Organizational Models

ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS

By Karl Koch

I have been seeking and studying models of behavior (individual and organizational) since 1965. During that time I came to realize that the existing models were mechanical in nature. This seemed odd to me, given that individuals and organizations are basically biological in nature. If people, and their organizations, are basically biological, then mechanical models will be inadequate at least, or totally misleading at worst. As an aside, please note that the scriptural model for the church is a biological one ("You are the body of Christ, and individually members thereof").

It is important that we understand why one set of models is inadequate to explain a phenomenon. What follows is an explanation of the deficiencies of mechanical models and the value and use of the biologically-based models that I prefer and use.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MECHANICAL MODELS

1. Mechanistic models tend to break the whole down into its constituent parts. The rule is, "Understand the parts and how they fit together and you understand the whole." Each entity is viewed as consisting of its parts. The parts are capable of adequate analysis and understanding in themselves apart from how they relate to one another. There are only so many parts to each whole.

The way in which we view church programs is often close to this model. This is particularly true when each program area is treated separately from the others. The linkages will be shown (i.e. how to introduce stewardship in education programs) in order to relate to the entire programs of the church. But in general each program area operates separately from the others.

COMMENT: Living systems are much more complex than this. Each part is intimately involved in the other parts -- often in such a way that simple analysis is impossible. Changing one part does not lead to a predictable outcome because the inter-relationships are so complex that prediction is hazardous at best.

2. The next step was to build models that were based on a systems view of reality. The goal was to design a system that would account for all major relationships between parts. The development of multi-variate analysis (and of computer modeling) led to elegant theoretical systems in which forces and responses could be traced along stated, critical paths.

I doubt that any church theoreticians constructed models as elegant as the behaviorists did but there were steps in that direction. Many of these gave us profound insights into the manner different elements of church life related to one another. The most outstanding one with which I am familiar came from our Lutheran cooperation in "The Study of Generations."

COMMENT: Complex analysis of living systems added to our information and understanding of the complexity of their internal workings. However, living systems exist within an environment that also can change. The description of one impact at a time (on a living system) is an excellent research model but is not an accurate representation of what that system experiences in real time. I believe it is a systems view of reality that leads us to assume that the basic need of the church is to find the best program and everything else will fall into place.

3. The use of mechanistic models leads to a reliance on negative, feedback systems. In a negative, feedback system there is an assumption of an ideal, operating state. Any departure from that state places the system into disequilibrium. Only a return (hence feedback) to the ideal, operating state will produce equilibrium. These concepts work fine in a mechanical manufacturing system. They are limited in helping us in living systems.

These concepts did help the church to develop supportive programs for congregations. You see the influence of these models whenever someone tells you, "This is the only way this program will work. Do it this way and it works. Change the order (or whatever) and it may not work." Quite often these comments are true. There are successful and unsuccessful ways of doing programs.

COMMENT: The problem arises when we fail to see that it is only in "operational areas" that feedback systems provide benefits. What this means is explained in greater detail in my comments on processes and the models I use. At this point I would simply assert that feedback models fail to encourage development of alternative futures, or alternative ways of doing our ministry.

SUMMATION ON MECHANICAL MODELS

It would seem simple for us to recognize that mechanical models are inappropriate to biological systems. Why then have they been around for so long? I believe they lasted because there was such a rational and simple beauty to them.

They offered a simple and direct explanation for our successes and our failures. Whenever we forced people to behave mechanistically the models worked. It was primarily in free association organizations, such as churches, that their weaknesses were noted.

I could continue listing different aspects of the mechanical models but it seems more appropriate to shift to the biological models that I prefer. My journey into these models began in graduate school at Washington State University (1967-69), continued at the University of Cincinnati (1971-74), and was brought to full flower through the staff of the firm Management Design, Inc (1969 to the present).

CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOLOGICAL MODELS

1. Biological models are process-oriented. They are concerned with ongoing activities and modifiable states. They are concerned to see the system within its environment and as a highly interactive part of that environment.

2. Biological models tend to describe activities over conditions. They are dynamic. They are more like moving pictures than still pictures. They concern themselves with flows, sequences, relationships, qualities and end results. The end product of a system is the state that it maintains. The end product of a process is the product it provides. Systems are internally focused. Processes have multiple foci.

3. Processes are cyclical. What they produce feeds back into the flow of energy. The product of processes does not diminish the energy in the process. The product of systems results in energy loss. Processes absorb and generate energy so that when energy is used it also creates new energy and energy sources.

4. Processes are iterative. They are constantly acting in their flow. They are capable of ever higher levels of product and results. The output of a system is predictable once its characteristics are known and controlled. The output of a process is beyond prediction, exceeding our ability to grasp. The relationship of the parts in a system is finite and knowable. The relationship of the elements of a process is dynamic and exceeds expectation.

Understanding processes is the basis to change management. Change is what the church's mission and ministry is all about. "Putting off the old man and putting on the new" is change management. "Creating one new man out of the two" is change management. "Repent and believe the gospel" is change management. Every one of these is a process, brought about by God, within biological systems (an individual and the church).

THE MODELS I USE

Situational Leadership

Situational Leadership was created by Drs. Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey when they were faculty members at Ohio University. The model posits a style of interaction between leader and followers that is based on the followers readiness for the task. Task readiness is defined as past experience or demonstrated skill in the task and attitudinal acceptance and comfort with the task.

The leader is taught to vary his or her style of leading according to these criteria, rather than according to the leaders preferred style of leading. While not entirely a biological model, this is a true process description of the interaction between leader and followers. It is a proven method of building the organization and the commitment of workers to the business. The model assumes that the leader has authority to govern or guide the work. It is really more like a model for administrative leadership/guidance.

Legitimate Leadership

I developed this model in 1967-69 while a graduate student at Washington State University. The model is designed to describe the process by which leadership is acquired by someone who is new to their position. For example, the model describes how a new pastor and his congregation interact in order to establish the pastor's "legitimate" leadership.

The model is cyclical and iterative and contains many of the dynamic qualities of other biological models. It allows for an ever-changing role for the leader, as the leader continues to build "credits" with the group. In particular it explains what the leader needs to accomplish in interaction with the group in order to introduce innovation.

Structural Dynamics Analysis^R

Structural Dynamics Analysis^R (SDA) was developed by John Sherwood, the other staff of Management Design, Inc. and its Associates (of which I was one from 1972 to 1984). This is a totally biological model. It is based on the life cycle of a cell and the process of entropy, which requires the creation and absorption of new energy.

It is a powerful model for understanding organizational behavior. It is highly predictive. An instrument is available for measuring the behavior and energy levels in an organization. This instrument is explained in Section Three.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The instrument is referred to as the MBTI. While not strictly speaking a model itself, it is an explanation of human behavior that fits the models of the SDA, the management power cycle, the learning model, change management (provolution) and of research and development. When I use the MBTI I link its use to one of these models, in order to increase its value and utility.

The Management Power Cycle

The Power Cycle is a subset of the SDA. As such it is also a biological model and shares the same characteristics as the SDA. It consists of the basic four components of management: Evaluation, Recommendation, Decision, and Action. It can readily be seen that this is cyclical and iterative activity.

This is a handy, simple model for guiding laity through the process of developing their congregation and its programs. It is the basis of instruction in the workshop I do called, The Four Steps of Church Renewal.

Change Management

The model of change management is actually only a portion of the model for the change process called "Provolution," which is explained following this model. Managing change has always been a problem, especially in tradition prone organizations such as the church. This model explains the internal dynamics of change management. It answers the question, "What happens inside an organization and its members when an innovative change is successful and becomes the normative practice?"

I use this model of change in every interim pastorate. Next to the love of God in Jesus Christ it is my most important tool. I use its five step model to introduce and teach loving behavior where there is strife, outreach where there is self-centeredness, and energy where there is weakness.

Provolution: The Change Process

There is a one-page cartoon that describes the change process. This model incorporates insights on organizational stress, alienation, rebellion and revolution, change and growth of organizations, personality types, and many more. I have found it to be the best dynamic and natural explanation of organizational behavior. I have not included any text on this model because I have no one explanation of it. What I have consists of "parts" extracted from the model, such as change management.

Growth and Crisis Scale

The Growth and Crisis Scale originated with researchers who were examining the management systems of public service agencies. They discovered that as these agencies grew in size they went through periods of crisis or stress. They then noted that these occurred at specific stages in their growth and that each phase of growth had its "best management style" which was followed by a crisis.

The crises was precipitated by the need for the agency to move to a different style of management. Successful agencies changed management styles as they grew, passing through each crisis and making the correct adjustments. Agencies which grew without changing management style became less efficient and effective, if not delinquent in their duties. Some agencies did not grow because of an inability to change management style, in spite of growing needs for their services.

I began to apply this model to the church when Donn Abdon and I began to work together in 1984. Since that time he and I have discussed the model with several hundred pastors. What we have consistently observed is; 1) churches tend to plateau just below the crisis stage, 2) churches tend to have a management style appropriate to the level at which church attendance stops growing, and 3) churches may grow in members but will not grow in church attendance when they plateau.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

I enjoy a number of things. But I really enjoy looking for more viable, dynamic and biological models to explain human behavior. In addition I enjoy linking different models together into a "super-model." But what really turns me on is teaching and leading others to use these models -- as I have learned to use them in my work.

I am a theoretician, but I want "working" theories and models. I am a researcher, but I want to validate and demonstrate what really works. I am a teacher, but I want most of all that my pupils are self-motivated and practiced in what they learn from me. I want to do more for my church, and for the larger Lord's Church, but I will want to have a say in how that gets done. And that's because I know these models better than most (perhaps all others) and I know how they work and what makes them work.

If you are interested in helping me put these processes to work in the church, in your area of responsibility, you may contact me at the following address:

Used by permission from materials created by Karl Koch www.gospelcenteredgrowth.com

(Users are required to so state in all duplication of these materials.)

For problems or questions regarding this Web site, contact the Web Master debra @ dreamercreative.com