Organisations have changed dramatically in the past century. OD consultants/managers must see the direction organizations are travelling. They also need to understand the organizational dynamics which are at play, and at times can create resistance to change and development.

The major shifts have followed social, economical and political changes. Globalisation, the IT revolution and other science-technological advances, the awareness of finite natural resources and climate change, the economic rise of China and India and many other influences have all had a profound impact on organisational, structures and cultures. In brief today’s organizations are less hierarchical, more flexible and less stable in this fast changing ‘networked society’ (Castells 2005). A major transformation is the shift from ‘control from the centre’ to ‘leadership from the edge’.  Hierarchical central control is no-longer an option for large corporate or public sector organizations where ‘leadership from the edge’ is vital in order to create organizations that are flexible and adaptable responding to customer preferences and other changes that impact on business and which can only be picked up at the edges of the organization. To be able to work confidently in organizational development, it is important to have an understanding of the different organizational structures, cultures and leadership frameworks that are most common. In Leadership a critical text (Western 2007) Simon Western sets out a meta-theory of organizational and leadership cultures over the past century. He identified four discourses of leadership which have emerged and remain present in organisations today and which affect organizational structure, culture and beneath the surface dynamics.

Organisational Discourses: 

The underlying dynamics in organizations

Organizational change often fails because OD interventions do not take into account the beneath-the-surface dynamics in organizations. One way to understand the whole system culture and assumptions in organizations is to try to understand their organizational and leadership discourses. 

What is a discourse?

A discourse is a set of normative assumptions, things we take for granted and don’t question yet impact on how we think about things. In a sense, we are trapped by discourses and cannot think outside of them easily. If people in an organization are working within the leadership ‘discourse of the messiah’ for example, they take it for granted that this is the way leaders should be without thinking to question it. When working as an OD consultant or manager it is vital to be reflective and to try and understand the different discourses and assumptions in the organization before trying to make changes.  Many misunderstandings and resistances to change occur because people are working from different discourses yet assume they are working with shared assumptions. 

The leadership discourses I set out, all have their merits and weaknesses. Discourses are not right or wrong, they simply exist, representing wider social phenomena.  Having said that successful organizations may operate within any or all of the three discourses, but the Eco-leadership discourse is fundamental in today’s complex world. Below is a table setting out the discourses of leadership (Western S. 2008, Leadership a critical text, Sage):

The Controller Discourse

The first discourse is the Controller Discourse which gained credence from the cultural belief in modernism and scientific rationalism at the turn of the 20th century. This post enlightenment belief was that science and rationality could be a new saving force and the industrial revolution in the west paved the way for urbanization and new organizations to form. 

In the workplace the discourse of the controller was epitomized by the ideas of Frederick Taylor called ‘Scientific management’ and the ‘efficiency craze’. Taylor’s ideas formed the teaching of Harvard Business School in the early part ot the 20th century and became mainstream, paving the way for Fordism, the factory production line and mass production.  The impact of ever increasing efficiency, division of labour, time and motion studies had a profound impact, increasing salaries, production which in turn led to mass consumption and the modernization of society.  However the downfalls were that this discourse always had a dehumanizing element as employees are treated in a functional way as replaceable human resources, as cogs in the wheel of the efficient machine.  The Controller Discourse remains with us, particularly in manufacturing. It also lives in consulting approaches that try to provide the client with one best way to solve all the problems: be it a project management methodology, quality assurance procedure or performance measurement method. Recent attempts to ‘modernise’ the public sector have seen a reversion to the controller discourse, with a focus on targets and audit to achieve greater outputs.  

The Therapist Discourse

The basic assumption underpinning the leader as therapist discourse is to focus on human relations, particularly individual and team motivation. 

This discourse emerged from the post second world war in the west, where a more democratic society was sought.  Workers returning from the second world war were not happy ‘being controlled’ but wanted a ‘life fit for heroes’. Politicians and employers feared a return of right or left dictatorships so aimed to democratize society and the workplace, shifting away from the control discourse to engage employees.   The discourse as therapist works on the principal that ‘happy workers are more productive workers’ and this discourse produced many years of successful growth, combining production with personal satisfaction. Workers no-longer just brought their labour/bodies to work, but their identities as well, and the rise of professionalism coincided with the rise of this discourse. The USA dominated the economic market during this period and their business schools influenced organizations worldwide. Post war USA culture privileged individualism which was further advanced in the 1960s with the rise of the personal growth movement and therapeutic culture (Füredi 2004) Leaders encourage workers to self-actualize through work, so that  people ‘came to work to work on themselves’ (N. Rose) engaging workers to increase motivation and commitment.  Personnel departments were established to help achieve this.  This discourse is very popular in education and the public and voluntary sector and other people focused organizations. Most psychologists working as business trainers subscribe to it believing that the key to organizational development is the personal growth of everyone involved. Leadership and much of OD development is dominated by the therapist discourse; often focusing on ‘developing the individual e.g. using psychometrics, 360s’ and coaching to attempt to offer personal insight and to modify behavior in order to improve personal performance. This discourse remains powerful in many settings. It faded and was overtaken by the messiah discourse in the late 1970s when the American and western economies slumped and the rise of the Asian tiger economies (Japan, South Korea, Singapore) challenged the hegemony of dominant western economies. 

The Messiah Discourse

The messiah discourse arose in the early 1980s following an economic slump in the USA. A new covenantal leadership emerged with the aim to create strong, dynamic organizational cultures under the vision and charisma of a transformational leader (Burns Bass).  Loyalty and commitment within teams, and linking personal success to company success was a key goal. Peters and Waterman described the most successful companies as having ‘cult like cultures’(Peters and Waterman 1982) and the organization was thought of as a community (Kunda and ebrary Inc. 2006) Consultants, trainers and executive coaches who work within this discourse focus on bringing out the client’s charisma, or at least behaviorally enhancing its strength.

Control was achieved via peer and self surveillance, rather than hierarchical power or coercion. These prophetic leaders initially were heralded as creating entrepreneurial and dynamic companies yet the danger was that they also created highly conformist cultures. Strong cultures tend to exclude people who don’t fit, mavericks who bring creativity to an organization are squeezed out, and anyone who questions the leadership was seen as being disloyal.   The long-term results can create totalizing and fundamentalist mindsets, that resist critical reflection and exclude difference.  

Visionary leadership is important as is aligned cultures, however too much idolatry and too much alignment can lead to blind followership, conformism and fundamentalist mindsets. Contemporary organizations need to embrace diversity and creativity if they are too succeed. 

The Eco-leadership Discourse

This new emergent discourse has become powerful since 2000.  The Eco-leader focuses on ethics, connectivity and creating distributed leadership at all levels in a company.  The leadership works to create and sustain an eco-system that includes stakeholders and competitors, building coalitions, networks and collaborative relationships. address in the present, the issues of the future, e.g. finite resources, climate change  and  social responsibility.  Eco-leadership recognizes the connectivity and inter-dependence within and beyond organizational boundaries.  The organization is seen as an eco-system within other eco-systems and eco-leaders look at socio-political and economic influences and trends and steer strategy in light of these.  For example, forward looking companies are addressing issues of sustainability and corporate social responsibility.  Reducing waste ensures they are ahead of the game commercially when energy costs rise and also pays attention to consumers and activist voices that can damage brands if they are seen to be irresponsible.   

Until recently the Eco-leadership discourse was a marginalized voice. Now progressive business and political leaders are embracing this discourse. Creating new organizational forms, eco-leaders focusing on the internal organizational ecosystem such as building communication networks, preventing the formation of silos and creating an organizational architecture that supports distributed leadership at local levels, thus creating an adaptive organization. Emergence is a vital aspect of this discourse, and OD consultants need to work towards creating organizational systems, structures and cultures that respond to emergent opportunities and challenges. In relation to the social and organizational changes described above, OD consultants need to work with the Eco-leadership discourse in order to engage with the networked society. Organizations may be functioning with a leadership model from a previous discourse but most organizations will now be struggling with the paradox of having to meet short term targets whilst addressing strategic issues such as upgrading systems and processes, reducing costs and creating leadership throughout the organization to support adaptable change. 

Earlier discourses have a part to play in organizations for example, some control is needed in order to maximize efficiency and reduce risk. The therapist discourse informs us how to improve working relationships and get the most from individuals and teams, and the messiah discourse points to the need for clear visions and goals and for organizations to create strong supportive and aligned cultures.  What is important as an OD consultant is to recognize what’s missing, when too much emphasis is on the control, therapist or messiah discourses, and to always to hold onto an Eco-leadership view of the whole system.

_{(This is a part of Advisio Handbook, written by Simon Western, PhD, from Tavistock Consultancy Service)}