ORGmuze - a museum about organized life
SITE MAP
"GOLDEN DUALITIES"
From
DUALISTIC DILEMMAS & CONFLICTS
To
"Both/And" COLLABORATIONS
I'Some examples where a CONFLICT/Dilemma between two Opposed (?) Goals was resolved. New Thinking made it possible to achieve BOTH. But always there is a price to be paid.
NOTE: this page may not be viewable on mobiles
Dilemma:
QUALITY versus COST
.
QUALITY
Assumption:
Higher Quality must always mean Higher Cost.
VERSUS
COST
Assumption:
Cutting Costs must always mean Reducing Quality.
So the challenge (OLD VERSION) is to find the best trade-off or compromise
Result: no-one is satisfied.
New Solution:
LEAN MANAGEMENT
Higher Quality
AND Lower Cost are both achieved thru new "Lean" work belief system & management
BUT
new thinking &
new systems
are required
(COST)
EXPLORATION
Assumption:
Org builds long-term survivability by investing in radical, risky next-generation innovations.
VERSUS
EXPLOITATION
Assumption:
Org. priority is to maximize current profits by putting main efforts into proven "cash cows" (established business assets).
Result: innovation ventures either starved or socialized into conformity to dominant dominant org. culture.
Solution:
AMBIDEXTROUS MANAGEMENT
New ventures are sheltered, protected by top managers who "get" the dual strategy. Both sides are integrated to share assets both ways.
COST: new thinking & new systems are required
The two examples above illustrate how
a DUALITY DILEMMA can be turned into
a GOLDEN DUALITY
i.e. how an "odd couple" (who cannot tolerate each other but need to collaborate and to use their different abilities together) can form a productive collaboration.
Examples might include: a law firm and its business manager, a technical sales team and customer support engineers, designers of creative software and their software engineers, an innovative project and corporate infrastructures.
Making this transformation may be called "problem solving" or "conflict management" or "organizational learning", etc..
The direct parties must deal with other stakeholders, culture issues, systems and subsystems. This process may be aided or hindered by existing procedures, process, and precedent, by social networks and cultural "blankets" (e.g. history of openness about conflict, degree of trust, respect, and honesty.
OLD MENTAL MODEL (truism assumed by many):
"Choose your priority. You/they can't have it both ways."
NEW MENTAL MODEL (under discussion & co-creation - by players, as new arrangements are designed & negotiated):
"We need to satisfy both, though assumed "impossible" by old mental model. But WHAT IF we could change the constraints, especially our assumptions (mental models) ?
The examples above and below show proven ways it can happen.
EXPLOITATION
Assumption:
Maximize current profits by prioritizing "cash cows"
current business assets.
Result: innovation ventures starved or social-ized into old company culture (neutered).
A RELATIONAL approach to organizational management requires attention to people (social-emotional) factors
VERSUS
A BUREAUCRATIC approach to management traditionally requires an impersonal formal, focus on rules and procedures - rather than people and relationships.
Solution:
RELATIONAL BUREAUCRACY.
Formal rules & structures support HR policies that are people- and relationship-friendly. Leaders integrate these two sides (formal & informal). This makes a more sustainable relationship-based culture than one that depends solely on informal networks, fighting corporate bureaucracy.
SOURCE: Gittell, J.H. & Douglass, A. (2013). Relational Bureaucracy: Structuring Reciprocal Relationships Into Roles, Academy of Management Review, 37 (4), 709-733.