In this article, which by necessity is long and detailed, I will make the case that successful Now-to-New projects require a judicious blend of three action modes:
Creating alone.
Creating together.
Helping others create, in a role such as facilitator, coach or thinking partner.
The consequences of deploying each action mode can be either generative (aimed at maximising the amount of value that will be generated downstream) or degenerative (aimed at diminishing or nullifying potential value, or generating anti-value). Degenerative consequences are often unconscious and unintended.
Robert Keidel’s three organisational design variables (1995)
“People want power because they want autonomy.”
Source: Julie Beck, on The Atlantic (reporting on a study conducted by researchers from University of Cologne, University of Groningen, and Columbia University) | Read the article: People want power because they want autonomy by Julie Beck
Robert Keidel is Clinical Professor Emeritus at the LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA.
In his insightful book, Seeing Organizational Patterns: A New Theory and Language of Organizational Design, he introduces an elegant model for improving the design of organisational systems in such areas as decision making, employee rewards and meeting management.
The central idea in the book is that an effective design must employ a judicious combination of three variables: autonomy, cooperation and control. Note that these labels are neutral and do not fall into the trap of thinking that autonomy and co‑operation are ‘good’, whereas control is ‘bad’.
The following graphic shows Keidel’s model applied to the design of decision systems, with the viable options indicated in blue type.
View an enlarged version of the Decision Systems example
When people encounter the word control, they tend to think about its degenerative form, which corresponds with power-over as defined by Starhawk and Mary Parker Follett. The autonomy of an individual, group or institution is being constrained or otherwise manipulated to the benefit of the individual, group or institution exercising control.
There is a benign, generative form of control I call control as a service. Examples include Houston Mission Control Center, air traffic control and railway signalling systems.In the military world, people began studying leadership a couple of thousand years ago — and interestingly, the military are less dismissive of management. Even more interestingly, they talk about something else we do not talk about in business at all. They have a third concept: command.
In military language, ‘command and control’ covers the various ways in which direction is given and the effects of actions are monitored. But in the language of business, ‘command and control’ has become shorthand for ‘authoritarian micro-management’, which is just one — usually dysfunctional — way, of exercising it. Giving the words ‘command and control’ this negative sense is a strange choice, because business is quite keen on ‘control’. Equating ‘command and control’ with ‘authoritarian micro-management’ is a category error — it confuses ‘fruit’ with ‘rotten apples’. Not using the word will not make the activity referred to as ‘command’ go away. NATO defines command as: ‘The authority invested in an individual for the direction, co-ordination and control of military forces’. Co-ordination and control are classic roles of management. So perhaps the bit we don’t feel so comfortable with is ‘direction’.
Command is something granted to someone by an external party. The external party confers rights of authority and along with them go responsibilities, duties and accountability. Responsibilities may be delegated or shared, but the commander remains accountable for the results. In the British Armed Forces, command is ultimately granted by the Sovereign: in the United States, by the President. In businesses it is granted by the owners of the business, who are most commonly the shareholders.
Command is as unavoidable in the business world as it is in the military one. Because it is a real requirement, somebody has got to do it, and because of its central importance in business we have to talk about it. So we do: we include it under ‘leadership’. As a result, we cause confusion.
Business thinking suffers from offering the simple duality of management and leadership, and the leadership literature contains futile debates because of a failure to distinguish leadership from command. There is a trinity of command, leadership and management, and both officers and executives have to practise all three, as illustrated [below].
The executive’s trinity: management, leadership – and command (pdf; 34pp) by Stephen Bungay, Ph.D., a director of Ashridge Strategic Management Centre
In the next image, you can see the relationship between Robert Keidel’s design variables and the power distinctions made by Starhawk and Mary Parker Follett. The thinking behind my elaboration of Starhawk’s power model should now be apparent.“Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the captain welcoming you aboard our flight to Chicago. We’re just completing the paperwork and we’ll be pushing back in a few minutes. I have to inform you that air traffic control has been abolished and that, as of today, planes will self-organise. My first officer and I will do our best to get you there safely and on time. Now fasten your seat belt, sit back, relax and enjoy the flight.”
Robert Keidel’s design variables suggest that if we want to conceive a new creation, bring it into existence and realise its value generation potential, then solo work and collaborative work are not alternatives — both are essential, and must be properly integrated. Further, some form of enabling function, such as a coach, facilitator, project leader, team leader or full-blown mission control function, needs to be in place.
John Heron’s system of facilitation decision modes adds weight to this proposition.
Read more about control as a service
John Heron’s three facilitation decision modes (1999)
John Heron (1928–2022) was a psychologist, the originator of a participatory research method called co‑operative inquiry, and an eminent group facilitator and educator in the field of co‑counselling. In his final years, he was co-director of the South Pacific Centre for Human Inquiry, based in Auckland, New Zealand. He founded and ran the groundbreaking Human Potential Research Project (later, the Human Potential Research Group) at University of Surrey from 1970 to 1977, and was one of the founders in the UK of each of the following: Association of Humanistic Psychology Practitioners, Co‑counselling International, Institute for the Development of Human Potential, New Paradigm Research Group, and Research Council for Complementary Medicine. Source: Wikipedia.
In The Complete Facilitator’s Handbook (pdf), John Heron describes the three decision modes available to facilitators: hierarchical (he also refers to this as direction), where the facilitator makes the decision for group members; co-operative (a.k.a. negotiation), where the facilitator reaches the decision with group members; and autonomous (a.k.a. delegation), where the facilitator hands over the decision-making process to group members. The labels are neutral, as is the case with Robert Keidel’s model.
The facilitator weaves the three modes into the design of a particular co-creation meeting and deploys all of them when facilitating the meeting, moving effortlessly between modes in response to unfolding circumstances, regardless of whether he or she is working one-to-one, with a small group, or with a large one.
Visit the John Heron Human Inquiry Archive, where you can download some of his works in their entirety“The hierarchical mode Here you, the facilitator, direct the learning process, exercise your power over it, and do things for the group. You lead from the front by thinking and acting on behalf of the group. You decide on the objectives and the programme, interpret and give meaning, challenge resistances, manage group feeling and emotion, provide structures for learning and honour the claims of authentic behaviour in the group. You take full responsibility, in charge of all major decisions on all dimensions of the learning process.
The co-operative mode Here you share your power over the learning process and manage the different dimensions with the group. You enable and guide the group to become more self-directing in the various forms of learning by conferring with them and prompting them. You work with group members to decide on the programme, to give meaning to experiences, to confront resistances, and so on. In this process, you share your own view which, though influential, is not final but one among many. Outcomes are always negotiated. You collaborate with the members of the group in devising the learning process: your facilitation is co-operative.
The autonomous mode Here you respect the total autonomy of the group: you do not do things for them, or with them, but give them freedom to find their own way, exercising their own judgment without any intervention on your part. Without any reminders, guidance or assistance, they evolve their programme, give meaning to what is going on, find ways of confronting their avoidances, and so on. The bedrock of learning is unprompted, self-directed practice, and here you delegate it to the learner and give space for it. This does not mean the abdication of responsibility. It is the subtle art of creating conditions within which people can exercise full self-determination in their learning.”
Source: John Heron, The Complete Facilitator’s Handbook (pdf; 428pp). He is talking about the facilitation of learning groups, but the three modes apply equally to action-focused groups.
Keidel – Heron correlation
The next graphic shows the strong correlation between John Heron’s facilitation decision modes and Robert Keidel’s organisation design variables.
Was John Heron influenced by Robert Keidel’s model? Seeing Organizational Patterns was published four years before The Complete Facilitator’s Handbook, so it’s possible, although Heron and Keidel inhabited very different worlds. My hope is that both men uncovered a universal truth independently of each other.
John Heron created the decision mode model for the benefit of facilitators, particularly those involved in developmental groupwork. But the model should be applied by all those engaged in catalysing and supporting Now-to-New work, such as coaches, project leaders, team leaders and bosses.
The three Now-to-New action modes
Note that:
-
- Each action mode (creating alone, creating together, helping others create) can have generative or degenerative consequences, which can be accidental or deliberate.
- ‘Helping others create’ means helping someone create alone, as well as helping two or more people create together.
- ‘Helping others create’ consists of three modes of enablement that correspond with John Heron’s facilitation decision modes: Delegate (corresponds with his autonomous mode), Collaborate (co-operative) and Direct (hierarchical).
So what?
When creating alone
Remember the Jacopo da Pontormo story.
Bring in a coach to support you in your solo work.
Form a team to help you mature your concept, bring it to life and realise its value generation potential.
When creating together
Adopt practices that enable people to work alone, in pairs and in groups.
Know how to combine the three kinds of Now-to-New agency.
Bring in a coach or a facilitator to support the collaborative work.
When helping others create
Make sure you are equally strong in all three enablement modes: hand over, join in, and hold the floor.
Become adept at moving fluidly between enablement modes.
Maintain vigilance to avoid slipping into the degenerative forms of the modes.
Continue reading
Now-to-New and the seven kinds of work
Search the site
Not case sensitive. Do not to hit return.