Bureaucracy, we don't need no stinking bureaucracy

In an earlier blog, I identified the factors critical to a group reorganizing at a higher complexity level:

Environment – this really represents the resources available to the group:
o Are the existing resources able to support the move to increasing complexity?
o Will the environment be stable enough to support?

Population –
o Are there enough people, with the needed skills in the needed proportions, to support the next level of organization?
o Does the population see itself as having enough common interests (language, history, ethnicity, economic interests, common enemies) to organize in a larger context?

Leadership –
o Are there person/persons with the vision and charisma to organize the population around the idea of the next organizational stage?
o Does the leadership have the organizational skills to pull it off?

Cooperation/conflict –
o Is the culture of the group able to cooperate sufficiently to re-organize?

In writing my blog entry on the factors needed to move from a “tribal” level of organization to“chiefdom”, I realized that this may be the most difficult step an organization of human beings makes, in terms of moving to a higher level of complexity.

It appears, for a variety of epigenetic reasons, that the tribal level of organization is deeply ingrained in the human genome. Dunbar’s number (around 150 people), has been shown through several studies to have validity. Humans have problems personally relating to more than 150 people. This means that organizing around more people than this requires a communication system that connects groups of this size and permits them to work toward common goals.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number)

I believe this necessitates a bureaucracy to manage information, communication, commerce, economic data, rules and regulations, etc, etc.

Max Weber outlined the key characteristics of a bureaucracy:
1. specification of jobs with detailed rights, obligations, responsibilities, scope of authority
2. system of supervision and subordination
3. unity of command
4. extensive use of written documents
5. training in job requirements and skills
6. application of consistent and complete rules (company manual)
7. assign work and hire personnel based on competence and experience
These principles are inventions --- organizations did not always have them.
Today, we think of bureaucracies as inefficient and generally bad. In the Industrial Revolution, they were seen as marvelously efficient machines that reliably accomplished their goals. Over time, bureaucracies became enormously successful, easily outcompeting organizational forms such as family businesses and adhocracies. They also did much to introduce concepts of fairness and equality of opportunity into society, having a profound effect on the social structure of nations. (Borgatti, 2002)

All this has “duh” (as in – “ I knew that already”) all over it, but as OD practitioners, we don’t have the tools or understanding to address the fact that organizations face this developmental hurdle. How often do we identify instituting a bureaucracy as the solution to an organizational crisis? The ability of a growing organization to differentiate, specialize, and create a communication structure, with skilled individuals to manage these, is a critical factor in organization development.



Borgatti, Stephen P. ( 2002) http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/bureau.htm

Are businesses really "Tribal"?

There have been a number of recently published books that tout a more "natural" approach to understanding human dynamics at the workplace.

Below are two that I have researched, and want to bring into the discussion of an epigenetic approach t understanding organizations. I am NOT criticizing the content of these, there is a place for this information in the developmental model I am developing.

Tribal Leadership

In this business oriented book, the authors posit that people participate in organizations as members of one or more tribes. (A tribe is defined as a basic sociological unit: a group of 20-150 humans). The authors claim to use linguistic research methods and relationship structures to outline five "tribal" stages that build on one another. Each state is more productive and meaningful for its members than the ones it supersedes. Each also has leverage points that move the group forward in productivity. Organizations are often composed of numerous tribes.

The five tribal stages are:

Stage 1: Tribal members exist in a state of alienation from goals beyond mere survival. They use language to describe their place in the world that asserts that life in general is unfair. In short, "Life Sucks!"

Stage 2: Tribal members exist in a state of victimization. They use language that describes their place in the world that suggest that they are powerless and oppressed by forces outside their control. In short, "My life sucks."

Stage 3: Tribal members exist in a state of self-aggrandizing competition. They use language that describes their place in the world as great by virtue of the fact that they have won positions of status and power. In short, "I am great, because you are not!"

Stage 4: Tribal members exist in a state of mutual cooperation around a common goal, characterized by competing against other organizations. They use language that describes their place in the world as meaningful because they are achieving outcomes valued by the tribe by cooperating with other members of the tribe. In short, "We are great (because they are not)!"

Stage 5: Tribal members exist in a state of flow. They use language that describes their place in the world as intrinsically meaningful and focused on the good of the universe. In short, "Life is Great!"

Each stage has characteristics that describes the quality and the core values of the relationships between tribe members.

Stage 1: Members are alienated from each other; relationships are undermining.

Stage 2: Members are separate from each other; relationships are ineffective

Stage 3: Typically - personal domination of one member over others; relationships are developed for their usefulness

Stage 4: Stable partnerships are attained, as relationships are deemed important. A tribe member is successful only if all members are successful.

Stage 5: Team of stable partnerships exists, and relationships are vital.

Tribes advance one stage at a time. Stages are not skipped. Without progressive intention at a particular stage, cultures may also degrade.

The job of a tribal leader is to continually elevate the culture. If a tribe has a strong leader who is stable in the next higher stage, a tribe may be catalyzed to advance as a whole.

Ray Immelman: Great boss Dead boss

The focus of this book is to point out the tribal nature of organizations. To that end, Immelman creates a set of tribal attributes and tribal dimensions that he uses to construct an understanding not only of how these groups operate but how an organizational consultant can look at organizations through this lens.

• Tribal attribute one; strong tribe must have a common enemy

• Tribal attribute two; a strong tribe has clearly defined symbols

• Tribal dimension one; individuals are socially, emotionally, and psychologically defined by their tribal membership

• Tribal attribute three; a strong tribe offers a super ordinate identity to all sub tribes

• Tribal dimension two; individuals act to reinforce their security when under threat, (individual security)

• Tribal dimension three; individuals act to reinforce their self worth when the security is not under threat (individual value)

• Tribal dimension four; tribes act to secure their self preservation if their security is under threat (tribal security)

• Tribal dimension five; tribes act to reinforce their self worth when their security is not under threat (tribal value)

• Creates a grid with individual security on the right hand taxes and tribal security plus or minus along the top

• Tribal attribute four; a strong tribe has a credible, just cause for its continued existence

• Tribal attribute five; a strong tribe has an accepted right of passage

• Tribal attributes six; a strong tribe has clear external measures of success

• Tribal attributes seven; a strong tribe understands and protects its source of power

• Tribal attribute eight; a strong tribe knows how it compares to the “untouchables”

• Tribal attribute nine; the criteria for tribal membership are clear and credible

(Immelman, 2003)

Immmelman, as have several other recent business/organizational authors, presents these dimensions and attributes in a narrative style: telling the story of a business problem that uses these to make sense of the issues and how to solve them. He develops a type of shorthand for each of the attributes and dimensions and then shows the reader how to combine them to implement his approach.

Interestingly, even though the authors in both cases identify some valid attributes of “tribes” and “tribal leaders”, few of the sources in the bibliographies are from the field of cultural anthropology. They are all business/management books. Tribal Leadership does a better job of connecting their ideas to anthropological studies than Immelman.

Neither book recognizes the epigenetic processes that tribes must respond to in their overall environment. Relationships within the “tribe”, and with other “tribes”, are identified as critical aspects of understanding behavior and leadership, however, they are the beginning of scratching the surface of the potential of understanding and utilizing this point of view.

Immelman, R. (2003). Great boss, Dead boss; Stewart Phillips international LLC: Chicago Illinois

Logan, King & Fischer- Wright (2008)Tribal Leadership: Leveraging Natural Groups to Build a Thriving Organization, Harper Collins

The developmental model - Tribes to Chiefdoms

The tribe has hundreds of people, often fixed settlements, consist of kin-based clans, still 1 ethnicity and language, have egalitarian or "big-man" government, informal and often difficult conflict resolution problems (e.g., much of New Guinea, Amazonia). (Diamond, 1997)

•Tribes are often led by “Big Men”, with little formalized power, but much influence.
•Chiefdoms are controlled by inherited social classes: Chief and nobles
(Ember, C and Ember, M 1999)

Simon - Stage Two: Found and Frame ("How are we going to pull this off?")
Greiner: Collectivity Crisis: Need for delegation with control Solution: Provision of clear direction

Tribes seem to be a human grouping with much appeal, but little understanding in the OD community. In the past 10 years, a number of books have been written (I will deal with these in a future blog) touting a tribal orientation to running a business, leadership and organizational behavior.


A Wikipedia entry speaks to the epigenetic underpinnings of tribes:

According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool, primate brain size is determined by social group size. Dunbar’s conclusion was that the human brain can only really understand a maximum of 150 individuals as fully developed, complex people. Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point. According to these studies, then, “tribalism” is in some sense an inescapable fact of human neurology, simply because the human brain is not adapted to working with large populations. Beyond 150, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism, 2010)


It is at this point in the development of organizations that the essential issues of complexity emerge:

•How groups organize themselves to be able to not just survive, but grow – specialization in roles and the ability to compensate a person for their specialized contributions.

•Figuring out how people must work toward common goals over time, not just in the moment.

•Resolving conflicts and maintaining cooperation to get things done.

•Establishing identity beyond the family or clan unit.

•Leadership that provides a compelling enough vision so that there is “buy in”

It makes sense to me that the seeds of chiefdoms, that is, an organization of people with a leader that is not based solely on influence, but by designation of the group, begins in the tribe. The initial “Big Man” with the vision, charisma, and ability to direct others to achieve larger goals, becomes the first in the line of Chiefs. This designation seems to imbue the individual (and their family) with power and privilege.

Looking at the above descriptions, the developmental step from a tribal organizational structure to a more complex one may be the most critical. The combination of factors that must come together to not only sustain a larger group of people with more than adequate resources, but to direct them to bigger, more abstract, goals seems remarkable.

Diamond, J. (March 1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company.
Ember, C and Ember, M (1999) Cultural Anthropology (9th ed) Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Greiner, L.E. (1972) “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,”

Harvard Business Review 50

Simon, J.J. (2001) 5 Life Stages of Nonprofit Organization, Wilder Foundation.

The developmental model - Bands to Tribes

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond reviews levels of societal organization:

"The band has 5 to 80 people, are usually related by blood, typically nomadic, have 1 language and ethnicity, have egalitarian government with informal leadership, no bureaucracy, no formal structures for conflict resolution, no economic specialization (e.g., Bushmen, pygmies)."

In prior blogs, I identified factors that characterize the earliest stage of organization development as well as what is need to move to a more complex organizational structure. Simon's Stage One: Imagine and Inspire ("Can the dream be realized?") and Griener's Entrepreneurial stage - Survival being the focus with "needing leadership" the solution to the challenge of moving the business to the next level.

At this stage of organization development we are looking at human groups no larger than an extended family or clan.The environment needs only to support the basic needs of the small group in order to maintain this level of complexity. Typically, an environment that is rich enough to support more than a group this size (usually through technology such as agriculture) results in a larger population.

Skill specialization is not required in a band society; however, it seems that the group needs members that can support the next level of development – people who can be successful at providing resources and infrastructure. If no one in the group can grow food in large enough quantities, create tools or heal the sick, then development is difficult.

A group that does not have enough cohesion and common interests to cooperate with each other would have little chance to develop.

A good example of this can be found in Colin Turnbull’s book The Mountain People.

At the band level, leadership is usually “informal”, that is, the older members of the band are looked to for guidance. Decisions are often made on a consensus basis, there are no written rules with no specialized roles for enforcement of rules or laws.

In order to move to a more complex organization stage (tribe), an individual must emerge to encourage bands to work together for a common purpose ( Simon’s "Imagine and Inspire"). This person needs to have sufficient skills to assign tasks and roles in order to meet the goals of the group, as well as have the personal authority to maintain respect of the group. Intra and inter band cooperation needs to be sufficient to complete tasks needed to reach the goals identified.

When I look at small groups, no matter what the context (business, political, gangs), all of the above applies. Humans are wired to operate in this fashion, epigenetically. As OD practitioners, using the above as guidance helps us not only to identify what the "normal" behavior would be, but what may be needed if the organization wishes to develop.

Diamond, J. (March 1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company.

Turnbull, Colin M. The Mountain People. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972.

Jared Diamond - an unwitting epigeneticist?

Jared Diamond’s Collapse – How societies choose to fail or succeed (2005) lists five factors that he considers central to the ability of human groups to survive over time:

• Inadvertent environmental damage: Based on the fragility of the environment or misuse of environmental resources, the group degrades the environment they live in to such an extent that it is unable to support them.
• Climate change: The climate, in the form of temperature and the amount of rainfall, either supports the ability of human groups to provide resources (food, water and shelter) needed to survive and/or thrive. Extended droughts and cold spells have been shown to adversely effect large scale societies such as the Anasazi people of the American southwest to such an extent that their entire culture collapsed.
• Hostile neighbors: Chronic conflicts with adjoining groups (many times combined with the above factors) weaken the group’s ability to survive. These conflicts may lead to the group’s being conquered by the hostile neighbor.
• Decreased support by friendly neighbors: Very few societies have access to all the resources needed to survive and grow. Trade with other groups provides these, and without it, societies fail.
• Society’s responses to its problems: The choices the group makes to cope with the above conditions ultimately determines their success or failure over time. Diamond covers both in his book. Paradoxically, he points out that clinging to the decisions that made the group viable previously, often led to their downfall.

(Diamond, 2005)

I see these factors as central to identifying the crises that groups face. The ways that human organizations handle their environmental resources and their relationships with others directly determine their success or failure. At each stage of development, the decisions the group makes to respond to these factors seem critical to survival as well as organizing at higher levels of complexity.

Diamond never uses the term epigenetic, however, his descriptions of the factors which influence the human groups he explores and the decisions they make in the face of their environmental challenges are examples of the epigenetic process in action. I urge followers of this blog to read Collapse, and Diamond's earlier work, Guns, Germs and Steel.

Diamond, Jared (2005) Collapse – How societies choose to fail or succeed. Penguin, New York, NY

More developmental thoughts

Since the last post, I have been struggling with creating a matrix to describe the stages of development of organizations, and the developmental tasks needed to increase in organizational complexity. In thinking through the creation of a unified model that includes Greiner’s business oriented crises, Simon’s idea – based development of non profits, and the self organizing anthropological stages that groups go through, I realized that there are only a few variables:

Environment – this really represents the resources available to the group:
o Are the existing resources (food, money, technology, infrastructure) able to support the move to increasing complexity?
o Will the environment (weather, natural resources, macro - economics) be stable enough to support?

Population –
o Are there enough people, with the needed skills in the needed proportions, to support the next level of organization?
o Does the population see itself as having enough common interests (language, history, ethnicity, economic interests, common enemies) to organize in a larger context?

Leadership –
o Are there person/persons with the vision and charisma to organize the population around the idea of the next organizational stage?
o Does the leadership have the organizational skills to pull it off?

Cooperation/conflict –
o Is the culture of the group able to cooperate sufficiently to re-organize?

In this model, all of the above need to be in place in order for the move to next level of complexity to happen. If you look at Greiner’s model (see the previous post), he poses crisis points which a business faces in moving to more complex levels.

In the epigenetic model, this is expanded to the environment as a whole, and the ability of the group to utilize the “favorable” conditions with the appropriate leadership.

The developmental model (stage 2)

-->

Organizations go through life-cycles much like people go through infancy, child-hood and early-teenage phases. Each phase in an organization's life cycle can be tracked based on the needs of the group in that phase; learning to survive, reacting to environmental challenges; maturing and gaining a sense of “self”.

As people mature, they (hopefully) understand more about the world and themselves and develop an approach to cope with the challenges in life and work. They learn to plan and to use a certain amount of discipline to carry through on those plans. To survive, organizations need to do this as well. Features of new organizations are usually markedly different from older and larger organizations. As seen in the diagram below, the life cycle model portrays groups going through four stages: Entrepreneurial, Collectivity, Formalization and Elaboration.
These are described in the table below:(click on the table to enlarge)

-->

The boxes in the above diagram are intended to show the issues that the organization needs to deal with in order to progress to the next stage. These could be seen as somewhat “epigenetic”, however, the intrinsic “predetermined unfolding” quality that marks Erickson's model is lacking. The diagram does show a development from small to large as the organization progresses.

This model, developed by L. E. Greiner at the Harvard Business school (1972), is totally business oriented. It looks at the management, organization structure and leadership styles he thought was needed at each stage of increasing complexity.

A more dynamic graphic of the same model, with "crisis points" identified at each stage of growth, shows what Greiner thinks is the resolution of each.(click on the graphic to enlarge)

-->

In the 5 Life Stages of Nonprofit Organizations ( 2001), Judith Sharken Simon, provides another perspective on life cycles of nonprofit organizations. She identifies:

1. Stage One: Imagine and Inspire ("Can the dream be realized?")

2. Stage Two: Found and Frame ("How are we going to pull this off?")

3. Stage Three: Ground and Grow ("How can we build this to be viable?")

4. Stage Four: Produce and Sustain ("How can the momentum be sustained?")

5. Stage Five: Review and Renew ("What do we need to redesign?")

(Simon, 2001)

Simon points out that the focuses of nonprofits are not simply product/service oriented, but idea based. The power of concept and guiding philosophy of an organization is accounted for in this model.

Taking these types of business based developmental models and applying the epigenetic principles to them, as well as expanding the concepts to human organizations in the larger sense, will be the focus of the next blog post.

Greiner, L.E. (1972) “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,”

Harvard Business Review 50

Simon, J.J. (2001) 5 Life Stages of Nonprofit Organization, Wilder Foundation.