The most lovely statement I’ve ever seen on
the imperfect link between management action (or the action of any given group
or person) and organizational
performance was written by Stanford Professor (now emeritus ) James March, in
his classic 1981 paper “Footnotes to Organizational Change," which was published
in the Administrative Science Quarterly. I urge you to dig up a copy of this paper
and read it, as it does a lovely job of summarizing themes from vast numbers of
studies, and add one creative twist after another. March’s conclusion is that organizations are
remarkably flexible, not rigid, although they often change in ways that leaders
(and others) don’t expect or want. Here
is a key excerpt (with references removed):
What most reports on implementation indicate, however, is that not
that organizations are rigid and inflexible, but that they are impressively
imaginative. Organizations change in response to their environments, but rarely
change in a way that fulfills the intentions of a particular group of
actors. Sometimes organizations ignore
clear instructions; sometimes they pursue them more forcefully than intended;
sometimes they protect policy makers from folly; sometimes they do not. This ability to frustrate intention, however,
should not be confused with rigidity; nor should flexibility be confused with
organizational effectiveness.
I
was reminded of all this by recent note that I got from Ron Avitzur about how
he and his friend Greg Robbins developed graphing calculator for Apple AFTER the
project had been canceled (they were both contractors) and they were no longer
being paid to work by Apple. But their badges still worked for awhile, and so
they kept coming to work, and because they wanted to finish the project – and
so many people at Apple helped them in little ways – they not only kept
sneaking into work to finish the calculator, it has been part of every
Macintosh since 1994. Not many people
spend their days sneaking into a Fortune 500 company to do work for free that
is in the best interests of the company!
The
story is so wonderful because at every turn, when they faced a setback, someone
at Apple would unofficially step in and help them – and keep the project
rolling -- to help them break the rules. Take this snippet:
‘We were saved by the layoffs that began that month. Twenty
percent of Apple's fifteen thousand workers lost their jobs, but Greg and I
were safe because we weren't on the books in the first place and didn't
officially exist. Afterwards, there were plenty of empty offices. We found two
and started sneaking into the building every day, waiting out in front for real
employees to arrive and casually tailgating them through the door. Lots of
people knew us and no one asked questions, since we wore our old badges as
decoys.”
Ron,
thanks for telling me about your lovely story. It should be a standard lesson in all
creativity and innovation classes. I am
going to start using it in my classes this year, as it is part of a larger lesson from the innovation literature -- leaders want the MONEY that comes from innovation, but often can't bring themselves to get out of the way enough so that creativity actually can happen. This is a theme that I've heard from IDEO and d.school founder David Kelley many times.
Hi Bob,
A CEO who believes in total non management is Ricardo Semler.
"We give up control so workers can follow their interests and their instincts when choosing jobs or projects”
His book "the 7 day weekend" is well worth reading. Have you come across it?
Posted by: Quovadis | September 27, 2007 at 10:31 AM