The Tao of Action-Reflection

Recognizing and Responding to the Organizational Dysfunctions of Shut-Rut and Paralysis by Analysis

by Mark L. Vincent, Ph.D., EPC

©Design Group International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The work of Design Group International™ puts it in a relationship with business, nonprofit and ministry leaders. Whether our work is with boards or executive leaders, we are frequently privileged to assist organizations of all types as they work their way through organizational disruptive and/or transformational change. Managing change provides an opportunity for organizations to build toward greater success. Not every organization is able to perceive and act upon these opportunities, however. Process consultants frequently observe that the work they do with clients is either not implemented at all or not sustained.

Stress exists naturally when managing organizational or personal change. Adding to that stress through any level of mishap is especially unwelcome! Getting the best assistance for the appropriate need can be a difficult challenge. Drawing from extensive experience, we developed a key insight in the diagram that follows. It is a way to match your organization with the best type of consultative assistance.

Each organization has its own character in how it manages key decisions such as leadership succession or adjustments in strategic approach. A key marker of an organization's character is whether the organization tends to stop and consider (reflect) before acting, or whether it tilts toward acting first and possibly reflecting on the result at a later time. Which of these two it normally does first is a matter of leadership style or organizational culture. the character of an individual is analogous to the character of an organization in this respect. When an individual or organization is committed to both action and reflection, it does not really matter which comes first. What is important is the commitment to do both.

Healthy organizations manage organizational change without much external assistance. They act and reflect. When they do draw on consultative help it is as a matter of guidance (identified as Guidance Territory in the diagram). The healthy organization asks the consultant to be an advisor, an auditor, and perhaps a trusted companion within the change process. Unhealthy organizations, however, fall in the Zone of Intervention because of the balance between action and reflection is lost. Either the action phase has become mere reaction without reflection, or the organization continues to call for more data without taking action. An imbalance that requires intervention on the action side is what we call Shut-Rut (closed-mindedness accompanied by repeating the same course of ineffective action)_. Imbalance that requires intervention on the reflection side biomes Paralysis by Analysis.

We have learned the importance of:

• Quickly and accurately identifying the organization's style and matching it in order to increase the effectiveness of any consultative assistance with the organization.
• Accurately identifying the organization's desire for guidance or intervention in order to recommend the application of an appropriate level of service.

Here are some additional reflections that grow from our insight:

• When the individual or organization is committed to both action and reflection, the need for consultative assistance is minimized. Such an organization is far more likely to understand the fragility of organizational change and to have a tenacious and patient strategy in place. In such a case, the consultant's usefulness is as a guide, or perhaps to help with specific outside expertise requested by an organization that is capably managing its own affairs.
• When there is not a commitment to hold action and reflection together, action or reflection become compartmentalized and no longer inform each other. Further, the preferred mode--whether action or reflection--becomes calcified. That is, action or reflection become a means to enforce what the individual or organization already thinks or does, however flawed everyone acknowledges it to be.
• The diagram is express along an arc rather than as a continuum to show how easily the person or organization can switch from action to reflection when there is a healthy balance, and how similar the dysfunctions of Shut-Rut and Paralysis by Analysis look when action or reflection stand alone.
•  When an imbalance exists, the individual or organization drops into a zone that calls for consultative intervention. Without intervention, change initiatives are led by the most politically astute and powerful within the organization, not necessarily the people most skilled to manage change and lead the organization to fulfill its mission. Failure to address these problems virtually assures a short tenure for new leaders and a long tenure of organizational malaise.

Recognizing Shut-Rut

Several Shut-Rut responses are prone to show up:

Tell me, but don’t tell me. Leaders ask what they should do but are quick to say why it cannot be done or will not work.

Thought resistance. Organizational leaders often complain that the process of figuring something out is making them think. Hard to believe but it happens frequently!

Enforcers. Regardless of the fact that data indicates needed change; regardless of whether that data is provided by an employee, a task force, the consultant, or even the Chair of the Board, decision-makers turn to organizational power brokers for verification or for a signal that they can proceed.

More of the same. Solutions put forward by continuing leaders are only variations of what is already being done. Sometimes this combines with blaming clients, constituents, or employees for their stupidity in suggesting something new.

Scapegoats. Previous messengers of change, usually former, newer, and younger leaders, are noticeably absent and are the ones blamed for continuing problems.

Crisis cries (part one). The organization has a history of considering new possibilities only when it is in crisis and/or when survival is believed to be threatened. Once a sense of normalcy returns, a desire to return to previous patterns of behavior emerges.

The Example of Not Enough Space: One client needed more space for meetings of its constituency. Fortunately, a modular wall could be taken down instead of renovating the entire space. The client had faced this scenario many times but failed to make the extra room. Each time the organization balked, numbers began to decline and the board would determine expansion was no longer necessary, failing to draw any connection between declining participation and the lack of space. The client was again facing participation numbers that stretched the current facility configuration. The board met and determined that when constituency meetings averaged more than 110 persons for more than three months, the modular wall would come down and they would spread into a larger space. When this actually happened, an influential board member made an impassioned speech about keeping the room the way it was because they saw five open seats at the previous meeting. The board resolved not to expand the space and did not set a revised target.

Participation went into decline . . . .

Recognizing Paralysis by Analysis

Again, more than one of these is usually present.

Deadlined deadlines. Agendas are ignored or not even published. Key leaders ask questions in order to delay any declaration of opinion. Urgent matters are immediately tabled.

Keeping down with the Joneses. “Who else is doing this?” becomes a more frequently asked question than “How will these ideas help us enact our vision?” In a healthy organization “Who else . . . .” is a matter of due diligence and information gathering. In a dysfunctional organization, this same question is driven by fear. It is important to recognize the difference.

Open admission. Leaders openly admit they know the organization is stuck. They may even openly admit they have studied the problem, shot the messenger, and shelved the findings. This one could also be called shoulder shrugs.

Double-checking. In this case, double-checking is not about checks and balances, but growing redundant and duplicative efforts.

Crisis cries (part two). The organization has a history of acting only when in crisis and survival is believed to be threatened. Once a sense of normalcy returns, the pressure is exerted to return to the old pattern of critiquing the new option to death.

The Example of the Delayed Application: One client asked for assistance with completing a sophisticated federal form in order to update its incorporation. The nearly completed form was given to the Board Chair for a final piece of information and a signature so the form could be sent. In the review of the form, the chair commissioned another board member to fill out a fresh copy. The previous effort of the task force and their consultant (and now being handled outside the established process) was thrown away after copying over almost all of the information. When the form was finally submitted, it was too late, and new and even tighter federal rules applied, requiring yet another new form to be filled out. Incorporation changes were delayed by more than a year and the client paid a higher fee.

In Summary: When organizations and leaders are faced with change, they default to a position of Action or Reflection. When a balance of Action and Reflection is in place, organizational health can be maintained. When Action and Reflection are separated, the organization or individual can be trapped in the dysfunctions of Shut- Rut or Paralysis by Analysis. Consultation in a balanced scenario is best offered as guidance. Consultation in a dysfunctional scenario is best offered as an intervention.

Skilled process consultants can recognize the default position of the organization or individual, can ascertain whether health or dysfunction is present, and can choose appropriate helping strategies to bring the desired change.

© Design Group International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

______________

Mark L. Vincent, Ph.D., EPC, Founder of Design Group International, fosters maestro-level development of Company Owners/Executives and the organizations they are building.

Mark's accumulated experience includes more than thirty years of pioneering a variety of approaches to leadership and organizational capacity-building, entrepreneurship, interim executive leadership, and professional development and credentialing. His focus on helping organizations and leaders achieve their objectives has led to successful adaptive change initiatives with more than 600 clients in varied domestic and international marketplaces. In 2001 he founded Design Group International.

Dr. Vincent’s academic work included research into complex decision making as well as an economic strategy for associational systems (e.g. franchises, professional associations, denominations). He has written and presented extensively on stewardship and steward leader theology and practice, serving as the Founding Editor for Giving Magazine and writing several related books, most notably A Christian View of Money. Mark’s wife Lorie, prior to her death at the end of a sixteen-year journey with leiomyosarcoma,  joined him in writing the book Fighting Disease, Not Death: Finding a Way Through Lifelong Struggle.

Mark's most recent work is a curated blog called Walking beside my dying wife, about his journey toward hope during the years of her suffering and beyond.

Mark founded the Eastern Wisconsin Convene Team in 2013, a best practices peer-based advising team for company owners and CEOs, with companies ranging from $1 to $450 million. He also guides the growing consulting network for Convene. In 2017, he was instrumental in launching the Society for Process Consulting, and he teaches an introductory course for those seeking a professional credential in this field. He serves on the boards of Cox Family Holdings, Petersen Products, and the Steward’s Journey and sits on the Standards and Ethics Committee for the Society for Process Consulting.

Married now to Patricia Teall Vincent, a life coach in her own right, their time divides between family, work, and the various coffee shops of Boise, Idaho and Eastern Wisconsin.