A self Organising Systems Approach to Managing The Third Act as an Organisation
Dr."Ed"Kelly"
A" flock" of" birds" and" a" plane" cross" in" flight." One" is" a" complicated" ‘mechanical’" system,"the"other"a"complex"‘natural’"system."In"the"complicated"system,"the"sum" of"the"parts"makes"up"the"whole."In"the"complex"system,"the"‘intelligence’"for"the" the"parts"is"held"by"the"whole."No"one"bird"sets"the"direcAon"and"if"one"leaves,"the" flock" keeps" going." If" a" wing" falls" off" the" plane" however," the" whole" of" the" plane" stops."Therefore"complicated"mechanical"systems"need"managing"whereas"complex" living"systems,"such"as"groups"of"birds"or"humans,"can"selfEmanage,"if"enabled.!
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
1
The Third Act Network Community Charter & Declaration of Intent (DRAFT VER 3, SEPT 2015) 1. Introduction There is an emerging purpose at the heart of The Third Act which is to both educate people about the practical implications of human longevity as well as to create ‘transitional structures’ to help people transition from their second to third act in life (see figure 1). The ‘education’ work could come in the form of conferences, seminars and workshops and in influencing social and organisational policy and the ‘transition’ work through third act transitionary programmes, coaching, supporting enterprise in The Third Act and in providing a developmental framework within which people can be supported through their transition. This Third Act is a new developmental stage in our evolution, as different to our second act as our second act was to our first act. It’s not however our fourth act. As described below, in the fourth act we are contracting as we face the inevitability of our own demise. In The Third Act however we are still expanding, growing and developing ourselves as we take on new challenges and opportunities that this new gift of time has given us. !
INTRODUCING!THE!‘NEW’!THIRD!ACT!IN!LIFE! ! !First!Act!
! Forma,on,!childhood,!adolescence,!dependency,!growing!to! adulthood!(age!1:25)! !
! !Second!Act!
! Development,!independence,!adulthood,!busy!taking!on!career! planning!&!progression,!partnering,!bringing!up!family,!saving!for! later!(age!25:55/65)! !
! !Third!Act!*!
! Transforma,on,!new!career!aHer!re,rement.!Time,!space!and! opportunity!for!growth!and!personal!development!(age!55:80+).!
! !Fourth!Act!
! Winding!down,!old!age.!Facing!increasing!frailty,!loss!of!acuity!of! senses,!health!or!mind!and!facing!the!inevitable!end!of!life.!!
Table 1 From an organisational perspective, we ask, ‘what organisational structure or model would best serve the work of The Third Act’?, a traditional follow the leader model, a modern top-‐down pyramid model, a post-‐modern flat model or an integrally inspired self-‐organising systems model? Each organisational model is associated with a 03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
2
particular time in history and with a prevailing level of consciousness. To-‐day the top-‐down pyramid model is dominant and is so engrained in our thinking that we automatically default to comparing any new approach to it (see link below). This model is however in crisis1 and is arguably not well suited to the purpose or the work of The Third Act. Taking inspiration from nature, we suggest putting a self-‐organising systems approach in its place. http://www.enliveningedge.org/media/an-‐animated-‐journey-‐through-‐reinventing-‐organizations/
2. Collaboration vs Competition We are so used to operating in competitive systems, such as the top-‐down model mentioned above, that you may be wondering whether you could operate under a self-‐organising system at all? Am I willing, able or even interested in the level of self-‐ responsibility that it might entail? This perhaps overestimates the amount of personal responsibility required and underestimates the amount of collaboration that naturally arises in self-‐organising systems. Taking self-‐responsibility in such a system maybe no more nor less than the willingness to speak up for what you think is right, to be being prepared to take the initiative when required, while also being willing to listen into others and to reflecting on new and different ways of doing things. It is perhaps also easier if you begin see that self-‐organising systems are complex and operate to their own dynamic whereas mechanical type top down systems are more used to are complicated and therefore need to be managed. In complicated systems we look to the structure to hold the system together, hence the importance of leadership, management and control. In complex systems we look to the structure as well as the space in between. Here we find collaboration, communication and trust. There follows an introduction to the ‘philosophy, principles, structure, practices and processes’ of self-‐organising systems. Firstly though, some misconceptions about self-‐organising’ systems. 1 A 2014 worldwide study of organisational health by Gallup1 showed that only 13% of those surveyed were engaged at work, which means 87% are not engaged. Other studies indicate that 80% of employees do not trust their bosses and for good reason. In the US, CEO’s get paid 331 times the 1 average worker’s salary and 774 times as much as minimum wage earners . How do you align your purpose with others in the organisation when there is such a gulf in how the benefits are distributed?
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
3
3. Misconceptions about self-‐organising systems • MISCONCEPTION 1. THERE IS NO STRUCTURE, NO MANAGEMENT, NO LEADERSHIP. There is a misconception that there is no structure, management or leadership in self-‐organising systems. That’s just not the case. The assumption may arise from the incorrect meaning we attach to ‘self-‐organising’. If everyone is self-‐organising and self-‐managing, where is the organisational control, individual accountability and leadership, we wonder? Surely such an approach will end in chaos? In a self-‐ organising system the ‘structure, management and leadership’ is embedded in the design of the system itself. Motivated by trust, the system liberates people to take responsibility for what they do, provided they subscribe to the underlying values and purpose of the organisation and are willing to be guided by the self-‐organising processes (for example see below 6.1 & 6.2). • MISCONCEPTION 2. EVERYONE IS EQUAL Self-‐organising systems don’t resolve the problem of equality and power that exist in all human organisations; they transcend it. Power is no longer seen as a zero sum game. The question is not, ‘how can everyone have equal power, or how can power be equally distributed, but how can everyone be powerful’? Self organising systems inherently acknowledge that everyone brings different skills, knowledge, experience and commitment to the organisation. The focus is on creating the best design system to enable each persons skills and talents to be fully realised. Like in natural eco-‐ system, this creates a set of overlapping hierarchies that are separate but connected to each other. Think of a fern and an oak tree in a forest. Separate but connected, each can grow to its full potential. Removing the one dominator hierarchy allows a series of ‘overlapping hierarchies’ to emerge, each individual but also supporting each other. • MISCONCEPTION 3. ITS ABOUT EMPOWERMENT. In conventional organisations power is held at the top and descends in an order of powerlessness to the bottom. Not surprisingly those with the least amount of power have to be ‘empowered’ to keep them going. This is usually in the form of a carrot and stick, a type of ‘extrinsic motivation’ that has little regard for the person themselves. It is assumed that people can be incentivised or coerced into doing what the organisation wants. Self-‐organising systems strip away the hierarchy and with it the need for empowerment. In self-‐organising systems people empower themselves,
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
4
intrinsically, to do what they are drawn to do, in service of the purpose of the organisation and within the values and processes that guide it. • MISCONCEPTION 4. ITS STILL AN EXPERIMENT. Self-‐organising and self-‐managing systems are hardly an experiment as they have always operated in nature. The question is, ‘why haven’t more human organisations operated in this way’? There are a number of successful organisations that do operate under these principles. These include: Gore-‐Tex who have operated on self-‐ organising principles since 1950, Wholefoods (and its 60,000 employees), The Orpheus Orchestra (since 1972), Sempco (in Brazil since 1980’s). More recent examples include Wikipedia and Linux etc. The AA, an organisation of 1.8 million users, is also established on ‘self-‐organising’ principles. Another example is Berkshire Hathaway, run by Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. Berkshire incorporates 80 separate operating businesses employing 300,000 people with a head office staff of just 24, i.e., there are no managers to manage the managers. As Charlie Munger says, “we have delegated responsibility almost to the point of neglect” and it has worked. 4. Underlying philosophy Conventional organisations have many strengths but their very design makes them unequal, overly bureaucratic and unable to adapt quickly to change. Power gets locked up in the hierarchy, decision-‐making gets locked up in the bureaucracy and energy gets locked up in maintaining the status quo. Post-‐conventional organisations suffer few of these limitations. Inspired by the kind of complex adaptive systems that thrive in nature, self-‐organising systems are ‘autopoeitic’ which means they are self-‐ managing and self-‐reproducing. They don’t need to talk about change or change management, because adaptation and change is built into its DNA. In a flock of birds for instance, no one bird holds the code for flight. The ‘intelligence’ for flight is held by the flock itself. What we perhaps need to recognise and to challenge in ourselves, is that, as a concept, self organising systems are viewed differently depending on whether we see it from a conventional or post conventional mindset. From a conventional mindset it seems chaotic. Who owns the organisation? Who is the leader? Where is the order and control? How are people made accountable? How are disputes resolved? Freed from the tyranny of bureaucracy and empowered by the delegation of responsibility, a post-‐conventional mindset sees that when a person is ‘intrinsically motivated’, i.e., they see their autonomy is guaranteed, their desire to learn and develop is facilitated and their search for meaning and purpose
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
5
accommodated, that the time, energy, creativity and resources that is unleashed can lead to great things. 5. Principles As described by Frederick Laloux2 in his book Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness, three principles govern self-‐organising systems; 5.1 Self-‐management. Where a system of peer relationships allows people to self manage and motivate themselves without the need for either ‘hierarchy’ or ‘consensus’ but within a new self-‐organsing structure. The usual power and leadership structures are replaced by a hierarchy of purpose. Accountability is to the ‘whole’ and to the purpose that motivates the organization. 5.2 Wholeness. Where people are encouraged to bring their ‘whole’ and autonomous selves to what they do; mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually. Vulnerability and ‘not knowing’ is allowed and indeed expected. This is in contrast to the more usual work environment where we park our soul at the door and replace it with a competitive corporate identity. The first breeds love and trust the second fear and the absence of courage. 5.3 Evolutionary Purpose. The myth of the leader is expunged as work and decision making is guided by the organisation’s own evolutionary purpose, revealed to its members through listening into to what it might be. The key question is, ‘what does this organisation want to become’? 6. Structure There are three different self-‐organising structures that we could consider for The Third Act Organisation; a single self-‐organising team, parallel teams, or teams in a nested hierarchy. The most appropriate one depends on the size of the organisation, the complexity of the work and the breath of the vision. If the organisation is small, then self-‐organising in one team would seem appropriate. If there are more than 20 people involved, then one of the other forms may be more appropriate. The one we choose then depends on the complexity of the work being done and the overlapping of functions. Given our dual purpose, and the fact that most of the work can be 2 See Frederick Laloux. Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the
Next Stage of Human Consciousness,
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
6
started and finished within a particular team, a parallel structure of self-‐organising teams, working independently but along side each other, with few centralised functions, would seem to be most appropriate. Our current best effort at visualising the structure is reflected in Figure 1. 7. Practices In addition to choosing a structure, we also need to adopt a set of practices that reinforce the values of ‘self-‐management, wholeness and evolutionary purpose’. For instance, in the absence of a conventional hierarchy, we fill the void with ‘trust, transparency and self-‐responsibility’. For instance, Charlie Munger describes how Berkshire’s leadership culture operates through “a seamless web of trust”? What kind of self-‐responsibility would that entail? Transparency also supports trust and remove the need for in and out groups and for second guessing. Similarly with practices supporting wholeness and evolutionary purpose. What can we do to ensure that people feel they can bring their whole selves to what they do? Also, what can we practically do to model the importance of each individual listening into their own evolutionary purpose? 8. Processes In addition to the practices, there are different processes that support the running of a self-‐organising system. These include the “advice process” and “conflict resolution process” described below. There is also a governing charter or constitution and a declaration that each participant would sign confirming their commitment to the underlying purpose and philosophy of The Third Act as an Organisation. 8.1 The Advice Process The advice process works on the assumption that each individual has signed up to the underlying philosophy, values and purpose of The Third Act, and that they are ‘intrinsically motivated’ to carry out their work. With these conditions in place, the individual is empowered to make their own decisions, including spending decisions, provided they have followed the advice process. The advice process therefore provides ‘layer of accountability’, which follows three steps. In Step 1, the individual checks him/herself by asking ‘how does my action serve the overall purpose of the organisation or group’? Step 2, the individual seeks advice from anyone likely to be influenced by their decision. In Step 3, the individual seeks advice from an expert in the field, where appropriate. Once that is done, the individual is deemed capable of making an informed decision and is therefore free to take action. Failure to follow the advice process can result in expulsion.
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
7
8.2 The Conflict Resolution Process The conflict resolution process works on the assumption that the individuals involved in a conflict are the ones primarily responsible for resolving it, rather than expecting anyone else (a manager for instance) to do it for them. The process starts with the individuals meeting face to face and trying to resolve their differences. If that doesn’t work they talk with other members of their team and or they bring in a coach to mediate (as opposed to a manager as there are none). If that doesn’t work the conflict is brought before a council, which might include the founder, and other non-‐team members. This three prong process, which occurs over a period of time, ensures that the issue gets fully aired and those involved are given sufficient time to reflect on it. 9. Our role and intention As we address our own role and intention for The Third Act as an organisation, can we take a moment to ask ourselves, ‘what do we think this organisation wants to become, in other words, what is it’s underlying purpose’? Then ask, ‘how can we best work together in service of that end, i.e., what is the best way to structure the organisation so that the purpose can be most effectively served’? And finally, ‘what work do I want to do in respect of The Third Act and what contribution do I feel I can make’? 10. Criteria for participation We invite anyone interested in joining The Third Act organisation to; 8.1 Acknowledge that they understand and subscribe to the philosophy, principles, structure, practices and process of The Third Act as expressed in this Third Act Community Charter. 8.2. That they appreciate that with adopting the principles of ‘self-‐ management, wholeness and evolutionary purpose’, each person is expected to self-‐ manage within their group and within their scope of concern, that they can bring their whole selves to what they do and that they are prepared to listen into what the Third Act organisation wants to become. 8.3. That they become familiar with the emerging thinking on self-‐ organising systems as reflected in the following recommended reading list.
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
8
Personal Declaration of Intent SIGNATORIES -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
9
Recommended reading list 1. -‐ Frederick Laloux. Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness This is perhaps the most complete introduction to self-‐oganising systems currently available.
2. -‐ http://www.enliveningedge.org/ This is an excellent new resource on self-‐organising systems. Suggest you subscribe to their newsletter. http://www.enliveningedge.org/media/an-‐animated-‐journey-‐through-‐reinventing-‐organizations/
3. -‐ http://www.fastcompany.com/3044417/zappos-‐ceo-‐tony-‐hsieh-‐adopt-‐ holacracy-‐or-‐leave This is contemporary example of a US company call Zappos (an online retailer owned by Amazon), who are implementing self-‐organising principles across their organization.
4. -‐ http://www.holacracy.org/ Holcracy is both a description of the process of how individual holons are separate but also part of a greater whole, as well as a name of a US consulting firm that have developed a self-‐ organising system that some companies, including Zappos, are adopting.
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
10
Figure 1. The Third Act Network
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
11
Four%different%organisa/onal%structures%
% Follow% the% leader." Tradi(onal" organisa(onal" structure." Power" is" concentrated" in" the" ‘supreme’" leader." E.g.," Church," Monarchies," criminal" gangs." Followers" project" divinity" onto" the" leader" or" follow" through"fear."Leader"takes"responsibility"as"owner."Focus"is"on"the"“I”," the"leader"leading"from"the"front,"showing"the"way." % Pyramid.% Modern" organisa(ons.% % Power" comes" from" the" top" down." Leader"is"powerful"but"not"supreme."Has"limited"responsibility"&"limited" liability." Employees" seen" as" ‘resources’" and" mo(vated" by" ‘carrot" and" s(ck’." Organisa(on" is" mechanical" and" blind" to" its" own" shadow.% Great% faith% in% ‘process’% Shareholders" as" owner." Focus" is" on" the" “It”," the" organisa(on," its" goals." Ends" oLen" jus(fy" the" means." Needs" of" people" and"planet"can"easily"be"set"aside." % Flat.% PostNmodern" organisa(ons." " Pyramid" is" flaPened" &" hierarchy" abandoned." People" and" values" are" placed" centre" stage." Language" is" different," ‘stakeholders’" as" owners." E.g." universi(es," other" ‘green’" and" overly" PC" " organisa(ons." Focus" is" on" the" “We”;" culture," values" and" community." Lack" of" leadership" and" structure" can" be" inhibit" organisa(on’s"success."May"suffer"from"the"‘tyranny"of"consensus’."% % Self>organising."A"living"systems"model."Mimics"nature."InterNconnected" teams" of" overlapping" hierarchies" thriving" in" a" complex" environment." Individuals"mo(vated"‘intrinsically’"by"autonomy,"mastery"and"purpose." Leadership" is" distributed." The" network" as" owner." Only" organisa(onal" approach" that" Integrates" the" three" domains" of" knowledge," the" “I," We" and"It”."
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
12
! CEO! Deputy! Dept.!heads! Managers! Employees!
Structure'
Level'of'Consciousness'
! ! Tradi'onal!
! ! Dependent!
! ! Modern!
! ! Independent!
! ! Post!Modern!
! ! Independent!(Pluralist)!
! ! Integral!
! ! Inter7Independent!
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
13
• Current'organisa-onal'models'are' struggling'to'cope'with'the'complexity' of'modern'organisa-onal'life.'' – Only'13%'of'employees'worldwide'are' engaged'at'work,'according'to'Gallup's'new' 142Ccountry'study'on'the' State%of%the%Global%Workplace% – In'another'study,'89%'of'employees'said' they'feel'their'managers'are'out'to'serve' their'own'needs' – In'an'addi-onal'study,'that'95%'said'they' don’t'trust'their'CEO’s,'which'begs'the' ques-on,'who'or'what'is'an'organisa-on' for?'' – Individually'things'are'not'much'beNer,' 30%'of'US'adults'are'clinically'depressed.'
• A"tradi(onal"mind-set"wants"the"leader"to" shows"us"the"way."A"modern"mind-set" wants"the"process"to"do"it."A"postmodern"mind-set"wants"us"all"to"agree"on" it."An"integral"mind-set"‘integrates’"all" three:" – Leadership"that"acknowledges"the"importance" of"authority"and"responsibility"but"one"that"is" distributed"rather"than"centralised."" – A"libera(ng"structure0that"is"self-organising," self"managing"and"self-rejuvena(ng." – A"human,"soulful0organisa3on0that"supports" the""individual’s"own"development"as"well"as" the"organisa(on’s"own"purpose.""
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
14
Sample'size:'18,000'
" What"work"do"I" want"to"do?" " How"will"we"best" work"together?"" " What"does"this" organisa7on"want" to"become?"
•
Individuals*are*encouraged*to*bring*their*‘whole’*selves* into*the*organisa6on,*soul*as*well*as*role.*Mo6va6on*is* intrinsic,*‘autonomy,*mastery*&*purpose’.*Key*ques6on," ‘what"kind"of"work"do"I"want"to"do’?"
•
Work*is*managed*by*a*system*of*peer*rela6onships*where* teams*self"manage"and*mo7vate"themselves"without*the* need*for*either*‘hierarchy’*or*‘consensus’.*Accountability* is*to*the*‘whole’.*Key*ques6on,*‘how"can"we"best"work" together’?"
*
•
Work*is*guided*by*the*organisa6on’s*own*evolu6onary* purpose,*revealed*to*its*members*through*listening*into* to*what*it*might*be.*Key*ques6on,*‘what"does"this" organisa7on"want"to"become’?*
03/09/2015
Edward J Kelly
15
