The definition of having a closed mind is not willing to consider different ideas or opinions. We all have areas in our lives where we bring a closed mind to the subject matter, behavior, or situation. We might have yet to understand how this state of mind makes us individually (or organizationally) more fragile instead of more resilient.
Resilience is defined as a system that can absorb disruption and will still maintain function. As we continue to face ongoing disruptions in extreme weather, from the long tail of COVID-19, and within our social/political systems, it seems proactive to become more aware of how we can design and strengthen our resilience personally and organizationally. I have been writing these past weeks on characteristics of resilient systems and lifting standard practices that decrease our resilience and make our organizations more fragile. This blog is about closed systems and how this unexamined habit makes us individually and organizationally more fragile.
The habit of wanting our organizations to be a closed system
For generations, we have tended to design our organizations as a closed system. There are a few reasons for this predisposition:
- First, control is only possible if you manage or lead a closed system. Open systems allow influence but not control because new variables enter the system daily. Control requires predictability, and open systems are inherently unpredictable.
- Second, the aspiration to lead a closed system stems from a more mechanistically inspired sense that our organizations are like cars or machines. These kinds of machines require a power source like gas to run them. We have then assumed that leadership at the top is the fuel in a closed organization. That myth is the rationalization for the compensation gap in our organizations. If leaders are like fuel or a car driver that can’t move without a driver, leaders are more valuable and, therefore, should be paid more. Our market-based salary systems have complicated rating systems to determine how much value a positional leader brings to this rank-ordered way of thinking.
- Third, when an organization is designed around control and fear (the emotion underneath control), it distorts staff relationships and communication patterns over time. Closed organizations invite people to appease and comply with the wishes of their supervisors. This isn’t a good recipe for understanding the reality of the work because people are shaping their communication based on what they think their supervisors want to hear, not on what is happening on the ground, especially if it is bad news. That adds to organizational fragility because leaders no longer make decisions based on all the information.
Reality meets the closed system mindset
Today’s reality is that we have distortions and surprises happening every day. A customer might throw a curve ball in a sales call; a competitor might invent a better way to do something that undercuts your product, or a world event will create challenges in your supply chain. And sometimes, people change their minds about what is valuable and what they are willing to support, or a new federal or global body will challenge your traditional business model. These activities are normal now. But a closed organization will continue to be blindsided and unprepared for them because they are too focused on controlling its business, organization, people, and market share. By focusing on inside the organization, it makes us less prepared for those coming at us from the larger world.
The lesson is that organizational fragility increases tremendously in closed system-designed organizations.
This is a very thoughtful framing of the challenge of leading organizational change. It leads to another topic of how to develop the kind of leadership able to be effective in more open systems.