Case Study on Organization Development

The Paradoxes, Manifestations and Tensions found at the Client\’s organization

First it would make sense to identify what is meant by the term paradox relative to organizational development. Opposing or contradictory methodologies can be considered paradoxical. For example, looking at architectural[i] design of exploitation requires something objective, measured scientifically by following standardized rules, structural, and is repeatable or reproducible. On the other hand, you have contextual[ii] design, which is predominantly based on social and behavioral science, team building, and more related to the humanistic approach to problem solving or something that is subjective rather than objective because it is not precisely reproducible. In both cases various levels of success can be achieved even if the methods used appear contradictory.

The common paradox faced in a case study we worked on was at a consumer goods start-up that reached ‘unicorn’ status within 2 years.  The client needed to decide whether they drive business based on maximizing production up to capacity or based on market demand. Most of the time they suffered from having more capacity than market demand which meant they were bleeding operations costs. As they needed to maintain growth, the decisions always came back to maximize production and in parallel expand their market reach and thus driving or hoping that demand would follow soon. The pressure fell equally on sales to perform and on the operations team to keep costs low. But then the pandemic hit.

One set of well-known paradoxes appeared at the operating levels; should they produce based on demand or produce based on their maximum capacity? If they produce only based on demand, they will not grow fast enough and will end up falling behind paying their contracted manufacturers and miss their forecasted targets. However, if they produce based on maximizing capacity, they could end up with 100s of days of stock which would either have to be scrapped, or sold at reduced prices, and make further losses as well as have wasted material.  Of course, there is always the possibility that they would hit the targets at maximum capacity and everyone would be happy, but all the numbers from the markets and feedback from their front line sales teams, as well as the past 4 months of sales was indicative of a drop in demand.

The other paradoxical challenges came from the organization set up which was quite diverse. It was hierarchical and based on unquestionable top-down decision-making if you were based in one of their Asian and Middle Eastern locations. On the polar opposite end a more open and relaxed dialogical method of work at their European, African, and some of their American offices. All global production, operations, software engineers and program managers were led by teams in the East, and all global sales, marketing, HR, and account management were in the rest of world. The reason for this split is obvious: cost of production is much lower in Asia vs the rest of the globe accounting for the reduced labor wages, the favorable exchange rates, and regulations that favor commerce and economic growth over work-life balance.

The tensions this setup brought to the current organizational design were:

• Lack of motivation and trust between operations and sales teams,
• Delays in product readiness,
• Different systems and reports used by each function,
• Regular employee burnout and high employee turnover,
• Inflated or deflated plans exacerbated by fear of missing the targets and bonuses,
• A reactive vs proactive way of working
• But the one common theme was quite apparent in all discussions: lack of direction or united understanding of what exactly they are trying to achieve.

 

Proposed and Implemented Organization Development Techniques

Aside from other data-collection and reporting tools that could help with some of the issues, we were tasked with helping look into OD solutions.  So, Which development techniques would apply here to tackle the tensions? The question is about tackling one of the tensions, but the method(s) we selected could potentially tackle a few more.

We decided on Polarity Management which was created by Barry Johnsson, and Whole Scale Change by Kathie Dannemiller & Chuck Tyson. Polarity Management technique postulates that \’we do not need to look for a problem to solve but to manage the sets of opposites that create the perceived problem, because they cannot function independently\’ (Johnsson, 1996a)[iii]. It requires us to accept a paradigm shift by getting the best of each polarity, the opposites, while avoiding their limits (Johnsson, 1996b)[iv] .  The technique Barry suggests is to create four quadrants whereby on the left vertical (y axis) you have the downside/negative outcome on the lower half of the axis, and upside/positive outcome on the upper half of the axis. Then on the horizontal (x axis) you have the poles that are being compared, for example ‘experienced’ on the left half, and ‘inexperienced’ on the right half. For my example on tensions above, it is almost obvious the poles would be ‘Demand’ and ‘Supply’ or ‘Profit’ or ‘Waste.’

Image from  http://bd-cons.com/site/brpolaritymanagement.htm@opendocument.htm

Whole-Scale Change is about quickly assessing the current environment and effectively implementing a strategy to deal with it immediately, or in real-time, and again in the future as evolutions occur (Dannemiller. T. W., 2000)[v].  It is rooted in the concept of addressing the company’s microcosms[vi](large groups relative to the size of the organization) to move \’in unison and in the same direction through new work structures and a common and agreed understanding of the goal at all levels of the organization\’ (Dannemiller. T. W., 2000a, 5-7). The tension Whole-Scale could solve is “What is our goal, why does this company exist and what are we trying to achieve.” There were many internal jargon feel-good words like ‘we are bringing the world together’ but so is everyone in the industry in which they compete; they had little differentiation.

 

How and why to use the methods above

 

In both ‘Polarity Management’ and ‘Whole-Scale’ the ‘how’ part was to organize a workshop that spans all functions in the organization and select the individuals from all levels at random – the reason for randomness was to get the most neutral and fair as well as ‘new’ perspective.  Before we set the date however, we gathered information and prepared a method for analyzing the problems to effectively show the issues using concrete and real feedback.  We used the blueprinting method (select which function needs to be developed, what is their target group, what is the current process between operations and sales, what software and reporting methods currently used, customer service quality, and what do the functions currently see).

 

This workshop was a multi-day affair.  Why Polarity Management as one potential workshop reasoning was because they do have a clear divide on targets: growth vs operational efficiency.  The teams were guided to create the quadrants for both – the poles and the upside/downside of each.  Those teams from both ends of the poles need to see each other’s strengths and weaknesses to come up with a solution that will benefit the business and not just their function targets. They are both full of competent people and their targets are critical for the business, and they both believe their way is the right way. “It is the incompleteness combined with the conviction of the rightness (accuracy) of their perception that is the source of a potential problem”[vii] (Johnsson, 1996c, 42-43). They need to see each other’s perspectives which gets lost in the chaos of day-to-day operations and putting out fires. This method would be the first step in creating cohesion and understanding between the functions and allow them to see that they are both trying to achieve the same purpose.

 

When it comes to Whole-Scale method and why, the reason was similar to the above paragraph.  There is a lack of synergy and understanding between the functions.  There is a Them vs Us mentality which is evident in the lack of united understanding of their purpose as a company.  The best part is we they had the answers[viii] (Dannemiller. T. W., 2000d) and can find a common purpose in the workshop.  We identified these gaps using several methods, but the starting point was the D x V x F > R method[ix] (Conference, 2022) for organisation change. Dissatisfaction with the current status, combined with the new/current Vision for change, combined with the First steps which will come out from this workshop, with the product of these 3 steps being larger than (>) the Resistance to this change.

 

Comparisson of the approaches and reflecting on their potential in future work

 

Here is a very compressed table that may show they key comparable features that we made for quick reference.

 

	Organisation Development Method
Measures	Whole Scale Management	Polarity Management
Scale	Any size business, from 5 ppl to 250+)	Sweet spot at 20-25 ppl
Scope	Looks at a \’microcosm\’ made of groups relative to the size of the business, and all functions are involved	More focused approach on 2 functions within a business that have vast differences in value-adding tasks
Time to implement	Urgency is key, solutions begin implementing immediately after the workshop and continually develop and evolve	Understanding is clarified at the conclusion of the study; implementation of new techniques or ways of working will depend on resulting project length and goals.  Could be 3 months, could be a year.
Frequency	Can be ongoing, or revisited every a few months	Can be annual or as needed between 2 misunderstood functions.
Ease of implementing	Quite intensive, many moving parts, many people, frequently changing, implementation is difficult and would likely need regular control	Fairly easy; once the workshop is over, actions and new processes or collaborative and project milestone reports meetings can be set at regular intervals
Measurable	Yes	Yes

 

There is always potential in any method of organisational development because companies are evolving all the time; we just need to look at the decades of research and theory which are born from evolving organizations.  We see a lot of use at ÄRC especially as we continue to grow this business practice which will utilize all the methods available when needed.

 

[i] Andriopoulos, C., and Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696-717

[ii] Andriopoulos, C., and Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696-717

[iii] Johnsson, Barry (1996a). Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems, pp xviii, accessed 06 December 2022.

[iv] Johnsson, Barry (1996b). Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems, pp xviii, accessed 06 December 2022.

[v] Associates, Dannemiller Tyson; Wheatley, and Margaret Wheatley. Whole-Scale Change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2000. Accessed 03 December 2022

[vi] Associates, Dannemiller Tyson; Wheatley, and Margaret Wheatley. Whole-Scale Change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2000. Accessed 03 December 2022, 5-7)

[vii] Johnsson, Barry (1996a). Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems, pp43, accessed 06 December 2022)

[viii] Associates, Dannemiller Tyson; Wheatley, and Margaret Wheatley. Whole-Scale Change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2000. Accessed 03 December 2022, pp46-47)

 

[ix] NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference 2020, The Beckhard-Harris Change Model (DxVxF>R), URL http://pastatenaacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Beckhard-Harris-Change-Model-DVF.pdf, accessed 07 December 2022