The art of management and leadership is having an array
of approaches and being aware of when to use
which approach. Ralph Stacey proposed a matrix to help with this art by identifying management decisions
on two dimensions: the degree of certainty and the level of agreement.
Let's take a closer look at these dimensions.
|
Close to Certainty:
|
Issues or decisions are close to certainty when cause
and
effect linkages can be determined. This is usually the case
when a very similar issue or decision has been made in the
past. One can then extrapolate from past experience to
predict the outcome of an action with a good degree of
certainty.
|
|
Far from Certainty:
|
At the other end of the certainty continuum are decisions
that are far from certainty. These situations are often unique
or at least new to the decision makers. The cause and effect
linkages are not clear. Extrapolating from past experience is
not a good method to predict outcomes in the far from
certainty range.
|
|
Agreement:
|
The vertical axis measures the level of agreement about
an
issue or decision within the group, team or organization. As
you would expect, the management or leadership function
varies depending on the level of agreement surrounding an
issue.
|
The following pages will examine different zones within the matrix.
They are:1) Close To Agreement, Close To Certainty
2) Far From Agreement, Close To Certainty
Some issues have a great deal of certainty about how
outcomes are created but high levels of disagreement
about which outcomes are desirable. Neither plans nor shared mission are likely to work in this context.
Instead, politics become more important. Coalition building, negotiation, and compromise are used to
create
the organization's agenda and direction.
3) Close To Agreement, Far From Certainty
Some issues have a high level of agreement but not much
certainty as to the cause and effect linkages to
create the desired outcomes. In these cases, monitoring against a preset plan will not work. A strong
sense
of shared mission or vision may substitute for a plan in these cases. Comparisons are made not against
plans but against the mission and vision for the organization. In this region, the goal is to head towards
an
agreed upon future state even though the specific paths cannot be predetermined.
4) Anarchy: Far From Agreement, Far From Certainty
Situations where there are very high levels of uncertainty
and disagreement, often result in a breakdown or
anarchy. The traditional methods of planning, visioning, and negotiation are insufficient in these contexts.
One personal strategy to deal with such contexts is avoidance - avoiding the issues that are highly
uncertain and where there is little disagreement. While this may be a protective strategy in the short
run, it
is disastrous in the long run. This is a region that organizations should avoid as much as possible.
5) The Edge of Chaos (The Zone of Complexity)
There is a large area on this diagram which lies between
the anarchy region and regions of the traditional
management approaches. Stacey calls this large center region the zone of complexity - others call it
the edge
of chaos. In the zone of complexity the traditional management approaches are not very effective but
it is
the zone of high creativity, innovation, and breaking with the past to create new modes of operating.
As a professor in a business school, I am aware that
we spend much of our time teaching how to manage in
areas (1), (2) and (3). In these regions, we can present models which extrapolate from past experience
and
thereby can be used to forecast the future. This is the hallmark of good science in the traditional
mode.
When we teach approaches, techniques and even merely a perspective in area (4) the models seem 'soft'
and the lack of prediction seems problematic.
We need to reinforce that managers and leaders of organizations
need to have a diversity of approaches to
deal with the diversity of contexts. Stacey's matrix honors what we already have learned but also urges
us
to move with more confidence into some of the areas which we understand intuitively but are hesitant
to
apply because they do not appear as 'solid.'
Changing Management Approaches in
Moving From Agreement & Certainty
|
Possible
Approach
|
Description
|
Example
|
Comments
|
|
1. Direct
|
Direct workers to
complete a task or
tasks.
|
Employer asks an employee to
arrange a luncheon, clean the
warehouse, etc.
|
Left lower corner of the Stacey
diagram. Highly structured and
directive. Does not anticipate
emergent outcome.
|
|
2. Change
Work Processes
|
Modify work
processes to facilitate
self-organization, self-
direction, etc.
|
Fork lift company with newly
computerized product. Managers
connected all of service staff
through CompuServe. A summary of
their E- mail exchanges became the
new service manual.
|
Sufficient control of variables to allow
planned change in systems,
organization, or information flow, etc.
Leaders took a specific step. Intended
or unintended emergent outcome.
|
|
3. Modify Structure
|
Modify diversity,
information, and
connections.
|
Maine Medical Center attempts to
change workgroups (Chiefs, clinical
groups, others), meeting structures,
distribution of information.
|
Similar to above, less focused.
Specific steps taken to attempt to
affect diversity, information, and
connections, in hopes of beneficial
emergent outcomes.
|
|
4. Convene
& Intervene
|
Bring representatives
of various CASs
together to facilitate
self-organization and
emergence. Use
process tools to
confront inherent
parodoxes and to seek
change through
leveraging Morgan's
15% opportunity.
Compare approaches
with and without
goals.
|
Louisville integrated "Oncology
Program" problem. Maine Hospice
program problem.
|
Primary step is to convene
representatives of involved complex
adaptive systems. Secondary step is
structured, planned "intervention"
that actively attempts to "move to a
new attractor." (Per G. Morgan)
|
|
5. Convene
|
Bring representatives
of various complex
adaptive systems
together in an attempt
to facilitate self-
organization and
emergence. Compare
active convening with
observation of
entities coming
together.
|
MMC/UNE (Allopathic/Osteopathic
Education)
|
Insufficient involvement or direct
control to allow formal intervention.
Action limited to convening in hopes
that interaction and change will
emerge. Less structured intervention
than above example.
|
|
6. Examine,
Describe Patterns
|
Observe interactions
between complex
adaptive systems that
are beyond the
leader's ability to
affect or convene.
|
The economy or the stock market.
|
The task here is to understand.
Systems are sufficiently large or
removed to preclude any intervention.
|
|
7. Seek Patterns
|
Scanning "chaotic
and disorganized"
systems for emerging
organizations and
patterns.
|
Youth, health, markets, life forms,
weather, global thermal drift, etc.
|
Assumption here is that object of
study is approaching high
dimensional chaos. Task is to identify
emerging patterns that might suggest
an emerging level of organization.
|
1. Thoughts
