Images

10/6/2016

‘Organisations do not exist. People do.’ This was the provocative title I chose for a dissertation I wrote some years ago now. The idea, the belief, has stayed with me. It shapes how I think about and approach leadership development, OD, coaching, facilitation and training. Inspired by Gareth Morgan’s Images of Organisation and insights from social constructionism, I continue to be fascinated by how the images we hold when we think of ‘organisation’ influence and, at times, constrain our awareness, actions and the range of options we believe we have available to us.

So I meet you in the street and ask you to tell me about you organisation. You may start by telling me about the products or services you provide. You may well move onto saying something about the structure, by which you are less likely normally to mean the physical structure and more likely to mean how jobs, roles, responsibilities and authority are organised. You may well describe or depict the structure like an organisation chart. Now here’s the important bit. Insofar as you and everyone else in the organisation believe this structure exists and behave as if it does, to you – it does.

Now imagine that the structure dissolves so that what is left is people and whatever physical assets the organisation may own. Imagine that people are released from job titles, role boundaries and that you now see them as whole people, rich with experiences, in vibrant colour. You have a task to achieve and you invite people with the best energy, enthusiasm, skills and life experiences to offer. As different tasks arise, different people get involved. Imagine, just for a moment, what that could look and feel like and achieve. Imagine the creativity and potential for innovation. Imagine!

What did this thought experiment reveal for you? What images are constraining you or your clients? What assumptions are you making about what’s possible? What dreams could be realised if the images were to change? What would it take to make the shift?

49 Comments

Jayne Harrison

10/6/2016 04:29:40 pm

Love this Nick - reminds me slightly of somatic work where the person is a shape or form in space, which is representative of the whole and can morph to fill it with total embodiment. Have you used somatics with groups/organisations in this way?

Nick Wright

10/6/2016 04:31:59 pm

Thanks Jayne! Have a glance at this piece: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/body-language Is that the kind of thing you have in mind? I'd love to hear more! All the best. Nick

Peter Wiltshire

11/6/2016 10:18:43 am

Thanks Jayne, fascinating concept you raise here, interested to learn more.

Greg Jones

10/6/2016 11:06:10 pm

Nick, not too many people refer to Morgan, and I think they should. Either book, Images of Organizations or Imagin-i-zation, is great for developing an understanding of organizations and how they affect their followers.

10/6/2016 11:07:26 pm

Thanks for the note, Greg. I think Images of Organisation is an outstanding book. So incredibly insightful. I haven't read Imagin-i-zation. I'll check it out! All the best. Nick

Sara Pearson MSc

10/6/2016 11:50:46 pm

Wow what a thought indeed. A company’s guiding force is its people. If you take away restrictions that are possibly holding people back you potentially open up a new, exciting and energising world of positive possibilities by enabling people to focus on their strengths, to value and use what works well and envision the future state (what might good look like). This environment will help create the right conditions for creativity, innovation and organisational learning. Creating such an affirmative learning environment however requires a conscious effort and a positive focus which means engaging people throughout the organisation, a daunting prospect maybe for some.

11/6/2016 12:11:45 am

Hi Sara and thanks for the note. I think it starts with seeing people as people, not just as jobs or functions. It's about seeing a person who fulfil's a job alongside being and doing all sorts of other things in their life, rather than a job that happens to be occupied by a person. It's a bit like a camera lens that zooms in and out - is our focus on the job or on the person? The person will always be more creative, interesting, confusing and skilful than any job definition can contain.

I worked with a Christian international development organisation, Tearfund, that experimented with shifting from jobs to roles and creating as much freedom as possible for people to get involved in initiatives that interested them or they thought they could contribute something to. It wasn't in addition to their job. It was a flexible idea of roles that meant people had a main focus for their work but with very loose boundaries around it. The energy and creativity that it released felt incredibly inspiring and life-giving.

It also shifted from 'departments' to teams and from 'management' to leadership, supported by an 18 month training programme for everyone to support and enable the cultural shift that this entailed. It was an amazing and courageous experiment and I can still feel something of the sense of freedom and inspiration it released as I write about it now. :) All the best. Nick

11/6/2016 11:32:47 am

Sounds very interesting and engaging. In the past, I designed and delivered a change management training programme (Leading Positive Change) using some of the very principles which you have described. The session was based around ‘Charlie’s Story’, a fictitious organisational story that I created. The focus was very much on the people and I used story telling to help bring them alive alongside a range of positive principles, such as AI, ‘broad and build theory, positive thinking, virtuousness and the four frame model to help understand how to break the ‘Frames’ that often encapsulate and inhibit organisational learning and transformation. The energy, positive attitudes and creativity that exuded from the session was quite remarkable, and that was in just in one morning session, so I understand when you say you feel inspired just writing about it, I do now just recalling that one session.

11/6/2016 11:35:02 am

Thanks Sara - and I'm noticing how we are both experiencing the benefits of AI in how we are feeling as we share positive experiences from the past like this! All the best. Nick

11/6/2016 08:21:50 pm

I agree Nick, maybe thats why I am drawn to your very enlightening and interesting bloggs.

Suman Singh

11/6/2016 10:21:23 am

Hi Nick, yes, Kudos!

I think images has a very close relation in our day to day life as well. We tend to have perceptions of people around. If we look at them as images who have certain roles to play it would be different . This can help in in our interpersonal relationship. I don't know if I am able to explain it fully.

11/6/2016 10:22:58 am

Thanks Suman! It sounds like you are saying that how we perceive people is very important and influences our relationships with them. If so, I agree absolutely. Have I understood you correctly? All the best. Nick

Terrence H. Seamon

11/6/2016 10:25:21 am

Excellent, Nick. Some of us in Organization Development look at organizations in just this way: organizations ARE the People. Try this thought experiment: Take the people away and what is left? Buildings, offices, desks, computers, phones, coffee makers...but no activity, no results. No Life. The living heart of an organization is its people.

11/6/2016 10:28:57 am

Thanks Terrence! You reminded me of an experience I had with a new team of people who were tasked with shifting the organisation's culture. I opened the first meeting by writing 'Organisations do not exist, people do' on the whiteboard and invited people to reflect and discuss - what does this mean, what does it mean for us, what does it mean in relation to the work we are here to do etc. The initial reaction was bemused faces around the group. However, once the began to grapple with it, it had a profound impact on how they saw themselves, each other and the wider 'organisation' and how the approached the work. All the best. Nick

11/6/2016 10:29:48 am

Thanks for this article Nick, you have inspired me to go back to Images of Organization with fresh curiosity. Would appreciate reading more of your ideas on this concept.

11/6/2016 10:33:23 am

That's great, Peter. Thanks for the affirming feedback. If you type 'Gareth Morgan' in the search bar on this website, you will see where I have referred to his ideas in other blogs and articles. Let me know if anything strikes you of interest? All the best. Nick

Carl Bishop

11/6/2016 11:15:51 am

I agree that the constraints of job titles and role boundaries tend to dampen creativity. I'm not sure that it would actually improve productivity though. I suppose some more mature organizations would benefit greatly from the exercise of eliminating titles and boundaries.

I am afraid though that many organizations would suffer from the lack of direction. To be successful the employees would need to be self motivated and dedicated to improvement. I am not sure the workforce as a whole is mature enough to excel in the role free and boundary free environment.

Interesting idea though, and probably would help many people develop themselves in the world of business and prove their worth to the company.

It is true that a company or organization is only as good as the people working there.

11/6/2016 11:27:10 am

Hi Carl and thanks for the note. I think you make some great points here. The thought experiment is designed to challenge current thinking and paradigms to see what emerges from it (rather than to offer a bluprint per se). So, picking up on your points, if we were to say, release some of the energy and creativity that could arise from eliminating job titles and boundaries, what would need to happen for that to happen without losing direction? Or, if the workforce would need to be self-motivated, dedicated and mature for this to work, what would need to happen for that to happen? This type of exploration can help challenge assumptions and allow new images and possibilities to emerge. Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

12/6/2016 01:40:40 pm

I guess I may need to emerge from the industrial age; According to this article ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/06/10/ten-outdated-leadership-ideas-that-need-to-die/#47e0d5fe2a8c ) written by Liz Ryan, the breaking down of barriers like job titles and roles is the new way to do business.

The article relates to your post, and it does make sense that if we remove those barriers then creative freedom should improve productivity and outcomes.

I am in a military environment and that environment depends upon structure and discipline. I can accept that if we ease the restriction of titles that we may allow the creativity of people to improve the operational processes. Many people have issue with releasing control for fear of failure, as pointed out in the referenced article.

I always encourage the organization to not discount the ideas of the newly assigned personnel just because they might lack experience. Fresh views often reveal shortcomings or weakness.

12/6/2016 01:53:12 pm

Wow, Carl - what a great and stimulating article! Many thanks for sharing the link. Yes, clear resonances with this blog. Gareth Morgan says similar things in Images of Organisation in his chapter on 'Organisations as Machines'. Where Liz and I see things differently, I suspect, is that I don't believe the principles she is arguing for are necessarily universal. What I mean is that Liz is implicitly replacing one image of organisation with another. A different set of questions could be something like: 'What are we here to do?', 'What does this situation call for?', 'What assumptions are we making?', 'What's important to us/others in this?', 'What options are available to us?', 'What are the potential upsides and downsides?', 'How shall we do this?' So it's about making creative and, at times, innovative choices with awareness rather than defaulting to any particular image, model or approach. What do you think? All the best. Nick

13/6/2016 09:27:42 am

Nick, ironically I read another article that I referenced here, that pretty much sums up your reply to my comment: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/creativity-employees-carl-bishop?trk=prof-post The question of who, what, when, where and how fit perfectly into most issues when looking for a solution. You never really know who will provide the best solution unless you allow all of your employees a chance to solve the problems.

13/6/2016 09:32:04 am

Many thanks, Carl, for the link to the blog and the article. Interesting stuff! '...chance to solve the problem' is an interesting framing. Alternative framings that could create a different conversation could be something like, '...chance to create a solution' or '...chance to grasp an opportunity' etc. What do you think? On the theme of not-knowing, you may find this related blog interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/not-knowing All the best. Nick

Arthur Battram

11/6/2016 11:59:39 am

Interesting. My philosophical approach is similar. I use the phrase 'A network of relationships', can't remember who coined it, might have been me, to describe the nature of organisation, which itself is a verb, not a reified noun. Using the idea of NK networks, I like to focus on the connections(K) between, rather than the roles prescribed for the nodes (N)...

11/6/2016 12:09:39 pm

Hi Arthur and thanks for the note. I think the image of organisation as a 'network of relationships' and to focus on the connections rather than the individual players in isolation can revolutionise how people and organisations see themselves and work in practice. I sometimes think about organisations and people in terms of 'networks of influence' which, like 'networks of relationships' can dissolve or diffuse (make permeable) traditional boundaries between e.g. team and team and between internal and external. It also shifts ideas about personal competence to focus on how well people connect with, contribute to and draw on networks and what happens when they and others do this well: synergies etc. This approach sits well alongside related ideas about systems, team leadership, adaptive leadership, dispersed leadership, complexity especially in a digital age with so many possibilities for connecting with others. I'd be interested to hear more about your ideas on this too! All the best. Nick

Robb Kramer

11/6/2016 06:28:16 pm

It occurs to me that despite the very rigid hierarchy in my organisation, I largely consider people instead of roles when working on projects; who has the experience to lend input to this or that, what kind of team can I assemble to achieve something else, and people are quite willing to participate. What I do tend to fight the most is time and funding; both tend to rienforce separation more than job titles and org charts.

An interesting thought question! thanks for posting.

11/6/2016 06:31:14 pm

Hi Robb and thanks for the note. Your focus on people reminded me of an interesting book by Bolman & Deal called 'Reframing Organisations'. Have you come across it? I'm very interested in your comment about how 'time and funding tend to reinforce separation more than job titles and org charts'. Can you say a bit more? All the best. Nick

Isabelle Vuistiner (-Zuber)

12/6/2016 12:44:50 pm

I find your post very interested and I am amazed to be reading it just now, a few days after our hypnotherapists' association has just decided to function as a holocracy, that seems pretty much to be working the same way that the one you're describing.

12/6/2016 12:45:42 pm

Thanks Isabelle. I'm intrigued! What is a 'holocracy'? I'd love to hear more. All the best. Nick

Ian Brownlee

12/6/2016 10:02:19 pm

In my work as a consultant, I am always working with the "images" that my clients have in their mind. Fortunately, as a hypnotherapist with a special interesting in submodalities , I find it very easy to get people to "evolve" their images into a more positive & producive form. Subconsciously changing submodalities ALWAYS lead to a reframe of the area being worked on.

12/6/2016 10:03:56 pm

Thanks Ian. Your work and approach sounds intriguing. Would you be willing to say a bit more about what 'subconsciously changing submodalities' means and what it looks like in practice? Any examples? Many thanks. Nick

13/6/2016 09:19:56 am

Hi Nick,
The best way to learn about submodalities is do a quick exercise so read these brief instructions and then do them:
Close your eyes and visualize in your mind an unpleasant experience that you have had. Focus on the following; is it close to you or far away? Where is it located: straight in front of you? High up or low down? To your left or right?, Is it a movie or still photo? Black or white? Large or small? Are you in the event as an actor or are you an observer watching the event?

Now... if the picture is close to you, push it slowly far away from you. How does that small change affect the overall feeling / effect of the memory. What you have done is change one submodality. Here are some other fast & simple changes that you can apply - try each one and see what happens! If it is in colour, change it to black and white, if it is a movie, slow it down or speed it up.

There are many Visual, Auditory , Kinaesthetic, Tactile and Olfactory submodalities so the range of changes that can be made is vast.
In a Business context, imagine how easy it is to use these techniques to change how an event is perceived and processed by someone: A bad meeting with a client, a fight with a boss, a lack of self confidence in specific circumstances, you name it, there are ALWAYS submodalities involved. Changing submodalities really reframes any situation. Hope this answers your question. Feedback, please!

13/6/2016 09:23:10 am

Aaaah, Ian...so that's what you meant! Thanks for the helfpul explanation. I posted a similar technique recently: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/power-of-imagination Now I know what 'submodality' means too! :) All the best. Nick

Harold Russell

14/6/2016 09:03:57 am

Very interesting Nick. Anyone who's had the opportunity to either build a business from scratch, or work closely with micro businesses, will know only too well how the business is its people.

This has made me equally fascinated to see how such businesses can progressively lose sight of their people, and thus their core strengths, as they grow. When they do work at 'seeing' their people they often still think of them as employees or colleagues, rather than 'people'. helping them change that mental anchor is indeed a challenge.

14/6/2016 10:30:38 am

Thanks Harold. I've noticed a similar pattern too in organisations. It's as if the larger the organisation becomes, the harder it is to seek/know everyone as individuals and, thereby, the sense of 'persons' begins to morph into more abstract 'employees' or 'human resources'. This can lead to feelings of disenfranchisement and disengagement which is, I believe, one reason why building strong local teams (where people feel regarded as persons) with an equally strong commitment to working with other teams towards a shared vision can prove so vital psychologically in organisations. Reframing 'human resources' as, say 'resourceful humans' can be another way of bringing humanity back into the frame too! All the best. Nick

Peter Davies

14/6/2016 11:06:17 am

If you want to know what this feels like, work with volunteers and supporters in the third sector. They will always bring their total skill set to the game and don't have titles. You were often quite surprised by what they did for a career as it wasn't always an obvious link to what they did to raise money. I'd advise anyone to spend some time in a charity, it will open your eyes.

14/6/2016 11:08:49 am

Thanks Peter. I'm curious...what 'image' comes to mind for you, then, when you picture volunteers and supporters in the third sector and how they work? What is the 'this' that 'this feels like'? All the best. Nick

Jane Keep

14/6/2016 01:02:18 pm

In the end all work is about people, and the foundation of this is relationships. We all love work, we love people and we love serving others, work is medicine, but what gets in the way are all the processes, systems, technology, behaviours that impede our way to be the best we can. In all of this we hold images from all parts of our lives and all aspects of life - actually we are constantly bombarded by images - from advertising, the media, and all around us. The more we build a relationship with ourselves, we understand the images that can hold us back, and when we talk about the 'images' we have in life together in our daily work and environments the more we can break them down and realise they are just that - images.

14/6/2016 01:13:16 pm

Hi Jane and thanks for the note. Yes, if we are aware that the 'images' we hold are personally and socially (e.g. culturally) created, construed, reinforced and sustained, it can open the possibility to explore alternative images and what potential they could hold for us. The images are psychological constructs that 'exist' in the realm of personal and shared imagination, and yet often often appear (to those who hold them) to carry the weight of something more fixed, tangible and concrete. That sometimes makes it hard to surface and change them. Does that connect with your insights and experience too? All the best. Nick

15/6/2016 09:25:17 am

Hi Nick, the whole topic of images is interesting isnt it. For me its a little like the movie the "Truman Story' where jim Carey is living on a stage/set and finds out in his life and realise is all be a sham - life can feel like that too - what is actually true and what is a creation, or an image. We can have moments in our daily lives feeling things just dont make sense, or done seem 'real'. I feel there is much more too images that meets the eye and we are governed by them more than we think we are. Im not sensing we need to replace one image with another - more to deepen our awareness and understanding of what images exist, what are man made creations and where we actually have more freedom and choice than we can realise about life here on earth.

15/6/2016 09:26:47 am

Many thanks, Jane. I love the Truman Show as an example of a story that depicts this 'image' idea so well! All the best. Nick

Laura Lingle

14/6/2016 06:56:07 pm

In my experience the people who need to try this the most are the same people who would melt into an anxiety puddle at the thought of it.

14/6/2016 06:58:20 pm

Hi Laura. I love that. What a great graphic image! I'm curious. In your view, who are the people who need to try this the most? What is the 'this' that they need to try? What may lay behind or precipitate the risk of melting? All the best. Nick

Dave Smith

14/6/2016 06:59:30 pm

I have a tendency to tell you about my organisation because the organisation delivers a specific output and people within may change, but the delivery usually remains constant (although this is WIDELY open to interpretation).

However, your post stuck a chord: every successful organisation tends to be so due to their culture and vision: create a positive working environment for staff and staff will enjoy coming into work, reflected in their results. Have a toxic workplace, people will look at jumping ship and it's unlikely they'll be giving the best they can right up until that date.

Laura's right in that sometimes the very people that should be attending certain courses are the ones that find reasons not to (think: anger management, timekeeping, team leadership etc). Those that understand they have weaknesses and seek to improve themselves are the ones that advance.

14/6/2016 07:03:06 pm

Thanks Dave. I appreciate you sharing insights from your organisation because it helps to keep the principles we are thinking about here earthed in practice. So...a question: what kind of image could best capture the spirit of an organisation that has a positive working environment, bearing in mind vision and cultural factors? Toxic is a great contrasting and evocative metaphor. Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

16/6/2016 04:34:53 pm

"what kind of image could best capture the spirit of an organisation that has a positive working environment, bearing in mind vision and cultural factors?" - perhaps one that shows different employers being happy, cooperative and productive, no matter what they're doing - but then this could look too alike marketing hype (similar to Universities promotional materials).

To pinch a point mentioned earlier: perhaps some quotes and mission statements from people within that organisation that sum up reasons why they work there.

Branson's also said "train up your employees so they can leave, treat them in such a way that they stay" - he's all about empowerment and improvement, but also recognising company loyalty produces the most effective workforce.

Hamza Naseem Iqbal

15/6/2016 09:23:11 am

Thanks Nick. Worth a thought.

15/6/2016 09:23:42 am

Thanks Hamza. All the best. Nick

Debra Bunker

15/6/2016 07:16:09 pm

Nick Wright, I agree with David and just saw a meme from Richard Branson that says basically if you take care of your employees, then your employees will take care of your customers. So a happy employee makes for happy customers - makes perfect sense. It is a shame that there are many jobs where that is not an accepted philosophy and therefore we have huge turnover. I myself enjoy the process of learning, which is healthy for our brains, and attend as many workshops and courses that will engage me as a better employee.

15/6/2016 07:18:44 pm

Hi Debra and thanks for the note. Your Richard Branson quotation reminded me of a related one by Steve Jobs: 'It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.' Sounds like you have a great attitude as an employee! All the best. Nick

Images

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Images

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives