Integral Strategy
When in 1994 Henry Mintzberg, one of the fathers of strategic thinking, announced strategic planning’s demise the business management community mourned. If the world outside of an organisation could not be objectively determined with certainty, what hope was there for strategy?
In the meantime new tools and new schools of strategy abounded. After everyone had developed different approaches and discussed their relative merits, Mintzberg (and his co-authors) again helped us out identifying within the confusion 10 different schools of strategy.
At least we now know when asked ‘What is strategy?’ the answer will depend on which school we went to. But which one to choose? Everyone claims to be strategic and each approach claims to be right.
In exploring the question ‘What is strategy - and does it matter?’ Whittington discovered another part of the answer, identifying that the classical planning school was one perspective in four quadrants: Classical, Evolutionary, Processural and Systemic. What Whittington found, but could not yet see, was the four quadrants were a match with those in Ken Wilber’s integral analysis.
What we realise from this is we do not have (or need) one right approach to strategy, but multiple approaches, all of which are valid, depending on the circumstances, and the appropriate worldview. Four quadrants, ten schools and multiple lines of enquiry. We only need to choose the right mix to make the complex simple.
So how can we bring all the disciplines together in one frame?
For the last two weeks, I have been in Melbourne, studying with Chris Cowan and Natasha Todorovic connected with the National Values Centre in the U.S. looking into values management in large-scale systems change and the work of Dr C.W. Graves. In an insightful article they provide one example of many applications for this type of work and review the levels within worldviews of the 10 schools of strategic analysis.
When an organisation does not understand its external environment in cannot successfully grow. What we find is a ‘one paradigm - one tool’ approach may work, but if it is the wrong one for that organisation, it never will, regardless of how sophisticated an approach it might be. What we ideally need to do is be able to work across all ten disciplines to create a careful selection of processes from all the available tools, with respect for the operating worldviews.
To be strategic we need both insight and foresight. We also need to select from the best options, consciously and with clarity of the unknowns. Our strategic approach will always reflect our approach to strategy.
If our strategy approach is not making sense - it probably isn’t increasing our learning either - however we can always change schools, or at least play for a while in a different school yard, if we want to graduate - and that is what the 11th discipline - or integral strategy - is all about.
(Read more: Mintzberg’s views and his biography- and Ken Wilber)-(pdf)
September 6th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
After reading the article and the one by Cowan and Todorovic I’d be interested to hear how individuals do move through each of the levels? Particularly moving from the first level since survival is key from a psychodynamic perspective, and so a need for power or being nurtured, or independence etc develops as a way to ’survive’ in the context of the early childhood environment. Without some work and insight into one’s own denials and the way in which one habitually acts in order to survive might one not search out particular perspectives in order to meet original needs, rather than ‘realise’ the value of these perspectives in and of themselves? I agree that the higher one moves the more conscious one becomes (as a person and presubably as an organisation), however I don’t see how simply ‘being’ at one of the higher levels means one appreciates being at that level. I see elements of Maslow in here but I guess since I disagree with the notion that one ’satisfies’ a need to move on to another ‘need’, I’d like to see how the lower levels are resolved in order to make each subsequent level valuable as an independent experience.
September 6th, 2004 at 3:46 pm
Graves’ work on which the NVC article is based comes from a twenty plus year research project, which I understand initially began by examining Maslow’s principles. Graves’ original hypothesis, which would have validated Maslow, did not seem to emerge from the data as expected, and as contemporaries they discussed this. There are some distinct differences, mostly that Graves’ model is not a pyramid, but an open and expanding system, possibly containing each of the Maslowian needs at each level. Also Graves’ work is limited to ‘adult’ biopsychosocial systems - and while it reflects the childhood developmentalist models (Piaget), its not meant to overlap - which is what makes it so interesting. Another distinction is that levels do not replace - but include and shift as a complex dynamic, so they are not satisfied, but more incorporated. Also, while development is described as linear in the macro-societal it may appear non-linear in individual development, particularly if environmental conditions require this, but allowing for later regression. The lack of evidence for prepotency in Maslow might be explained in the Gravesian levels. In essence - ‘no man is an island’.
Which brings us back to the question, without a survivalist need why would one shift (or need to) assuming that one does not become aware of being at any ‘level’. There is some new work being done on when and how shifts occur. So its the same - because it draws on/reflects all the other developmental theorists findings - but different because its research base is not only about the individual but also the environmental effects of the social-collective on the individual. A social systems theory linked with psychology that is not sociology. Many unanswered questions.
September 6th, 2004 at 5:36 pm
Pondering the combined posting, articles and consequent commentary I feel a need to rise below Maslow and throw the whole thing into n-dimensional space.
In this space hierarchy, pyramids and all the other efforts of collapsing in (integration) or collapsing out (differentiation) become non-sensical and mere whimsy … the point of focus becomes the fusion of our old favourite paradox best represented by the Mobius Loop as the half way point.
In Mobius’ famous paper strip we have both zero and infinty represented in one tangible form … everything in between exists — the stratified layers, which we seem to be compulsed to know, colour-code, make cartesian and sequence, are just the ocular reaction to our drive to seek clarity … yet lucidity (in we reach clarity, wisdom and expression at the same instance)is only found in freefall when we manage (somehow) to let got of numeric dimension and enter n-space.
To get there … simply listen for the sound of no hands clapping (I have a simple demonstration of this sound for anyone who is interested) … it happens when the complex and lucid cross … after which I wrote a poem (now lost)when my eyesight vanished in 1987.
I am sure it will show up one day.
Excellent reading from William, Elliot et al.
Thanks PAD