The Lazarus Journey

When we at Lazarus began our careers as Organization Development Practitioners, we came to the work having had several years of experience in other careers. Because of this time spent as traditional members of the workforce, we understood that some things about how we structured organizations and work and conducted organizational life were not very functional and created tension for both the organization and its members. We were determined to make a difference in the organizations with whom we worked and in the members within these organizations by partnering with them to bring about change.

Our journey together as practitioner has been emergent rather than planned, and we have always considered it more art than science. However, the principles of the new scientific model are very much similar to the core beliefs that have always guided our work.

• Everything is in a constant process of discovering and creating.
• Life uses messes to get well-ordered solutions.
• Life is intent on finding what works, not what's "right."
• Life creates more possibilities as it engages with opportunities.
• Everything participates in the creation and evolution of its neighbor.

Perhaps art and science are more convergent than we may have believed.

Increasing Tension in Organizations

During the 1980's and 1990's, the tension between organizations and their members increased at a fevered pitch. This fact was particularly true in service and knowledge work organizations where members were well-educated, independent thinkers who wanted freedom to work and to give input. The closer we moved to the new millennium, the more the tension grew. Because most of our clients were service and knowledge work organization, we found ourselves trying to discover the roots of the tension. Our experience and assessments seemed to indicate that these tensions were greatest when a significant difference existed between work reality and home or personal reality.

Some of the issues we found were:

• The potential of members was often limited rather than enhanced
• The creativity of members was not encouraged and often not welcomed
• Reporting structure was often more important than intelligent work structures
• Social realities of independence, equality, and group decision making were at odds with work realities of dependence, inequality, and chain of command decision making
• Spirituality was missing from the work environment
• Work lacked challenge and was not always fulfilling
• Members were often given directives by those less knowledgeable, experienced, or creative
• Members' views of needed changes were largely ignored.
• Organizations did not easily adapt to changes in the environment
• Equating growth in the organization with moving up the hierarchy limited the potential for growth and focused the attention on politics rather than on professional and personal development

Note: We realize now that the tensions we were experiencing were very much related to the fading Industrial Economy and the emerging Creative Economy. We also understand that our quest to help create an organization that was more socially informed was very much related to the emerging Creative Economy. For a more in-depth comparison, see Appendix 1.

Altering the "How" and Assuming the "What"

As new consultants, we followed what was then a fairly common practice; we helped our client organizations change how things were done and didn't spend a great deal of time questioning whether or not the things themselves were appropriate. It wasn't the management structure that was the problem, for example; it was how we practiced management. It wasn't the work structure that was the problem; it was lack of a quality program. It wasn't the work that teams were given to do, their role in the organization, or their degree of autonomy or authority; it was how they held meetings, brain-stormed around problems, and shared space.

This approach of improving the "how" encompassed several key points:

• Emphasis was on improving the "how" of work
• In most organizations, the message was that the "what" was OK and untouchable.
• This fact was further driven home because formal leaders usually decided the "whats."
• Business logic was the order of the day and was more important than human logic, spirituality, or intuition, or social awareness.
• Organizations and membership are not viewed as the same, and not only are they different, they are more important.
• Leadership was primarily done by a person in a position.

Though we quickly became disillusioned with these narrowly defined projects, we did extensive work in this area. I have noted some of our typical work from our earlier practice.

• Participative management development
• Participative supervisory training
• Participative decision making training
• Quality improvement and total quality management implementation
• Team development using a four phase model with teams whose members had less than full time involvement
• Team assessments based on simulations rather than on genuine involvement
• Enriching jobs
• Strategic planning done by the executive group
• Business planning done by the managers
• Custom training programs designed to meet needs determined by management

However, within a short time of beginning, we discovered that just altering "how" things were done was not enough. Tensions were just increasing. Though our client organizations usually enjoyed improved performance and members were more satisfied with their work and organizational life, we were not facilitating the transformational changes necessary to address the complex cultural and ecological problems we believed were eroding the effectiveness of organizations of all kinds and demoralizing their members.

Reconfiguring the "What" and Altering the "How"

We would like to report that at this point we repented of our ignorance, changed directions, and lived happily ever after. In actuality, we did repent of our ignorance, and we did change direction. We did not, however, live happily ever after. We began experimenting with changing "what" was being done as well as "how" things were being done in the hope of having a more significant impact on the complex ills we saw engulfing the organizations with whom we worked.

Some of our realizations about this time were:

• Organizational ills and problems are very complex and don't lend themselves to quick or simple fixes.
• Just giving members the skills to do things better will not solve all the problems.
• Assessments are a necessity and the best way to gather objective information about all aspects of the organization. Formal leaders tended to own any change process and usually attempted to control it.
• Change is both feared and resisted by most members.

Reconfiguring the "What" involved us in such efforts as:

• Implementing fully autonomous teams within an organization
• Flattening the hierarchy and eliminating management layers
• Implementing cross-functional teams with complete authority to perform
• Implementing a horizontal work structure
• Developing a seven phase model for team development

Though the work was much more challenging and interesting, we still were not getting the measure of impact we desired. The tensions were still rising.

Putting New Wine in Old Wine Skins

We realized that the more socially informed ideas and practices about work had to find their way into the knowledge and service work organizations with whom we worked. Our next direction was to take the concepts of "workplace communities" and to try to implement them in our client organizations. Since most organizations were maintaining the traditional, hierarchical framework, we had to lay these "soft skills' over the traditional organization structure. The results were still significantly less than we had hoped for. While members of the organization responded well to the concepts and learned new ways of interacting, communicating, and dealing with problems, they were not always able to practice what they were learning. The organizations in structure and practice were still very traditional and hierarchical, leaving little room for the more open, community based communication and interactions.

Some of the understandings we learned or attach to this time in our practice are:

• People and organizations are one.
• Socially informed philosophies about work had been virtually ignored and had to be inserted in the mix.
• Social philosophies about work were laid over the traditional organization with limited success.
• Members had to learn self-awareness, relationship skills, group skills - the hard "soft" skills.
• Members were not able to practice their new skills because the traditional environment was still alive and well.

We did such work projects as:

• Charting points of integration and designing integration processes
• Facilitating negotiations involving professional feedback issues.
• Shifting the organization from a department focus to a work team focus.
• Designing horizontal work structures.
• Designing conflict management processes.

Creating and Innovating: On the Right Track

Because of our experiences with workplace communities, we knew that something more drastic would have to be implemented to overcome and/or change the culture of any organization. We had, for all practical purposes, given up on finding an existing model that would enable us to realize our goal. Since a portion of what was going wrong with our client organizations could be traced to the formal and even informal leaders, we decided that it was time to give up on existing models and create some totally new ways of thinking about and practicing leadership. We began to question the validity of what had always been considered good business practice.

It was during this time as well, that we also came to understand the extent of the tension in many organizations and arrived at some wisdom about the causes. The industrial economy was dying; the creative economy was emerging and all bets were off. The foundation of the creative economy is based on the sale of ideas and concepts and the services that come from these. Organizational practices had to change to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

We are still at this point in our journey. We are learning, innovating, and sharing more than we ever imagined possible. Some points we have gleaned are:

• Creativity and innovation are central to the new economy.
• The self and the self in relationship to others is the core of every organization.
• Healthy relationships engender creativity.
• Leadership is a set of functions that must be done by everyone.
• Management is a set of functions that must be done by everyone.

Out of this effort came the framework for what we dubbed the "Collaborative Organization" and "Functional Leadership." The Collaborative structure differs from other organizational structures in that the power is equally distributed throughout the organization and the work is maintained and changed by dialogue, interaction, and negotiation. Functional Leadership was unique in that it approached leadership as a set of things that had to be done, not as a position or a personality that had to be acquired.

This functional approach to leadership meant that all members of the organization could learn to practice leadership and would be accountable for doing so. At this point, we really felt that we had reached Mecca. However, our excitement was short lived because those practicing functional leadership and collaboration were still running into barriers in the organization. To end our frustration, we decided to really examine the traditions of organizations and to identify those that hindered the full implementation of Functional Leadership or Collaborative work structures.

What we discovered was that we had backed into the place where we likely should have started our work several years before. What we needed was an entirely new model for business. We needed a model that was consistent with what was important to those in the workforce, that would enable organizations to move into and take advantage of the coming economy, and that was conducive to rapid adaptation and change. We arrived at the RELATIONAL MODEL FOR BUSINESS.

For a more thorough discussion of our relational model, please download our white paper here.