Organizational Behavior and Group Process in Consortia

1
Organizational Behavior and Group Process in
Consortia

• June 28, 2006
• Phillip DiChiara
• Managing Director
• The Boston Consortium for Higher Education

2
Objectives of 60 minute Webinar

• Three issues to be considered when forming
  collective efforts
• Structure
• Group Process
• Complexity
• Our dialog will explore how achievement of
  consortium objectives requires different
  considerations and methodologies than those used
  at traditional hierarchical organizations e.g.
  Collaborative work systems attempt to imbed work
  processes and cultural mechanisms that enable and
  reinforce collaboration, not just vocalize
  support for teamwork and altruistic
  collaboration (Beyerlin, Freedman, McGee, Moran,
  Beyond Teams Building the Collaborative
  Organization, 2003).

3
Structure, Process, Complexity Considerations
for the Collaborative Enterprise

• 1) Consortia are generally Heterachies, not
  Hierarchies. This is the structure most often
  observed, but the principles of which are often
  absent in practice.
• 2) Group process in a voluntary,
  multi-organizational entity is more complicated
  than in a single hierarchical entity with a
  single culture. The impact of several different
  cultures attempting to solve the same problem
  often creates results at the extremes of the
  bell-curve either incredibly collaborative
  efforts with weak outcomes or highly
  conflict-ridden initiatives, with either no
  outcome or highly successful outcomes.
• 3) Consortia may not give adequate consideration
  to the difference between complicated versus
  complex systems, resulting in a focus on sweet
  spot projects and initiatives. The result may be
  a failure to achieve significant change or
  fulfill the ennobling goals consortia should be
  focused on.

4
Impact of Structure, Process, Complexity

• When forming collective efforts within most types
  of consortia, added consideration must be given
  to the underlying nature of collaborative work.
  Methods other than those typically offered or
  encouraged in current popular business literature
  do not consistently translate within consortia.

5
I Heterarchy and its Implications

• Heterarchy is a network form consisting of
  elements (individuals representing
  college/university interests) that share common
  goals but have the same horizontal position on
  an org chart. Each has equal power, authority,
  responsibility and one vote. Decisions to
  execute are determined by shared knowledge,
  generally after inquiry/emergence techniques.
• Often represented as a circle of elements
  (individuals or, in our case, colleges and
  universities (c/u)).
• C/U themselves are hierarchies, but consider
  themselves enlightened or democratic within
  that broad definition.

6
World View, Our Mental Models and Hierarchical
Tendencies

• The dominance of hierarchy, the degree to which
  we are conditioned to it, subtly orients us to
  behavioral processes that are often not
  compatible with the principles and mission most
  higher education consortia endorse, and
  ultimately undermines and lessens full
  achievement of our goals in support of our
  mission.
• Can we become more than sophisticated
  practitioners of optimized hierarchy, and move to
  learning of new approaches to management where we
  are less adept?

7
Heterachy

• Not new term introduced 50 years ago by Warren
  St. McCulloch, Neurophysiologist.
• U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research is currently
  applying it in new models for control and
  communication.
• Links well with advancements in social network
  analysis, which provides a means of making
  invisible patterns of information flow and
  collaboration in groups both visible and
  manageable.
• Heterarchy promotes efficiency and flexibility,
  improving coordination through informal networks
  of relationships rather than through formal
  reporting structures or prescribed task processes.

8
(No Transcript)
9
Heterarchy Researchers

• Karen Stephenson Quantum Theory of Trust,
  Sept.06
• Rob Cross The Hidden Power of Social Networks
  Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in
  Organizations, 2004
• Gerard Fairtlough The Three Ways of Getting
  Things Done Hierarchy, Heterarchy and
  Responsible Autonomy, 2005
• Eric B. Dent (University of N. Carolina)
  Organizational Development, 1993
• David Stark (Columbia University) The 21st
  Century Firm, 2001

10
II Group Process Evolves

• Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing
  (Tuckman, 1965)
• Orientation, Conflict and Challenge, Cohesion,
  Delusion, Disillusion, Acceptance (Jewell and
  Retz, 1981)
• Dependency and Inclusion, Counter-dependency and
  Fight, Trust and Structure, Work, Termination
  (Wheelan, 1990)
• Evolving theories incorporate task nature, size
  of group, time-to-completion, and variability of
  the individual personality contained within the
  group.

11
Group Dynamics Developing Consensus Techniques
(Pyzdek, 2003)

• Step 0 Assume that creative or destructive
  conflict is NOT repressed, but encouraged. When
  conflict is present, explore reasons why.
  Personality disputes should be handled outside
  the group.
• Step 1 Create a rule of consensus decisions. No
  judgment should be incorporated into the group
  decision until it meets at least the tacit
  approval of every member.
• Step 2 Meet the minimum conditions listed below
  for group movement i.e. adopt the following
  behaviors
• 2a. Avoid arguing for your own position.
  Present it lucidly and logically, but be
  sensitive and consider the impact of subsequent
  presentations on the same point.

12
Consensus Techniques, or How to Manage Conflict
Without Suppressing It.

• 2b. Avoid win-lose proposals. Look for the
  next-most-acceptable decision for all.
• 2c. Avoid changing your mind only to avoid
  conflict and reach harmony. Strive for
  enlightened flexibility but avoid outright
  capitulation.
• 2d. Avoid conflict reducing techniques such as
  majority vote, averaging, bargaining,
  coin-flipping, trading out, etc.
• 2e. DO view differences of opinion as indicative
  of an incomplete sharing of relevant
  information, including emotional data and
  intuition as well as task issues.
• View differences in opinion as an advance in
  data gathering rather than a hindrance in
  decision-making. (Ready, Fire, Aim)

13
Consensus Techniques continued

• 3. Question apparent agreements to be sure people
  have arrived at the same conclusion for basic
  or complementary reason.
• 4. Avoid subtle forms of influence and decision
  modification e.g. when a dissenting member
  finally agrees, dont feel that he must be
  rewarded by getting his own way on a subsequent
  point.

14
Consensus Techniques continued

• 5. Be willing to entertain the possibility that
  the group can achieve all of the above and
  actually excel at the task.
• 6. Dont tighten control or force conformance.
  Set up new procedures instead.
• 7. Probe for the true reason behind the conflict
  and negotiate a more acceptable solution.
• 8. Serve as mediator/facilitator, not leader or
  chairman.
• 9. Confront counterproductive behavior.
• 10. Continue to move the group toward
  independence from any single leader.

15
How Is This Different from aTypical Business
Environment?

• Multiple cultures, groupthink, go along to get
  along, job security. Lots of incentives to agree.
• These techniques are for self-managed teams, not
  process improvement. Consortial teams often have
  delegated responsibility often reserved for upper
  management.
• The best consortia groups emphasize two-way
  communication that is honest, frequent and
  trustful.
• The best consortia groups are not expected to
  share glory, but to revel in hard-won outcomes
  (intrinsic reward vs. extrinsic). Corporate teams
  are expected to share glory. One organization is
  essentially static, where consortial work is
  constantly re-forming with new players from
  multiple entities.
• For many consortia, the learning of collaborative
  skills is a primary outcome, with successful
  project outcomes a collateral benefit.

16
III Complicated Versus Complex Systems(Adopted
from Jones, Wendell Complex Adaptive Systems,
2003)

• If the multi-institutional nature of a
  consortiums mission inevitably results in some
  conflict, and if we are not to be conflict
  averse, how do we know if we are making progress
  on often intractable problems?
• Does the work of designing solutions or
  interventions often feel more like art than
  science?
• What is the true nature of the system in which we
  work?

17
Deeply Imbedded AssumptionsOur Western Mental
Model

• These assumptions make it difficult for us to
  understand or deal with complexity
• Every observed effect has an observable cause.
• Even very complicated phenomena can be understood
  through analysis. We do this by taking the
  phenomena apart and studying the pieces.
• Sufficient analysis of past events can create the
  capacity to predict future events.

18
Reductionism Is Inadequate to Solve Complex
Problems

• Worked well in understanding the physical world.
• Was applied to the social sciences in the 20th
  century.
• Even a complex system such as weather became more
  predictable, but notoriously impossible to
  predict in detail.
• Originally termed Chaotic System Analysis, it is
  now matured into Complexity Science.
• Human communities of all types and sizes must
  address conflict of all varieties.
• Not all systems are complicated and determined.
  Many are complex and adaptive, and resistant to
  traditional analysis.
• Consortia are actually well-positioned to help
  our communities to learn to deal with and
  understand complexity.

19
Systems

• Systems are an assembly of elements linked to
  produce a whole in which the attributes of the
  elements contribute to a behavior of the whole
  e.g. cities, ecosystems, the human body.
• Determined systems consist of inputs and outputs
  that are exact and reproducible e.g. an airplane.
  
• Determined systems are linear, e.g. small inputs
  provide small outputs large inputs, large
  outputs.
• Adaptive systems are governed by simple rules
  that are characterized by each agent of the
  system.
• Adaptive systems follow the rules, but often
  imprecisely, e.g. ant colonies, flock of geese
  turning.
• From simple rules come adaptive responses that do
  not repeat themselves and are not entirely
  predictable.

20
Complicated Versus Complex Systems

• Complicated
• Elements and connections are equally important.
• Simple algorithms produce simple and predictable
  responses.
• Component response is fully determined.
• Complex
• Connections are critical individual agents less
  so.
• Simple rules result in complex and adaptive
  responses.
• Agents have latitude of response within the rules.

21
Emergence a phenomena where the application of
traditional analytic tools can explain the
systems behavior. The whole cannot be studied by
a study of the parts.

• Human systems are emergent. Our self-awareness
  allows us to choose how we interact with one
  another or a group.
• Marching bands are linear, determined systems.
• Jazz ensembles are non-hierarchical, adaptive and
  thus complex.

22
Implications of Using the Lens of Complex Systems
to Look at Difficult or Even Intractable Conflict

• The not-so-good news
• There are no neutral observers. Observers affect
  the system.
• There is no single objective reality to describe
  the system in conflict.
• Our definition of the system is arbitrary since
  the interconnectedness of people in contact with
  other people is pervasive.
• Discoveries regarding complex systems will never
  produce a deterministic set of formulae to create
  a resolution.

23
Better News

• Since agents in the system adjust to stimulus in
  ways that are not linear, small input changes can
  produce very large output changes.
• By creating enlightened experiments, we can over
  time alter various aspects of the intervention,
  and over time experience changes that will be
  beneficial, or less so, and adapt accordingly.

24
Great News

• Making a difference in the midst of intractable
  conflict will not come from a reductionist
  analysis of the system.
• Evolutionary progress to resolution of conflict
  through mindful experiments within the conflict
  is possible. Then move with the self-organization
  that follows.
• The impossibility of predicting and controlling
  conflict need not result in a sense of
  hopelessness or resignation.
• Rather it can propel us to a deeper exploration
  of the nature of complex adaptive systems and the
  possibilities that reside within such
  self-organizing systems for constructive change.

25
Reflections on Emerging Management Methods

• The mission/vision of many ACL-member consortia
  would appear to be so broad as to be strong
  candidates for collaborative efforts beyond
  projects, programs, cross-registration, faculty
  development, procurement, etc.
• They can become incubators/learning laboratories
  for new approaches to management of the academic
  institution.
• We are well placed to become a safe space for
  experimentation of non-traditional collaborative
  enterprise, and growing beyond our current
  (individual organizational) limits.
• This can break the perception of consortia by
  some as overwhelmingly altruistic entities.

26
Opportunities to Leverage our Unique Position in
the Higher Education Community

• Everyone has a slightly different library of
  knowledge or intellectual capital. Social capital
  is the sum of all capacities that staff bring to
  an organization. Consortia can readily add to the
  perception and reality as safe spaces for
  development of solutions to problems that are
  intractable. What cannot be solved individually
  may only be solved collectively.
• The old aphorism If you are not part of the
  solution, you are part of the problem is
  essentially moot. What is now held to be true is
  If you are not part of the problem, you cant be
  part of the solution. (Bill Torbert, Action
  Inquiry, 2004). Consortia should be where we
  send the really difficult challenges.

27
Opportunities to Leverage Our Unique Position
continued

• Fear remains from previous hierarchical
  mismanagement. Often, our fear of failure
  constrains us to work in the sweet spot of
  collaboration where the success is reasonably
  predictable and where our limited financial
  resources are easily translated into financial
  return on investment. This is another case of
  reductionism.
• Ennobling goals can be motivational. Incremental
  improvement in work systems will remain dominant,
  but transformational change in individual
  commitment and enjoyment is the new social
  contract. (Daniel Pink, A Whole New Mind Moving
  from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age,
  2005)

28
Reflections..

• Do these issues confront other consortia?
• Do we need to change our focus more aggressively
  in the current environment?
• Is there a constraint that we face in considering
  positioning our consortia?