Of course, if clients are then interested in understanding the theory and where this stuff comes from I'm more than happy to talk about it. I just need to figure out how to stop!

January 11, 2011 at 12:57am

bob farey

Michelle and Jeremy - thanks for the feedback, and I assure you I was not being negative or silly. In my opinion, the only way to improve "management" as a whole is to drastically improve individual companies or organisations, and publicise this, to in effect force the rest to change their ways. Of course, the root cause is the CEO, that person is in effect tolerating or even advocating bad behaviours. Empower individuals - encourage innovation - definitely the way to go, but, this threatens managers who, possibly through no fault of their own, are in highly paid jobs but don't know how to manage. I could give examples, but as we use our true names here, I won't, so as not to embarrass or upset.

January 11, 2011 at 11:30am

Jeremy Clark

Bob, there's clearly a large group of professional managers and executives in the typical corporation with a lot to lose if power devolves. This strikes me as one of the root causes behind the need for a new narrative about business: the apparatchiks, as Gary describes them, who stand in the way of change because their power and prestige depend on the status quo. Somehow the living systems narrative needs to include this group, give them a valid role in the healthy functioning of the whole. The best of today's managers see their role as enabling the creativity and potential of their reports, not delegating work and meting out punishments or rewards. There needs to be some sort of role transition for the apparatchiks to this new mode.

I suggest several possible (partial) solutions: 1) mid-career learning program for managers where they see servant leaders at work; 2) inverting the power model such that subordinates vote for their boss (as WL Gore teams do); 3) redesigning executive compensation programs to bias a greater proportion of at-risk compensation to directly supporting the goals of subordinates. Any of these would be meaningless without comprehensive process reform also, of course: no good having a born-again manager if you are not empowered in a real sense to innovate or take decisions.

Sounds like something that might be tractable by experiments led by the human capital executive within a large company that has recognized the limits of hierarchy.

Michelle - is there a living systems simile for this conversion of a growth-arresting component to something more productive? I'd offer metamorphosis but that's way too many syllables! Just kidding, Bob.... ;)

January 11, 2011 at 12:26pm

Michelle Holliday

Thanks for these insightful thoughts, Jeremy.

You're so right that we need to do all the things you listed. And as you said, there's still the need for process reform -- I would actually say there's a need for embracing the importance of process, as just as important as accomplishment. This is a key component of living systems thinking (the dynamic relationship part of the pattern). If you think of an organization as a machine, then it's all about pushing buttons and pulling levers to get the machine to produce an output. This is the way many managers operate -- like the ones Bob described. If my goal is most of all to achieve an end result without sufficient regard for how I got to that result - without valuing process and relationships, without valuing and attending to the health of the system and all the people within it -- I may win the battle but lose the war. It's like raising children -- it's not as important to me how well they do on any one homework assignment (though I do set clear and high standards for them), but did they grow as human beings through the experience, did they learn, did they learn how to learn? Paradoxically, I know that this is ultimately how they will grow to be able to accomplish more than if I hammered them on every homework assignment for its own sake. The pattern is the same with organizations - in your story, you attended to process and relationships more than you forced or controlled the outcome, and you achieved a better result. And along the way, the people involved were enriched and will be better contributors in the future. I think this understanding - this wisdom - is still often lacking in management. What's your thought about this?

Might the living systems term be evolution? I think we're evolving to a wiser perspective. And that's opening our eyes to more effective practices, even as we carry forward the existing practices that continue to work for us. Or might it be emergence -- creating the fertile conditions for emergence to happen? There are so many juicy words and concepts related to living systems.

January 11, 2011 at 6:03am

Michelle Holliday

Good points, Bob. One of the things I've found in viewing organizations as living systems is that it helps explain why good people behave badly in organizations. Why do so many CEOs "tolerate or even advocate bad behaviors," as you've said? I believe it's because they're stuck within a guiding story that gives them no alternative. It's like your body -- if the whole system is sick, then it will be difficult for any one cell to be healthy. Most CEOs don't want to support bad behavior -- it feels bad for them too, which is why there's so much burnout and stress. But we all tell ourselves that's just the way it is.

To me, we have to offer an expanded story in which it makes sense to treat people well. What we've seen (in my own experience, in Jeremy's story, and in the examples of companies like W.L. Gore) is that companies that operate from this expanded story do perform better and that is forcing the rest to change their ways. But in general, "the rest" are simply adopting surface-level best practices without really understanding the underlying shift in philosophy. So I think it's important to help them see that there's actually a new story at play here. Then we'll really see broad and dramatic transformation in management.

January 10, 2011 at 12:38pm

David Sims

Thanks, Michelle. This is a really broad and ambitious program. Some of your goals are well beyond the scope of the MIX, and appreciate your nod to us as one of the sites that encourages positive conversation about the role of managers and organizations in the shifts you're highlighting.

I'm intrigued by your metaphor of organizations as living entities. It's another way of highlighting the importance of treating individuals well, just as you need to take care of the different parts of your body in order to keep the whole functioning well. I wonder how this idea is received by your clients, and how it shapes their management principles and actions when they begin to look at the organization this way.

January 10, 2011 at 6:32pm

Michelle Holliday

Thanks very for your comments, David.

I should clarify that I'm not talking here about a metaphor -- I actually believe that organizations ARE living systems. If it's just a metaphor (one of many), it doesn't have the same power to shift our thinking -- and, therefore, our actions. And the research gives us every reason to believe that organizations truly are an emergent level of life, just as our bodies are an emergent result of the activity of our cells, or just as a rain forest is an emergent result of the activity of the species within it.

Not all of my clients get to that recognition of the organization as a living system. In fact, most don't. And that's OK. They still benefit from the Engagement Competency Model's integrated view of strategy and encouragement to engage both customers and employees more deeply. But for those who do embrace the full philosophy, it has been a powerful formula. Leaders take on the role of host or steward. They begin to value process and relationship at least as much as accomplishment. As you suggested, they treat individuals better. It's been very exciting to watch the transformation.

You noted that some of the goals are beyond the scope of the MIX -- would you recommend that I eliminate those sections here and present just those that fit with what the MIX is about?

Thank you again!

January 10, 2011 at 7:48am

bob farey

Written in consultant speak - a real turn off. Why not explain it in words of one syllable. even the only other comment uses the phrase paradigm shift....

January 10, 2011 at 6:27pm

Jeremy Clark

Hi Bob,

We're all about open community here, so your feedback is taken in that spirit. Is it fair to say that you approve of the Moonshot "Humanize the language of business"? You'll find a lot of agreement with that sentiment here, even if monosyllables often don't automatically do justice to complex ideas.

But let's not lose sight of Michelle's main point here: the machine metaphor for business is outmoded, and it's time for a new story. How can we build on that theme?

January 10, 2011 at 6:56pm

Michelle Holliday

Thanks for this, Jeremy.

Your comment led me to your own story "Innovation Project" is an oxymoron: how a coached social network experiment puts the "us" back in stimulus." I love it! What a great example of engaging the life within a group. You offered a powerful (convergent) question: "How can business save the world from climate change?" And your expert coaching and moderating created the fertile conditions for collective creativity to emerge. Here are some of the key words that stood out for me from your story:

* "fun, engaging and self-directed"

* "self-organizing"

* "emergent"

* "open...collaborative"

* "initial concepts...evolve"

* "a pure attraction model"

* "passionate...self-selecting innovators"

In your comments, you talk about "emergent group magic." That's one way of thinking about organizations as living systems -- a group of people comes up with something that no one of them walked in with. The group came up with it.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the traditional "innovation project" model you describe, which "applies cost-side investigative techniques to revenue-side issues. In other words, the standard Analyze-Diagnose-Recommend-Implement cycle, organized into a full-time project with start and end dates, and a client-picked scope and team." What could be more mechanistic than that?

You've offered fantastic proof for my theory -- thank you! :-)

January 10, 2011 at 8:13am

Michelle Holliday

Thanks for your candid comment, Bob. I'll have another look at it to see if I can simplify the language. It's a good challenge!

January 9, 2011 at 7:43am

Julie Bourbonnais

I hope people rush to read this hack, as it is so deep, essential and BIG! This is a conversation that needs to happen everywhere, now! The paradigm shift is the most essential of all and has far reaching implications. I look forward to contributing to this movement whole-heartedly!