Difference between revisions of "Larman's Laws of Organizational Behavior"
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==== 5. Culture follows structure. ==== | ==== 5. Culture follows structure. ==== | ||
| + | Elaboration on law 5: A longer form is, ''Culture/behavior/mindset follows changes in the organizational system and design.'' That is, if you want to really change culture, you have to start with changing organizational structures (groups, teams, roles, hierarchies, career paths, etc), because culture does not really change otherwise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The systems-thinking advocate John Seddon also observed this: "''Attempting to change an organization’s culture is a folly, it always fails. Peoples’ behavior (the culture) is a product of the system; when you change the system peoples’ behavior changes.''." | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is an observation in large established organizations; in contrast, in small start ups, it's the reverse: structure follows culture. That is, the (probably simple and informal) organizational design reflects the mindset and culture of the small number of members in the start up. As the organization grows, at some point it usually reverses to culture follows structure. | ||
| + | |||
| + | And "culture follows structure" (in large groups) is why purely “mindset” approaches such as organizational learning are not very sticky or impactful by themselves in large groups, and why frameworks such as Scrum (that have a strong focus on structural change at the start) tend to more quickly impact culture — if the structural change implications of Scrum are actually realized. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Or, ''Culture/behavior/mindset follows system & organizational design''. i.e., If you want to really change culture, you have to start with changing structure, because culture does not really change otherwise. By the way, this is an observation in large-scale; in small start ups, it's the reverse: structure follows culture (org design follows mindset). | Or, ''Culture/behavior/mindset follows system & organizational design''. i.e., If you want to really change culture, you have to start with changing structure, because culture does not really change otherwise. By the way, this is an observation in large-scale; in small start ups, it's the reverse: structure follows culture (org design follows mindset). | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Revision as of 11:49, 30 August 2019
(Spanish translation)(Russian translation) (Japanese translation)(Persian/Farsi translation)(Polish translation)
After decades of observation and organizational consulting, here are Larman's Laws of Organizational Behavior. These are observations rather than laws to follow ;)
1. Organizations are implicitly optimized to avoid changing the status quo middle- and first-level manager and “specialist” positions & power structures.
2. As a corollary to (1), any change initiative will be reduced to redefining or overloading the new terminology to mean basically the same as status quo.
3. As a corollary to (1), any change initiative will be derided as “purist”, “theoretical”, “revolutionary”, "religion", and “needing pragmatic customization for local concerns” — which deflects from addressing weaknesses and manager/specialist status quo.
4. As a corollary to (1), if after changing the change some managers and single-specialists are still displaced, they become “coaches/trainers” for the change, frequently reinforcing (2) and (3).
5. Culture follows structure.
Elaboration on law 5: A longer form is, Culture/behavior/mindset follows changes in the organizational system and design. That is, if you want to really change culture, you have to start with changing organizational structures (groups, teams, roles, hierarchies, career paths, etc), because culture does not really change otherwise.
The systems-thinking advocate John Seddon also observed this: "Attempting to change an organization’s culture is a folly, it always fails. Peoples’ behavior (the culture) is a product of the system; when you change the system peoples’ behavior changes.."
This is an observation in large established organizations; in contrast, in small start ups, it's the reverse: structure follows culture. That is, the (probably simple and informal) organizational design reflects the mindset and culture of the small number of members in the start up. As the organization grows, at some point it usually reverses to culture follows structure.
And "culture follows structure" (in large groups) is why purely “mindset” approaches such as organizational learning are not very sticky or impactful by themselves in large groups, and why frameworks such as Scrum (that have a strong focus on structural change at the start) tend to more quickly impact culture — if the structural change implications of Scrum are actually realized.
Or, Culture/behavior/mindset follows system & organizational design. i.e., If you want to really change culture, you have to start with changing structure, because culture does not really change otherwise. By the way, this is an observation in large-scale; in small start ups, it's the reverse: structure follows culture (org design follows mindset).
And "culture follows structure" (in large scale) is why deep systems of thought such as organizational learning are not very sticky or impactful by themselves in large scale, and why systems such as Scrum (that have a strong focus on structural change at the start) tend to more quickly impact culture — if the structural change implications of Scrum are actually realized.
I discovered that the well-known systems-thinker/advocate John Seddon also observed this: "Attempting to change an organization’s culture is a folly, it always fails. Peoples’ behavior (the culture) is a product of the system; when you change the system peoples’ behavior changes."