"GOLDEN DUALITIES"

From

 DUALISTIC  DILEMMAS & CONFLICTS

To

"Both/And" COLLABORATIONS

 

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.

 

Solution:

LEAN MANAGEMENT

 

Higher Quality 

AND Lower Cost

 

BUT

new thinking &

new systems

are required

(COST)

 

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.

 

I.e. new thinking & new systems are required

 

EXPLORATION

 

Assumption:

Build longterm viability by investing in next-generation innovations. 

 

 

VERSUS

EXPLOITATION

 

Assumption:

Maximize current profits by prioritizing "cash cows"

current business assets. 

 

Result: innovation ventures starved or social-ized into old company culture (neutered).

 

The two examples above illustrate how

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. 

   To TOP

 

ORGmuze
 
by
Barry Sugarman
 

SITE MAP