Mission Impossible? Wheatley’s Beautiful Vision for Organizations
Margaret J. Wheatley’s book, Leadership and the New Science (1) now finds itself in that awkward space—not 300+ years old (like the ‘old’ book we had to review earlier in the semester) but also not ‘new’ any longer. Quantum physics and chaos theory were emerging fields 30 years ago, but they are now a common part of our vernacular (although the vast majority of us still struggle to explain either!). Regardless, her book offers great leadership principles and was likely one of the influential books that contributed to the various leadership theories that emerged over the last few decades which challenged ‘control and hierarchy’ and endorsed ‘collaboration and facilitation’ within organizations.
Most of my posts tend to lean towards critical thinking—and there are certainly some parts of Wheatley’s two books that could get put under the microscope. One such example: In Finding Our Way, she writes, “The dominance of command and control is having devastating impacts. There has been a dramatic increase in worker disengagement, no one is succeeding at solving problems, and leaders are being scapegoated and fired.” (3) Really? No one is succeeding at solving problems? I suspect we could point to several companies that have, over the past three decades, successfully addressed important issues and have positively contributed to society and social issues while maintaining relatively healthy work environments. In her desire to compel organizations towards a different way of being, Wheatley will, on occasion, make sweeping statements—often without any sort of data to back up her claims. This is partly an outcome of her writing style— I would describe Wheatley as a poet or ‘painter’ as much as (if not more than) an organizational analyst, and this style has both its pros and its cons (over-statement, simplification and lack of data being a few of them).
As it relates to one significant ‘pro’, I found Wheatley painting a beautiful and compelling picture of non-controlling, non-anxious, creative, flexible, relational, participatory, synergistic, good and loving organizations. In short: more humane working environments that align and enhance our humanness rather than diminishing it. A few examples:
“We live in a world where relationships are primary.” (4)
“In motivation theory, attention is shifting from the use of external rewards to an appreciation forth intrinsic motivators that give us great energy. We are refocusing on the deep longing we have for community, meaning, dignity, purpose, and love in our organizational life.” (5)
“Now I look carefully at how a workplace organizes its relationships; not its tasks, functions, and hierarchies, but the patterns of relationship and the capacities available to form them.” (6)
“What leaders are called upon in a chaotic world is to shape their organizations through concepts, not through elaborate rules or structures.” (7)
There is so much that Wheatley writes about that resonates with me. At times she is helping me identify and name a deeply held belief. One such example is related to her comments on pages 37-38 concerning future planning (summarizing Karl Weick):
“Acting should proceed planning, he said, because it is only when we act to implement something that we create the environment. Until we begin this interaction with the environment, how can we formulate our thoughts and plans? Strategies should be “just-in-time…” (8)
For years I have struggled with, and fought against, the classic 3-5-10 year plan for our church—for many reasons, including the seemingly delusional thinking that we can predict and control things a decade out. Instead, I have opted for the ‘just-in-time’ strategies for each ministry year (Sept to June) that relate to the areas that we need to address in the present. Of greater importance, I have sought to prioritize organizational health over strategic planning, which creates the capacity for the kind of growth we desire as a church—growth that flows out of healthy relationships/community first (with others and God), and good strategies second. This is just one example of how Wheatley’s books named and helped give me a framework and some new ways to describe my leadership style.
Having said that, I also struggled with Wheatley’s book—because the compelling organizational environment she describes is often at odds with my experience of working in and leading an organization. This makes me wonder how much of her vision is at best ‘ideal’ and at worst ‘naïve’. While I want our church structures to be flexible and self-organizing where different staff gather together to address a problem collaboratively—inevitably there are differences of opinion and someone (often me) eventually needs to make a call and we look to hierarchy and authority. At other times, early adopters see a new opportunity and want to pounce on it and late adopters want to move slower—Wheatley’s ‘ying-yang’ view of reality might describe reality, but the reality is someone will have to make a call between these two different viewpoints (enter authority and control). So, while I say ‘yes!’ to so much of the picture that Wheatley paints in her book, I can’t help but think her vision for organization life is perhaps relying too much on ‘Human Goodness’ (9). The biblical vision of humanity is that there is goodness in us—made in the image of God—but the infection of sin ensures that we are also lazy, selfish, greedy, competitive, and insecure and it seems that some of the more rigid or ‘controlling’ structures within organizations are created to address NOT what’s good in us, but what is not-so-good. Thus, my struggle: an organizational vision that I can see implementing in part, but certainly not in whole, and I wonder if I lack vision myself to get to where Wheatley is at, or if my struggle represents a dose of ‘reality’ (and a biblical viewpoint) to a beautiful but somewhat utopian vision of what organizations can be?
Thoughts…oh wise and less skeptical classmates?
If nothing else, Wheatley’s books paints a picture that I find compelling and gives me something to shoot for as a leader. Whether I hit the target perfectly or not, I believe the work environment of our church will be better as I seek to embody some of these principles in my leadership and our organizational life.
(1) Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2006).
(2) Margaret J. Wheatley, Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time (1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007) 64.
(3) Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2006) 69.
(4) Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2006) 14.
(5) Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2006) 39.
(6) Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2006) 133.
(7) Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2006) 37-38.
(8) Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2006) 55.
(9) Margaret J Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2006) .
About the Author
Scott Dickie
8 responses to “Mission Impossible? Wheatley’s Beautiful Vision for Organizations”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Scott, your post helped me appreciate this author much more than I originally did, through both what resonated with you and in the areas you struggled with her perspectives. Like you, I struggle with “seemingly delusional thinking that we can predict and control things a decade out.” And yet, I am naturally a vision-for-the-future kind of thinker (I think the Strengthsfinder calls it “futuristic”?). I wonder if you are the same, naturally goal-oriented in a way that you can’t turn off? Maybe I’m falsely projecting, but in any case I appreciate your approach dealing with each ministry year as it comes. That’s very much the pattern our team has adopted too, and it seems to work well especially for French culture.
Hey Kim….yes…I tend to be futuristic in my vision and strategic in organizing the means to get toward the desired goal. Thus, Covid was horrible….no ability to plan beyond a week! Having said that, I have always resisted the 5 year plan and as I said in my post, focus often on just 1 year at a time. That’s a little misleading because I often have some vague notions about things 2-3 years out…but they are fuzzy enough (and uncontrollable enough) that I don’t put a lot of time and energy into making them a concrete strategy…but that somewhat nebulous future that is help pretty loosely is still informing my more concrete one year plans. That’s a bit more detail in how it plays out for me…and it sounds like you’re in a similar boat. I wonder how much of this is influenced by personality, gifting, and even our theology related to church (I can’t imagine Eugene Peterson ever doing a 5 year plans!).
Scott, the more I read your writing, the more I am impressed with your ability to reflect critically, perhaps more than most people I have met. Your post here is case-in-point. And, as I read your post, I am just now coming out of a 5-year “strategic plan” with the committee that I report to, and I am reminded that I WANT to be more “just-in-time” — more agile — in my approach to our upcoming fiscal year. But the want-to and the actual practice, for me, is hard in an organizational sense and as one who is accountable to a board of directors (a committee within our presbytery). But I digress…
You mention that Wheatley’s “vision is at best ‘ideal’ and at worst ‘naïve’.” I think you are spot on, as much as I enjoyed reading some of her sweeping statements (and her book resonated with me as I work on my doctoral project). You documented what I was probably thinking — but you articulate so well in words — that her writing lacked data and may have leaned too heavily on human goodness without taking into account the brokenness of the human condition.
Hey Travis,
Given the fact that we are nearing the final blog posts of our three year degree…I’m glad I finally impressed you. About damn time!!
Kidding!
While your top paragraph was, in your words, a ‘digression’…I wonder if it was precisely the point of your second paragraph? As I read Wheatley’s compelling vision for humane and healthy organizations, I couldn’t help but have specific circumstances or past staff come up in my mind and think, “Not sure how that tough staff situation plays out in Wheatley’s world.” (I we have one of the healthier church staff cultures I am aware of!). If I’m reading your post correctly, you also appreciate her vision….but perhaps at the forefront of your mind as you read Wheatley is the reality of a too-rigid board with an inability to meaningfully dialogue about what you’re thinking and feeling and would like to change in ‘real time’.
Not meaning to put words in your mouth….just noting how your first paragraph seems to act a pre-example of your stated hesitation with Wheatley’s overly-optimistic view of people and our ability to self-manage towards the common good.
Hi Scott,
Nice post.
You quoted, “Acting should proceed planning, he said, because it is only when we act to implement something that we create the environment. Until we begin this interaction with the environment, how can we formulate our thoughts and plans? Strategies should be “just-in-time…”
Ahh…the leap of faith, risk takers, moved by the SPIRIT?
Lately I am surrounded by those dubious about our work in Ukraine and Kenya. They cannot imagine that the Holy Spirit is already at work in a place and that we just joining in what is already doing there (Henry Blackaby – Experiencing God).
I enjoyed Wheatley’s relationship focus and it is through our relationships in both Ukraine and Kenya that I am happy to support coaches who use sports to build relationships that leads to discipleship.
I shall leave my 5 year plan for another time.
Shalom
I want to ditto everything Travis said to you Scott.
Seriously, your level of critical thinking is phenomenal. I have a bad case of imposter syndrome each time I read your posts. And I love that you reponded with “about damn time.” A fellow Christian cusser. Yes!
I so appreciated this: “Of greater importance, I have sought to prioritize organizational health over strategic planning, which creates the capacity for the kind of growth we desire as a church—growth that flows out of healthy relationships/community first (with others and God), and good strategies second.”
Me too. Same. I place a higher value upon the relationships (particularly with staff) than the metrics and outcomes.
Scott, I always appreciate your critical thinking! One thing you have called out is her failure to address our sin nature and the inevitable consequences of that reality. We cannot assume we will skate clean programs.
Your question about strategic planning stood out to me. In my non-church context, what I am seeing is that while we have now morphed from a 10, 5 and 1 year plan to a 5 & 1 year plan with supporting 90 day strategies. 3 Months. This feels bonkers to me. Not that it is not required, because the frequency with which I have to literally drop an initiative I have been focused on to deal with the crisis of the moment is breathtaking. Well laid plans just get decimated.
No one in my world even considers looking 10 years anymore. That is not to say we are not planning. We are. We are just “holding the fish loosely” because the future is so erratic. So, reading Wheatley eerily felt like she was looking over my shoulder at my calendar. Additionally, trying to manage the chaos has forced our leadership to deemphasis relationship and the impact is very visible, so I appreciated her focus in that area.
Scott,
“‘Margaret J. Wheatley’s book, Leadership and the New Science (1) now finds itself in that awkward space—not 300+ years old (like the ‘old’ book we had to review earlier in the semester) but also not ‘new’ any longer.” YES! Exactly! I was expecting something innovative and engaging. For me, it read like it was written in the 90’s. I enjoyed it but I struggled to find something new to implement.