Spirit of Organization

I’m trying to create a model that describes employee development in organizations. Please feel free to help me improve this model if you have any suggestions. Maybe you can identify more options than what I present here. Please remember, however, that a model is simply a way to squeeze reality into a manageable form. No model captures the full complexity of real life.

To understand the model, we need to first ask the question: What do employees bring to the organization? I suggest that people bring a combination of knowledge and wisdom. I am using the term “knowledge” as referring to our understanding of the way things work in the external world of material objects and people. Wisdom, on the other hand, has to do with our understanding and ability to tap into the internal, intangible, realities such as personal motivation, aspirations, dreams, and vision. It also has to do with discerning the demons that incapacitate the soul such as disconnection from oneself and a sense of meaninglessness. Wise people understand how and to what degree these internal realities interact with and influence the external realities. Saint Augustine makes the distinction between these two kinds of attributes in the following quote:

The knowledge of things terrestrial and celestial is commonly thought much of by men. Yet those doubtless judge better who prefer to that knowledge, the knowledge of themselves; and that mind is more praiseworthy which knows even its own weakness, than that which, without regard to this, searches out, and even comes to know, the ways of the stars, or which holds fast such knowledge already acquired, while ignorant of the way by which itself [is] to enter into its own proper health and strength (Preface to Book IV).

This latter kind of “knowledge of themselves” is what I am calling wisdom. It is the combination of these two kinds of understanding that marks the mature individual and the highly valuable employee.

Some people come to the organization highly skilled at what they do. Others are much lower on the knowledge scale. Regarding wisdom, some employees have honed this inner sense to such a degree that they can rapidly size up and make the connection between that intangible world and its effects on the behavior of people and organizational systems. For example, one might notice that certain employees respond defensively at efforts to assess their department. They may even engage in passive resistance to the process by dragging their feet when it comes time to write up the reports. What’s more, they are probably unaware that they are even engaging in these kinds of subversive behaviors. These are all possible indicators of weak ego strength and, consequently, the inability to face objective assessment.

These two qualities (knowledge and wisdom) provide a double continuum from which we can develop a matrix as follows:

The Knowledge-Wisdom Matrix

1. In the first quadrant where both knowledge and wisdom are low, people are basically useless to the organization. Most people are likely not to be hired if that is their situation. However, some companies like Chrysler, have partnered with area community colleges to take young people from even this stage and develop them into capable auto mechanics.
2. The second quadrant represents those individuals who are high in knowledge but low in wisdom. They may be completely unaware of the spiritual dimension of life. When others try to bring up these issues, they try to downplay their importance. For them, the only relevant issue is what’s happening out there where we can see it, touch it, feel it, smell it, and hear it.
3. The third quadrant is where we find the mature employee who has a high level of knowledge in his or her area of expertise and has also developed a profound understanding of the value and influence of the intangibles. Such people make great leaders and can be a tremendous asset to the organization.
4. The fourth quadrant is where it really gets interesting. People who have a well-developed base of wisdom, but who lack knowledge are usually those who have grown personally beyond their position. They are ready for larger challenges, perhaps for the challenge of moving into a position of leadership. Such people need to add new knowledge to their skill set to fit new possibilities. In many organizations, however, such people are stuck and their potential is not allowed to flourish because of some inhibiting assumptions on the part of the top management; but that’s for another post.

What do you think? Does this model have some potential? What are its flaws? Where does it differ from the realities of the workplace? How might it apply in the church?

[Post a Response]

Notes

I want to acknowledge my borrowing from Blanchard, Hersey and Johnson’s “Situational Leadership” model for the basic design of the matrix. However, their model focuses on the leader’s behavior in response to the employee’s growth and development. Instead of comparing knowledge and wisdom, their model posits the dimensions of directive as opposed to supportive leadership behavior.

Works Cited

Augustine. “On the Holy Trinity.” In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, 3. New York: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1890.

This past week, I had the opportunity to present some ideas that I have been working with for some time now about the concept of organizational configuration as that concept applies to the church. This presentation was to a group of Hispanic pastors in the city of Memphis, TN. It was a 30-minute presentation using PowerPoint. I tried to follow Guy Kawasawki’s 10/20/30 Rule, which is to use only 10 slides, speak for only 20 minutes, and use a minimum of 30 point lettering. In fact, I used three font settings for each slide: 75 point Century Gothic, 44 point Century Gothic, and 44 Arial. Each slide illustrates one idea and serves as background for my discussion. The reason I am writing about this is that I see so many very poor PowerPoint presentations by otherwise intelligent people and there are just a few key concepts that, once you grasp them, can enhance tremendously your presentations.

Anyway, as I was saying, this presentation was an introduction to a more comprehensive 4-hour seminar that I do on organizational configuration. The basic idea is that all organizations are systems of interrelated parts that make up a unique configuration or corporate “personality.” Dess, Newport, and Rasheed (1993) said it this way:

Configurations are inherently multidimensional entities in which key attributes are tightly interrelated and mutually reinforcing (784).

Configurations have also been defined as “commonly occurring clusters of attributes of organizational strategies, structures, and processes” (Ketchen, Thompson, & Snow, 1993, 1278).

I know these quotes are a bit dated and that organizational configuration theory has been largely replaced today by theories of organizational culture and organizational systems, but I think the concept of configuration is still a valid one and very helpful for understanding organizational life. It’s a way of giving the mind some new categories into which to fit the realities of corporate or ecclesiastical life. Once you grasp the idea, you can begin to see patterns of organizational behavior, especially if you have had the “blessing” of having worked with many organizations. After awhile, with a little creativity, you can begin to give names to these patterns. Of course, so-called “experts” have already done that, but why not give it a shot yourself? Use some metaphors to describe the different configurations you see in the organizational or church world.

If you would like to see this presentation, click here. Remember, however that it’s in Spanish. I will try to translate it into English soon.

[Post a Reply]

Works Cited

Dess, G. G., Newport, S., & Rasheed, A. M. A. (1993). Configuration research in strategic management: Key issues & suggestions. Journal of Management, 19(4), 775-795.

Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organizational configurations and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1278-1313.

Photo by Matt Teague (July 18, 2004). Available at www.morguefile.com/archive/?display=24018&

An intriguing concept that I have come across in the literature of organization development is what is called “socio-technical systems.” It has it roots in a research project conducted by the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s and led by Eric Trist and Fred Emery. The idea is that new technologies always have an effect on the social systems of an organization. By “social systems,” I mean the personal interactions and social networks that are a vital part of any organization. Trist and Emery conducted their research at a coal-mining operation in the UK.

The coal-mining company installed a new system that was supposed to increase productivity. Whereas the miners used to work in small shifts made up of individuals with diverse capabilities who were responsible for completing the entire process. The new approach called for larger shifts of specialized minors who would be spread out over a large area, isolated from one another. It was called the “long-wall” method. During one shift, minors specialized in cutting were sent into the mines. During the next shift, those who were skilled as using the conveyors would replace the earlier shift. Another shift would work on expanding the shafts, creating new entranceways, and shoring up the ceilings.

It all made sense from a logical perspective. Instead of wasting precious time bumping into each other as the minors performed these various tasks, they could concentrate on their specialty and not be bothered by the other workers. The only problem was that productivity plummeted. The workers became more despondent and endured less. This fall in productivity was attributed to the lack of variety and the absence of the camaraderie that the miners enjoyed in the old system. Under the old system they felt more like complete human beings because they could perform a variety of tasks; now they were like machines doing only one thing all day long and without the joking and conversation with others. Appelbaulm (1997) summarized it this way:

The message was clear: a technological change that appears quite rational from a purely engineering perspective can disrupt the existing social system so as to reduce greatly the anticipated benefits of the new technology.

In spite of the fact that this relationship was recognized nearly 50 years ago, today it continues to be overlooked when organizations consider the implementation of new technologies. Often the only criteria that are used to base IT decisions are cost and novelty. The IT people want the latest technologies and management wants the most economical solution. Too seldom is the question asked: “How will this affect the relationships among our workforce?”

Technology is an important aspect of an organization’s processes, but it is not the only consideration, nor is it the most important consideration.

[Post a Reply]

Works Cited

Applebaum, Steven H. “Socio-Technical Systems Theory: An Intervention Strategy for Organizational Development.” Management Decision 35, no. 6 (1997): 452. (6 February 2004).

Should the pastor also be an elder? Should elders approve all decisions? What is the function of a board of elders? Some might say that the function of the elders is to care for the spiritual needs of the congregation. Does this mean that the elders should not make decisions about the physical facilities of the church? I don’t think so, because the physical environment affects the spiritual environment. All of these are questions about structure and they all lead to a larger question: “Has God mandated a specific, clearly-defined, unchanging, and universal structure for His church? Many Christians believe that He has.

I want to question this belief. The source of my questioning is two-fold. First, I don’t see the support for it in the Bible. Second, such an idea conflicts with my understanding of the purpose and nature of organizational structure. Structure should not be rigid and unchanging, but rather it should be one of the most flexible aspects of organizational design.

I believe the first-century church was able to function as a kind of self-organizing chaos because the early Christians truly believed that Jesus Christ was directly and literally present in their midst and the He exercised the role of Chief Executive Officer for the decision-making process of early Christian leaders. One of the most intriguing things I find in this discussion is the similarity between the New Testament church and recent theories of organizational structure that emphasize removing hierarchical barriers and that see structure more as a process of emergent adaptation.

I believe that structure should be the most flexible aspect of an organization. Structure needs to be dominated by and bend to the will of strategy. Structure is an instrument or means for achieving the strategy; it is a servant of strategy.

I recognize, however, that this is rarely true in practice. People are more likely to fight for their sacred structures to such an extent that they end up forgetting the original core values that created that structure in a time and place that it truly functioned to serve the strategy. A church that gives preeminence to structure will always be heavy in management and very light in leadership because leadership has to do with change. Such a church is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

What we need to realize is that the alternative to change is obsolescence and that is far more painful than change. The question is how to manage change while at the same time protecting our core values and strategic focus. The bottom line is that we need to get back to our roots, the roots of the Great Commission to cross cultural and societal barriers as we seek to help people connect up with God through His Son Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. All structural concerns should bend to the service of this end (Read more…)

[Post a Reply]

In his book, The Learning Paradigm College, John Tagg says that integrity “entails that we continuously maintain the vision by changing practices, by adjusting [the] work on the periphery so that it makes a good fit with the core” (p. 288). I consider myself a conservative both politically and theologically. However, I’ve observed with dismay how my fellow conservatives often don’t seem to be able to make a distinction between the core of their conservative values and the peripheral ways in which these values are expressed. In fact, over time, it seems like groups experience a relentless shift away from the core toward an ever-increasing focus on the periphery.

Charles Handy used an illustration of an “inside-out doughnut” to describe an organization that knows how to focus on the core while empowering its people to act responsibly and autonomously on the periphery. The core of the doughnut, instead of being empty, is full. This is the part of our work that is essential to what we are supposed to be doing. It represents our core values. The outer ring of the doughnut is empty (hence the inside-out doughnut). This outer ring represents “our opportunity to make a difference, to go beyond the bounds of duty, to live up to our full potential” (p. 70). This, says Handy, is “our ultimate responsibility in life, a responsibility always larger than duty.”

Too often, we conservatives make the outer limits of the doughnut the sacred zone that must not be tampered with and we so focus on that external doughnut skin that we may even forget completely what the core was all about. At some point, there is a shift and what once was the periphery becomes the core. Jesus had a run-in with a fundamentalist religious group called the Pharisees where He tried to make this point with them, but they weren’t listening. Jesus said to these religious leaders: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin [valuable spices in the ancient world] and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23, NASB; See also Micah 6:8). What a great visual image of focusing on the peripherals! One can imagine these persnickety old men with their bearded faces bent down over a table, carefully separating ten percent of their spices so they can give their tithe at the next temple worship service, all the while ignoring their own ruthless treatment of outsiders, their racism, and their love for money.

Churches are notorious for turning the peripherals into sacred cows. I know of a church that was considering the possibility of building a new worship center. I overheard one of the women of that group say: “I’m all for it as long as it looks like a church.” My thought was: “Since when did “looking like a church” become a core value of Christianity? What about serving people? What about helping people get connected with God?

Everyone knows the story of how the Swiss watch companies lost the market to the digital watches. How might the story have been different if these companies had focused on the core value of helping people to keep track of their time, rather than focusing on making mechanical watches? There seems to exist this natural tendency to slide into a mode of defending the solution to such an extent that we forget what the problem was. And once we forget what the problem was, we fail to understand our current problems and we fail to foresee those problems that are on the horizon.

[Post a Response]

Works Cited

Tagg, John. 2003. The Learning Paradigm College. Bolton, MA: Anker. ISBN: 01740-0249

Handy, Charles. 1994. The Age of Paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN: 0-87584-643-2

New American Standard Bible. 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 23:23.

Vision is one of those ancient words that has been brought back into the world of modern organizational theory. It is also one of those concepts that are so difficult to define but that everyone knows it when they see it. What exactly is a vision and why is it so important? Why is it that so many organizations seem to be in a drift pattern, with no clear direction, slaves to daily routines, having no connection with ultimate meaning? To understand what vision is, perhaps we need to first understand what it is not.

A vision statement is not a guarantee of success. While having such a statement is important, without implementation, a clearly defined vision will accomplish nothing. It’s a little like the great debate that James was having when he argued that faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Vision without implementation is dead.

A vision is not wishful thinking. A real vision does not occur in a factless vacuum (Kotter, 1997). It comes about through “a tough, sometimes exhausting process of gathering and analyzing information. People who articulate visions aren’t magicians but broad-based strategic thinkers who are willing to take risks” (p. 27).

A vision is not simply a mantra that emanates mystical energy merely by vain repetition. It will accomplish nothing if all it does is hang on the wall, carved into a granite plaque. It can only accomplish its task when it has become the life blood and heartbeat of the organization. It will propel the organization toward excellence only when it has become a heartfelt sense of direction that is well-informed and backed by a team of workers willing to put forth great effort to bring it about (Read more…)

[Post a Reply]

Cited

Kotter, John P. “What Leaders Really Do.” In Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power & Influence in Organizations, ed. Robert P. Vecchio, 24-34: University of Notre Dame, 1997.

In my discussions with church leaders about the importance of a mission statement, I have occasionally come across some who feel that the church does not need a mission statement because it already has one in the Great Commission. The Great Commission is the central New Testament mandate from the Lord Jesus Christ to His disciples to “go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19, NLT). Concerning this mandate, Willmington (1997) writes: “This final instruction from the Lord . . . has been the marching order of the church down through the ages” (p. 547).

This mandate is the core mission of the Church. Any church that ignores it–or replaces it with what it considers to be a more politically correct purpose–is no longer functioning as the Body of Jesus Christ on earth. Every structure that the church designs, every process that it puts into place, every effort to motivate others and every human resource policy that it adopts must be judged by how effective it is at helping the church to accomplish the great commission. When it comes to the Church, we have no right to replace that central purpose with something else, no matter how unpopular or inconvenient it may seem.

On the other hand, it is also true that a church has specific capabilities and works within a particular community. Just like an individual, a congregation also has a unique calling within and consistent with the general calling of the Great Commission. What the apostle Paul wrote about individual Christians in I Corinthians, chapter 12:4-6, can also be said of churches: “There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone” (ESV). Within the unity of the one Great Commission, there is great variety in terms of how that mission is accomplished. This means that every church will have a particular focus that gives its mission statement a quality of uniqueness, just as every individual has a unique personality.

The following questions may help a congregation’s top leadership team to discover their unique mission.

1. Which sector of the population have you been called to go to and make disciples?*
2. What are the basic felt needs of this group?
3. Does your church have the capabilities and resources to meet any of these needs?
4. What are the constraints under which your particular church must work?

By discussing these questions with your leadership team, your church can begin to develop a feel for the unique mission statement that describes the calling of God for this particular congregation.

*Note: Christians will often immediately answer this question by saying: “the whole world!” You need to point out that no one congregation can take on such a huge task. It’s like answering the question, “How do you eat an elephant?” One bite at a time. God has uniquely equipped individual congregations to bite off one chunk of the elephant and to specialize in that chunk. No one congregation is expected to eat the whole elephant (Read more…)

[Post a Response]

Works Cited

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Cor 12:4-6.

Holy Bible : New Living Translation. “Text Edition”–Spine., 2nd ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004), Ex 13:11-13.

H. L. Willmington, Willmington’s Bible Handbook (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1997), 547.

One of the functions of the human brain is to filter the data input that it receives so we can make sense of our environment. If we had to decide on the meaning of sensory input every time it came, all action would cease and we would be paralyzed by a constant process of trying to interpret the flood of information coming in. What happens instead is that, as we grow from childhood to adulthood, we develop a system of categories that help us to rapidly interpret data and this allows us to function normally.

Sometimes, however, our categories are too simplistic to encompass the reality that we are experiencing. Yet, we insist on forcing reality into these categories because that feels more comfortable than going through the painful process of developing new or hybrid categories.

This kind of oversimplification happens in every field of human activity. Scientists too often cling to a theory they have developed, in spite of a growing body of evidence that contradicts that theory, because, it’s simply less painful to stick with one’s current categories than it is to allow new input to change them.

Pastors and other church leaders are not exempt from this natural tendency to see things more simply than they really are. In the church, the tendency is to see all problems as having a “spiritual” source. I call this the one-dimensional view of the church.

Of course, from the believer’s point of view, the church does have a spiritual dimension and that’s what makes the church different from any other institution or organization in human history. In the words of the Apostle Paul, God, the Father, gave Christ “as head over all things to the church which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:22-23, NSAB). The direct presence of Christ, in His Spirit, links the church to the spiritual realm in a way that no other organization can claim.

But the church is not just a spiritual entity. If one views the church through this singular lens, he will tend to interpret all data as having a spiritual origin and cause. But, in addition to having a spiritual nature, the church also has a corporate nature and, in that corporate nature, the church shares many of the same dimensions as any other human organization. To effectively identify, interpret, and resolve church problems it is essential that pastors learn how adjust their own perceptions and view the church through multiple categories. As Reginald Revans (1980) once said it, “Managers who cannot change their own perceptions of their problems cannot change the conditions that create those problems” (p. 137).

This is where Jay Galbraith’s Star model for organizational design can help pastors create for themselves additional categories that might help them to more accurately and more flexibly diagnose the problems that may be disturbing their churches. Not all problems have a spiritual source and nor can they all be attributed to a lack of prayer or commitment on the part of the people.

Galbraith’s model adds five additional dimensions all of which might be contributing to a given problem and might serve as a starting place for developing a solution. Below is a diagram of Galbraith’s model.

Source: Galbraith, 2002, p. 9.

Even more important than recognizing that these other dimensions exist is to understand also that they interact with one another as a systemic whole. If you change any of the five points of the star, you must be aware of subsequent changes that will likely be required in all the other dimensions. Like a delicate spider web, if you pluck on a strand of the web, the entire web vibrates from that single pluck. These points on the star become leverage points that the church leadership can use to make adjustments and help the church move forward toward the call that God has given her.

The star model is not meant to replace or minimize the importance of spirituality, but merely to point out that the church is multi-dimensional and that these multiple dimensions are interrelated and that change must take into account all of these dimensions (Read More…).

[Post a Reply]

Sources Cited

Galbraith, Jay R. 2002. Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide to Strategy, Structure and Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 0-7879-5745-3

Revans, Reginald. 1980. Action Learning: New Techniques for Management. London: Blond & Bridges.