Business is unpredictable. However, there are inescapable laws of structure we can apply when designing a business model to produce our desired outcomes.
Designing a Business That Works
Structure Determines Behavior
The underlying structures of you business (and your life) determine the path of least resistance. While you can temporarily achieve desired outcomes in an oscillating structure, force of will or attempts to overpower the structure eventually fail.
By:Dave Mather
What it is and what it is not
The structural process, as developed by Robert Fritz, is designed to do one thing
and one thing only. It exists to assist you in bringing into existence something that truly matters to you and your organization. The actions taken in the structural approach are motivated by a desire to achieve an end result and are not reactions to, or responses to, prevailing circumstances. It is not a goal-setting process, even though it can assist you in achieving goals. It is not a problem-solving process, since problem-solving is designed to make the problem go away. Problem solving is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. However, structural design is distinct from problem-solving. It is not a recipe or formula but a form similar to principles of composition. There are rules and guidelines, but they do not impact what you decide to create or propose a “perfect” system to get what you want. Instead, you follow simple guidelines to assist you in accelerating your progress and establishing the underlying structures to ensure that the path of least resistance flows towards what you want instead of oscillating forward and back, forward and back. It is not dependant on a particular “belief system.” This is in contrast to trying to “sell” yourself and others on a particular viewpoint or belief system. There is no shortage of people willing to tell you how you should run your business or do your job. The structural approach is not about that. People from various cultures and belief systems use this structure to create what is truly important to them. People want what they want because they want it. This process in no way imposes a belief system or “obligation” on anyone. It does not restrict people’s freedom, even though there are some who react to “rules” contending that they interfere with my freedom to be me. On the contrary, similar to the rules of jazz, tennis, composition or any other discipline, “rules” allow creativity to flourish within the context of what is desired. Each jazz musician, tennis player and writer is absolutely free to be who they are and perform at an extremely high level. If they do not learn the fundamentals of their craft, they will never perform above the level of mediocrity. The core skills give them access to achieving their highest aspirations and express their deepest values.
It is not psychology. While this approach is not anti-psychology, psychological theories interfere with a person’s view of reality. Since reality (not perception) forms the basis of one component of the structural model, it is best to leave psychology out if it.
Part One
Notes About The Structural Process
Basic Structural Principles There are many principles of structural design and inescapable laws of
structure clearly outlined in Robert Fritz’s books. Here are some highlights.
Tension seeks resolution. In this context, we are not referring to the negative tension we feel in our bodies or our minds. In the structural approach, tension is the engine, not the brakes. We intentionally and naturally create tension between our desired end result and our current reality. Tension seeks resolution, and this contrast generates energy and action to bring that result into existence. Like a waterfall, this energy follows the path of least resistance. There are two fundamental business structures – advancing and oscillating. We cannot “fix” an oscillating structure. Instead, we move from an oscillating structure to an advancing structure. A business has an advantage over a solid structure, such as an ocean-liner. Refurbishing ocean-liners requires long and expensive visits to a dry-dock. In contrast, we can restructure our business as we conduct day-to-day operations as usual.
Path of Least Resistance
The underlying structures of you business (and your life) determine the path of least resistance. You can temporarily achieve desired outcomes in an oscillating structure, but force of will or attempts to overpower the structure eventually fail. Organizations, like individuals follow inescapable structural laws. Using structural models, we can learn to recognize the role structure plays in our business and our lives, and we can change our structures to accomplish what is truly important to us.
At first glance, this contention may seem fatalistic. However, since the structure
we refer to contains our desires, beliefs, aspirations, and values and objective reality; the resulting behavior is on behalf of that which is truly important to us. Structuring our organizations, teams, and individual endeavors, leads to behaviors that best serve out needs. Human beings, teams, and organizations act in accordance with their underlying structures. We are referring to something in relationship to something else. Most people try to kill or get rid of tension, it makes them feel uncomfortable or “stressed.” Managing the difference between what you have and what you want is an acquired skill. Organizations are man-made structures therefore do not follow “organic” principles. Left to their own devices, most organizations default to oscillation.
Conflicting structures When two conflicting tension-resolution systems compete, the dynamic changes. Instead of structural tension you have structural conflict. This scenario creates a natural tendency to seek equilibrium, not resolution. Here is a simple example. Desire for change is resolved by doing something different which interferes with continuity – leaving things the same. Desire for continuity leads to avoiding change and leaving things the way they are. If an organization is in this structure, it leads at first to change, then to a desire for continuity, then to a desire for change etc. Movement towards change stretches the continuity band, while movement back to continuity stretches the change band. This structure seeks equilibrium which means the organization always ends up where it began but with tremendous expenditure of energy. This is a seductive structure since change does occur at first and it looks like we are moving towards what we want. Theories about people “naturally” resisting change come from people to whom this underlying structure is invisible. This design can only produce equilibrium and it has nothing to do with commitment or willpower. Both those qualities could temporarily produce advancement, but eventually the pull for equilibrium is too strong. Ironically, this pull is strongest just before we appear to be closest to our target which gives rise to the belief that if only we pushed harder, or were more committed, we’d achieve our outcome. Here’s a simple example. Hunger creates a tension that is resolved by eating. If our actual weight is higher than our desired weight, we may form another tension resolution system. Each system competes with the conflicting system. First the dominant tension is hunger so we eat.
Part One
Structure determines behaviour
Hunger subsides, but our weight goes up. In order to resolve this tension we may eat less or skip meals. We may lose some weight and begin to feel better about our weight. But our body reacts to reduction of fat and protein by sending a starvation warning.
This causes an increasing discrepancy between the body’s desired amount of food and actual amount of food intake. Hunger becomes the bigger tension as the brain relays the message: “Eat! Eat! This shift of dominance creates a predictable pattern of behavior. Hunger leads to eating, which leads to weight gain, which leads to eating less, which leads to hunger. Over time, no amount of will-power manipulation or heightened resolve will over-power the structure. The person in this cycle is up against a structure that is inadequate for the behavior they desire. You cannot eat and not eat at the same time. Structural conflicts always result in the structure seeking equilibrium. What we want is to move into a structure that resolves by bringing into existence that which is truly important.
Structural conflicts are not problems to be solved; they are simply inadequate to accomplish our desired outcomes. You cannot “fix” a rocking chair to perform like a racing car. You move from a rocking chair into a car. In the structural context, you move from a conflicting structure into a resolving one.
P
roblem-solving, as a structure, is inadequate for building an organization and growing a business. Problem-solving has a built-in structural tendency to oscillate. Please don’t misunderstand; problem-solving is a legitimate and important business tool. Problems occur, and it is important that we face them, define them, and solve them. The structural model is bringing into existence something that did not exist before and is important to us and our future; therefore making something disappear [problem-solving], is inappropriate for the job of building our desired future. A problem-solving organization cannot advance because: 1. Actions will not be taken to move us toward our aspirations. 2. There is a difference between building and demolition. 3. Organizational learning is limited to how to eliminate unwanted situations, not how to bring about a desired outcome. 4. Motivation for action shifts from one problem to another as problems change in importance over time. 5. A false impression of effectiveness is created within the organization, leading to questionable values such as: “the time to act is when there is a crisis.” 6. Problems dictate a biased viewpoint. [i.e. If we say the problem is people failing to take personal responsibility for their work, we might try to empower them. If we feel our quality is lacking, we may embark on a “quality” initiative. These solutions may not lead to lasting change and deal mostly with “symptoms.”]
Chronic problem-solving reflects a lack of essential planning and organizational control.
Common Oscillating Structures ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Strained workload and budgetary constraints Profit goals and expansion goals Investment and cost-cutting Stock performance and reinvestment Short-term and long-term demands Desire to control and desire to include others in decision-making Desire to act and potential risk Growth and stability
Recognizing existing oscillating structures enable you to see the forces in play and engage in constructive dialogue.
Part One
The problem with problem-solving
The drive for equilibrium
E
quilibrium is the point of balance between two competing goals. This is an important insight, because once we understand that structure has its own goal, independent from ours, we can align our goal with that of the structure. This technical point helps us to understand the true mechanism in force when there is either a structural conflict or structural tension in play. Structure is a force in nature, not just a metaphor or problem to be solved.
From structural conflict to structural tension Our desired structure is one that has as its goal advancement, not oscillation. One way to do this is to establish a hierarchy between competing tensions. For example, if the major goal is growth, it will become necessary to manage stability and growth accordingly. If the major goal is stability, then it is imperative to manage growth accordingly. A commitment to health is higher than hunger or commitment to a “diet” or weight loss program. Once you say, “I choose to be healthy,” all other secondary choices serve the primary goal. Following an eating regimen or managing food intake, is a choice you make on behalf of your commitment to health. Please don’t gloss over this important distinction. It is not just semantics or “goal-setting.” If you are committed to growth beyond organic or passive growth (which cannot be achieved without some kind of change) then you choose change as a secondary choice to your desire for growth. If your major goal in stability and, believe it or not, that could be a wise business choice in certain situations, then you manage change, even reject certain changes on behalf of your primary choice.
what you are bringing into existence; then scrutinize current reality in contrast to what you are creating; then develop action steps [secondary choices] on behalf of going from where you are to where you want to be.
Step by step Step 1 - Define the Goal In this first step, it is very important to reduce wild, inspiring visions to a discrete goals. We suggest a single unifying goal, with sub-goals as needed.
Step 2 - Create Structural Tension by Defining Current Reality In traditional planning, the usual next step is to formulate a plan to achieve the goal. This is where Structural Tension deviates. We say, let’s define our “Current Reality.” The “tension” introduced by current versus future reality is powerful. It commits to writing what we intuitively consider as we build a plan to achieve a goal. We are no longer solving the “How to get to point B” problem. Instead we are creating a plan to get from point A to B. Accurately describing current reality accurately is like clearly defining a problem. As we all know, clearly defining a problem is half the battle. Why? Because the more clarity and relevant input data we have, the more obvious the solution. In the case of current versus future reality, the clearer the differences the clearer we see how we can bridge the differences. Bridging the difference essentially follows “the path of least resistance.” If we invest sufficient time defining current reality and making our goal crystal clear, a lighting bolt can strike and we see the best action path in a sudden flash of insight. Effective Structural Tension automatically generates the path of least resistance.
Step 3 - Resolve Tension by Creating the Action Plan Now that we have established Structural Tension, we’d better do something with all that pent up energy. Our Action Plan becomes our project tasks or milestones. After you’ve added the due dates and accountabilities, sort the elements by date, or group them and sort them by groups. The great advantage of the structural approach is that this chart shows all the pertinent elements. Thinking occurs faster and correctly. Group discussions especially are more productive than traditional approaches, because information sharing occurs automatically and intuitively as the chart evolves. A sense of relaxation emerges as the tension is resolved by the plan. That’s when you know you’re on the right track.
Part One
In the structural model, you establish your outcome in the form of a clear picture of
A structural tension chart beats bullet lists that are hard for everyone to grasp. This is
the power of reducing the key content of a document to one page. There are usually documents to back up the chart, [telescoping] but they are secondary, and may not even be developed during initial planning. Can you imagine members going to their offices, and posting the chart on their walls, and looking at it frequently? Can you see the chart pulled out in subsequent meetings? Effective Structural Tension automatically generates focused action.
Immutable Laws Of Structure Path of Least Resistance for Managers Robert Fritz
The First Law of Organizational Structure Organizations either oscillate or advance.
The Second Law of Organizational Structure In organizations that oscillate, success is neutralized. In organizations that advance, success succeeds.
The Third Law of Organizational Structure If the organization’s structure remains unchanged, the organization’s behavior will revert to its previous behavior.
The Fourth Law of Organizational Structure A change of structure leads to a change of the organization’s behavior.
The Fifth Law of Organizational Structure When structural tension dominates an organization, the organization will advance.
The Sixth Law of Organizational Structure When structural conflict dominates an organization, oscillation will result.
The Seventh Law of Organizational Structure An inadequate organizational structure cannot be fixed. But you can move from an inadequate structure to a suitable structure.
The Eighth Law of Organizational Structure When a senior organizing principle is absent, the organization will oscillate. When a senior organizing principle is dominant, the organization will advance.
The Ninth Law of Organizational Structure The values that dominate an organization will displace other competing, lesser values.
1. Is this the result or outcome you want? 2. Did you quantify the results whenever you could? 3. Did you translate comparative terms (more, better, improved etc.) into their actual goals? 4. Did you focus on getting what you want or only on eliminating problems? 5. Did you describe the actual results you want or just the process for achieving those results? [i.e. “Task force in place” rather than “create the task force.”]
Ideas To Hone Your Current Reality Statements 1. Does each goal have a Current Reality for that goal? 2. Did you include what’s relevant? 3. Have you included all the components? 4. Have you translated assumptions and editorials into objective news reports? For example, “We tried and failed miserably to improve our production efficiency should be, “We do not know how to improve our production efficiency”, [which is so much more clear that it leads right into a solution.] 5. Did you tell it like it is? (or represent it better or worse than it really is?) 6. Did you state what reality is, rather than how it got to be that way? 7. Did you include all of the facts your need?
Ideas To Hone Your Action Plans Statements 1. Does the Master Chart include each major aspect of the organization and business? (Master Chart is your top level chart for the whole company, division or department) 2. Can you answer yes to this question, “If we took these steps, does it look likely we would accomplish our goals?” 3. Are your descriptions of the action steps accurate and concise? 4. Does every action have a due date? 5. Does every action have one person accountable? Will these actions help you move from where you are to where you want to be? • • • • • • •
Will these steps do it? If you took these steps, would they take you all the way or part of the way? What else do you have to do? Will these steps increase the probability of success? How easy is it to take these steps? How “do-able” are these steps? Do the things that are “do-able” help to build momentum?
Now is the time for invention and innovative action. Sometimes we make secondary choices that we don’t like, in order to support our primary choice.
Part One
Ideas To Hone Your Goal or Outcome Statements
Designing a Business That Works
Business Next Division Dale Carnegie Business Group
905-826-7300 www.businessnext.ca
SUMMARY COMMENTS WE HAVE ONLY BRIEFLY COVERED THE SUBJECT. PLEASE SEE ROBERT FRITZ’S BOOKS FOR MORE. REMEMBER OUR “IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING, ANY ROAD WILL DO” ADVICE? WITHOUT CURRENT REALITY IT BECOMES “IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ROADS ARE AVAILABLE.” WITH A GOAL AND CURRENT REALITY, IT BECOMES “IF YOU KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AND WANT TO GO, THERE’S PROBABLY ONE GOOD ROUTE.”
I nescapable Laws of Struc tural D ynamics