weLEAD
Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright
2006 ã weLEAD, Inc.
July
2006 Editorial
The Mental Model of Organizational Thinking and Doing
Editor of the E-Journal of Organizational Learning and
Leadership
Organizational life
is the accumulation of professional and social relationships imbedded in the
purpose and culture of the institution. These
relationships each have varying motives, intentions, understandings and
knowledge. Organizational relationships
are often defined by changing alliances and a spectrum of interpretations by
individuals as to how to interact with the mission and vision of the
organization. In this regard, the work
of leaders in organizations striving to create cohesion and effectiveness can
be helped by creating shared mental models of organizational dynamics. The creation of mental models does not
alleviate problems; it simply provides a venue for analyzing and solving
problems in a way that creates common understandings and shared language among
the myriad of ever changing organizational relationships.
Senge (1990) packaged the concept of mental
models because it is difficult to develop corporate understandings of human
dynamics without some overt means of describing inert phenomena.1
For example, mental models can help leaders and their followers understand the
relationship between the areas of organizational intelligence and behavior, the
worlds of organizational thinking and doing.
In general, mental models outline the relationships, alliances,
hierarchies and networks; sequences, protocols or procedures; inhibitors or accelerators;
and the strength, intensity or pace of two or more organizational
elements. Mental models are useful in
analyzing organizational dynamics and in planning for desired outcomes.
Once placed into a
mental model, common understandings can be developed in organizational
intelligence (thinking) and behavior (doing).
Desirable organizational intelligence involves shared questioning,
pondering, hypothesizing, theorizing, exploring, researching, discovering,
synthesizing, creating, analyzing, organizing and assessing. Desirable organizational behavior involves
shared experimenting, trying out, testing, acting on, applying, facilitating
and orchestrating. Ideally, the
relationship between intelligence and behavior are working well whereby
effective organizations are able to match conceptualizations with actions and
actions with conceptualizations on a corporate level. The ability to align thinking and doing has
been identified as a key strategy for success.
Korogodsky (2004) states, “Alignment of strategy, process, organization
and technology is the key to unlocking the power of information. It can be the difference between success and
failure.”2
In developing organizational mental models,
relationships are understood as dynamic, multi-dimensional and
interactive. Gladwell (2002) describes
the elements of societal and business phenomena, called tipping points, and
clearly describes how even small changes or varying contextual elements can
impact the way mental models work.3
Because of this, mental models, once created, should be regularly
recreated to remain relevant. Learning
organizations recognize the fragile and fickle nature of organizational
dynamics and develop the capacity to modify, transition and adapt to necessary
changes. They do this by corporately
describing the various elements in their mental models that are functional and
dysfunctional. The importance of
engaging in organizational work that is focused on continual, cooperative and
specific learning about the organization itself is espoused as critical for
survival in this modern age. Several
decades ago, Bell (1973) predicted what this might
mean and states, “What is characteristic of the post-industrial society is not
just the shift from property or political criteria to knowledge as the base of
power, but the character of knowledge itself.”4 He further states, “theoretical knowledge is
the matrix of innovation.”5
This is partially
why the field of knowledge management is important today. Myburg (2004) explains the impact of
knowledge management initiatives in organizations, “Largely because of the
development and convergence of information and communication technologies
(ICTs), there has been a considerable change in the way organizations are
formed and in how they function. They now are described as networked, intelligent,
virtual, and learning.”6
Learning organizations are emerging as required cultures for the
future. According to Ashkanasy, Härtel
and Daus (2002), “The trend of knowledge work: With organizational viability
depending more and more upon the knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes of
employees, management practices that encourage innovation and a high
performance and learning culture that embraces all workers are essential
(Macdonald, 1995).”7
The importance of mental models as a knowledge management
exercise to the organizational leader is described by Moore (1998),
“The biggest change in mindset that today's
leaders can make is a shift from conceiving their businesses as hierarchical
organizations to envisioning themselves as participants in a world of complex
evolving systems. The new strategic paradigm involves exerting leadership--not
control--over communities of individuals and organizations. It involves
respecting and taking advantage of the intelligence of others around you, and
working together to create new innovation. It involves shaping the future,
rather than simply defending the enterprises of the past. We live in a business
world where the only true sustainable advantage is innovation. I define
innovation not simply as continuously pumping out products and services.”8
The work of the
learning organization, therefore, focuses on collaborative practices whereby
the successes and pitfalls of the organization itself are examined through the
use of mental models. Creating mental
models are helpful when the relationship between organizational intelligence
and behavior reveals weaknesses. Organizations of all kinds struggle with this
problem. The news is full of high
profile organizations, but the problem plagues many. Dysfunction occurs, for example, when
decisions are made, policies are enacted or work is completed without a shared
understanding of the value of such actions.
Common disconnections happen between the reality of how people work together
and what they actually do versus what an organizational chart or job
description indicates in theory should occur.
When a gap exists between what is actually done and what is hypothesized
as work to be done, it is extremely disengaging. When actions disconnect from theory, work
production feels meaningless. Bohlman
and Deal describe this as “the curse of cluelessness,”9 where leaders have no idea why their
organizations are dysfunctional. In this
information age, this phenomenon is extremely difficult to manage. Several organizations have suffered financial
consequences as a result of not being able to transition to knowledge
management initiatives. The problem is
described by Harari (1997) as organizations are faced with adapting from
production to knowledge-based operations,
“Conventional
wisdom suggests that the crucial predictors of competitive success revolve
around size, mass and physical presence. With size et al., goes the reasoning,
an organization can capitalize on lots of nifty things, like economies of
scale, internal efficiencies, cross-business synergies, name recognition, and
negotiating muscle with everyone from suppliers to members of Congress. There's still some truth to this statement,
but it's a severely tarnished truth. The evidence is all around us. Nearly 50
percent of the 1980 Fortune 500 companies--the largest industrials in the
United States--no longer exist. Among those who still do exist, many are in
serious trouble--faltering heavyweights such as Apple, McDonald's, AT&T and
Westinghouse, to name just a few.”10
Mental models can help learning
organizations to understand knowledge management problems. Putnam, who helped Senge co-author the idea
of mental models, describes how defensive routines in organizations diminish
capacity and create dynamics that create disparity between organizational
intelligence and behavior. He proposes
the use of action maps to understand what is occurring, as he explains,
“Organizations are awash with incongruities.”11 Fads are a good example of this. Research on fads shows the incredibly
negative effect they have on organizational effectiveness. When a fad mentality exists in organizations,
the ability to sustain positive change diminishes. Fads are nothing more than organizational
intelligence adapting a theory or idea without that theory or idea connecting
to organizational behavior. A mental
model can help to identify and understand this dysfunction. Organizations imbedded in defensive routines
or crises often engage in another type of dynamic. This is when an organization implements a
change, just because of tradition or because something needs to be done,
without considering why that particular change strategy is relevant. When research and sound theories are ignored,
organizational intelligence is not connected to behavior. Argyis, Putnam, and McLain Smith (1985) and
describe how these disconnections occur through a taxonomy of decision making
that outlines learning and its various elements and consequences as based in
“reflection” or “protection.” Their
taxonomy describes seven steps with multiple decision trees and interactive
elements for “reflection.” Learning
organizations are prone to thinking and doing that involves public reasoning,
experimentation, inquiry, identification of dilemmas and errors, and reflection.12 Rather than presenting learning as
decision making process as Argyis, Putnam and Smith do, Solovy (1999) considers
a different angle. He describes the
construction of mental models through an initial deconstruction process of
identifying what is misunderstood as a result of history and assumptions,
called dominant logic. He describes the
dominant logic as an inhibitor to organizational learning and change. He explains,
“Like most
industries, we've focused our energy on organizational learning. But climbing
the learning curve is only half the process. The other half is the unlearning
curve. . . . It acts as a filter, focusing corporate learning only on data that
conform to it. In other words, the process of turning information into intelligence
is biased. As a result, firms miss opportunities and struggle to change.”13
Organizational life
and leadership expectations are certainly in the throes of change. As Harari (1995) describes,
“As I've written in
these pages before, the key success factor of an individual business enterprise
is no longer its sheer size or the number of tangible assets it owns. Today,
the size of the organization's ‘body’--its balance sheet, its personnel
roster--is less important than the size of its ‘brain,’ its collective
intelligence and expertise.”14
Therefore, leaders
must understand how to use mental models to cultivate organizational
potential. Tapping into the knowledge
capacity of the organization through the use of mental models in examining
organizational thinking and doing is a worthwhile practice. As Shibley (2006) states, “Organizational
learning is the end of the war between thinking and doing.”15
References:
1Senge, P. (1990). The
Fifth Discipline.
New York: Doubleday.
2Korogodsky, A. (2004).
Moving toward alignment [Electronic version]. Bests
Review (104), 9.
3Gladwell, M. (2002).
The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York:
Little, Brown and Company.
4Bell, D.
(1973). The Coming of
Post-Industrial Society.
Excerpt retrieved 07/07/06 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DanielBell
5ibid
6Myburgh, S. (2004). Competitive intelligence: bridging organizational boundaries
[Electronic version]. Information Management Journal (38), 2,
50-52, 54-55.
7Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J
& Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and
emotion: The new frontiers in
organizational behavior research [Electronic version]. Journal
of Management (28), 3, 307-338.
8Moore, J. F. (1998).
The rise of a new corporate form [Electronic version]. Washington
Quarterly (21), 1, 167-181.
9Bohlman,
L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Comments to: flumerfe@leadingtoday.org
About the author: