Sometimes there is a need to Prune the Tree
Features
MANAGEMENT
George, the leadership consultant who was conducting a group of seminars for volunteer fire chiefs drew three diagrams on the chalkboard (see Figure 1).
“Can you define the word system?” he asked Robert.
“Something with parts that operates by using its parts.”
“That’s good enough,” George said. “The dictionary that I used for a definition took half a page to say about the same thing.
“In physics, a system is an aggregate or region of matter considered as a unit with respect to specified factors such as mass, energy, gravitation, radioactivity, etc. In medicine, it’s a group of organic structures composed of similar elements and combined for the same general function, the nervous system, for example. To a mechanic, it’s all the many parts attached to and within a motor creating the total power plant of a car.”
George hesitated and considered a thought before adding, “It’s apparent that in nearly every discipline’s definition of system, three concepts emerge: the idea of a network of subparts, the image of a whole, and a particular function or goal assigned to the overall unit.”
The men were studying the drawings on the chalkboard.
“Before discussing the diagrams,” George said, “I’m going to read what I consider one of the most impressive descriptions of a system. It’s from John, Chapter 15. ‘I am the true Vine and My Father is the Vinedresser. Every branch in Me that bears no fruit He prunes away, and whatever bears fruit He prunes so that it may bear more fruit…. Remain in Me and I in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself without staying on the vine, so you cannot without remaining in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who remains in Me, and I in him bears much fruit. For apart from Me you can do nothing.’
“I sense that some of you are disturbed by my quoting from the Bible in a management seminar, but let’s list the ideas presented in John. First, the individual is very much in the picture. The formal arrangement of parts in the system and their function also are very much present in the idea of the branches and in the concept of good fruit. The behavior expected from the subparts is made known or very strongly suggested; that is, they are to serve the whole, and the idea of a dynamic entity based upon unity is also present. If you research managerial literature dealing with a system,” George slowly added as he turned to face the group, “you will find exactly what I have just listed on the board.”
He waited for a second before suggesting, “Now look at the diagrams that I have drawn on the board and concentrate on the concepts presented in the Bible. From a managerial point of view, tell me what you feel is illustrated here.”
After a few moments, Steve remarked, “There’s certainly a difference between A and C. As a matter of fact, it looks like B is a part of C.”
“If you turn A upside down, it looks like a tree,” Frank chimed in.
George could not let the opportunity pass without asking, “In what organization is A frequently used?”
“The fire service,” Robert responded.
Harold’s face darkened with anger. “Oh, good, now you’re telling us that the fire service’s method of organizing is divinely inspired.”
George welcomed Harold’s remark. “No such thing. I’m simply saying that all the branches are united to a central trunk and the entire structure is organizationally united into one whole.” George paused. “Of course, there can be snags with such a hierarchical structure. For example, communications can be hindered, and there may be too much distance from the top to the bottom, causing inflexibility in adapting to unusual demands. But in contrast to C, it’s the only show in town.”
“There is really no central trunk in C,” Robert remarked.
“That’s right. Until someone comes up with something better, like an organization with a central trunk, direction of command, authority, and decision-making lines that provide unity, A is where it’s at.”
“What type of organizational setup is B?” Steve asked.
“Well,” George replied, “in all fairness to the system concept of management, it is necessary to consider B. From a sociological perspective, B is great. It represents an organizational wheel. Everyone in the wheel has access to information and to each other. Complex social issues and group think activities are definitely facilitated by a B type of arrangement. However, unless someone in B interacts with someone else in the overall organization, B can be an organizational disaster. For example, look at how B is a part of the C diagram. In C, one member interacts with the highest level manager in the organization and has nothing to do with either peers or intermediary superiors. The leader of the wheel in the C diagram is really not a contributing subpart of the overall system in a way that promotes true interaction with other subparts. Whatever contribution the wheel can make is sent through the highest leader in the C system like a filtering device. With this arrangement, there has to be a great loss, as there is absolutely no interpersonal communication between the wheel’s leader or its members and the many submanagers in the system.”
“Actually,” Harold remarked, “the way the wheel is set up in Diagram C, it serves in a staff function.”
“What do you mean by staff function?” George asked.
“Well, it’s not a part of the line organization. It’s not supposed to carry out line duties, like fire extinguishment. Its function is to do some special job, like payroll or vehicle repair.”
“Okay,” George agreed, “but think of these possibilities. What if the top leader of C and the members of the staff wheel are not focused on the goals of the organization? What if C’s leader is being influenced by a staff wheel that does not have the goals of the organization at heart?”
After thinking for a moment, Harold replied, “There would be a real problem. The way it’s set up, no one would really know what the staff wheel and/or the top leader are about. At least not as fast as in A.”
“Why?” George asked.
“Because A is all interconnected. The leaders on every level are plugged into the overall system. If one or two are turned off, they can be bypassed, since, in all likelihood, a good connector would still exist not only on a peer level but on a level above and below. There are too many connections in such a network, someone would have to know if a bad connection existed.”
George accepted what Harold said as a consensus statement from the group and went on to introduce additional thoughts as to what makes a typical hierarchical fire service organization work efficiently. “A great many managerial experts spend their time and effort trying to make and to understand the type A organization better.”
As he spoke, he redrew Diagram A (see Figure 2). “It’s as easy as drawing circular lines. They signify an informal /formal communication group process. I say informal/formal because the lines do not infer authority flow or decision-making capability. The same formal command structure remains that is represented by the solid lines. The same clear lines of authority and decision making are there, but now the additional lines indicate a formal organization’s intent to foster interpersonal communication on all levels and between all divisions, battalions, companies, and firefighters. When that happens, the A type of organization has, for communication purposes, been converted to a giant wheel or a B type of organization, and that’s good.”
SYSTEM TREE
- Numbered circles represent leaders found in Diagram A, Figure 1.
- Numbered circles within another circular enclosure represent communication committees.
- A dotted line indicates a leader with membership in more than one communication committee. Such a leader serves as a link between groups and thereby enhances communication.
“What do you mean when you say interpersonal communication?” Frank asked.
“I mean verbal, face-to-face communication; but if that isn’t possible, then verbal via the telephone or, as a last resort, written exchanges. The diagram I have on the board is for face-to-face communication. I suggest that a formal organization require such a process by instituting a system of committee groups to meet on a regularly assigned basis. Actually, the Japanese quality circle idea is a means of enhancing meaningful communication within an organization. It’s an idea that seeks to get input from workers with knowledge of production and operational intricacies. Call it what you may, quality circle or committee, their purpose is the same. It woufd be very difficult for a top leader and a staff wheel to lead an organization in the wrong direction if the organization is conducting committee meetings where members deal in face-to-face communication. Body language alone would signal the need for alarm.”
Robert looked at the first set of diagrams again and remarked, “I don’t believe that any organization would intentionally be set up in the C arrangement. It doesn’t require a management student to know that such an organization can’t properly function if it is structured like C.”
“Don’t shake your head,” George quickly answered. “As a matter of fact, C is actually the way many organizations, including some departments in the fire service, operate. They are not officially structured to operate in such a foolish manner, but individuals within the organization find ways to create their own wheels. The manager in the system tree (Figure 2) to whom other managers report is really a sole proprietor, and that’s a disaster.”
“How does it happen?” Steve asked.
“Spiders,” George replied.
“What?”
“Spiders. And beavers.”
“I don’t follow you.”
“Have you ever watched a spider at work?” George asked. “It will spin a web. If you knock it down, it will spin another. If a long period of time transpires during which the web is not cleared away, it will become reinforced and anchored strongly. It becomes a formidable structure, and its sole purpose is to serve the spider.”
George thought for a moment before adding, “Let me tell you a story. The other day, I was hired by a representative of a company that was dealing with an organization, let’s call it Z, to produce a training program that the company should have been able to produce. I asked the representative why it was necessary to hire me. I knew that the organization had a department especially designed to satisfy the needs of someone like the representative. He told me, ‘I can’t get anywhere with the guy who’s in charge of their operation. He’s got something against former cops.'”
After a moment, George continued, “I made a few phone calls to check on the representative’s statement and found that not only had the representative been truthful, but the situation was much worse. There had been similar situations with others. I asked ‘What do you think the problem is?’ “
“‘I don’t exactly know,’ the voice on the other end of the telephone answered, ‘but I think it’s a power thing. He’s worried about dealing with anyone who might be competition or who could possibly get a hold of some of his connectiohs. Something like that.’ “
“But how could the head of the Z organization let such a thing happen?” Robert asked.
“Either the head of the organization never finds out or finds out but is so into his own thing that he pays no attention. It doesn’t matter when it’s a small contract or something like that; however, when you add up all the small contracts and what is lost from the spinoff contracts that will not occur, the damage that a spider can cause can be anything but small. It has been my experience/’ George continued, “to notice how patient a spider-like manager can be.”
“I find what you’re saying really upsetting,” Robert asked.
“It’s sad,” George said, “because spiders are all over. They patiently spin away, and usually they require complete loyalty from the junior spiders that they carefully hand pick to help maintain their web. After a period of time, an intricate network of control and intrigue surrounds the spider and his helpers.
“I don’t think I have to go further. If you’ve been in an organization for any period of time, you know what I’m talking about. Maybe some of you chiefs are spiders. If so, I hope you’re spinning your web for the good of the community and for the department.
“Beavers,” George continued, “are another concern. If you have any knowledge of them, you know that they build barriers that sometimes completely stop a stream’s flow. Organizational beavers usually are not as devious as spiders. They openly go about their work, fully comfortable in their activities. In an organization, a beaver is a stickler for rules and procedure. A million-dollar contract could be held up because a stamp is not properly placed on an envelope. In the fire service, an important opportunity to take advantage of the availability of some special equipment or technique could be lost because the signature of a chief is needed, or a beaver-like chief will not agree to do something unless he has it in writing.
“As I said, beavers are not usually spiteful or vicious, nor do they suffer from a power complex. Usually, they are just people with a narrow conception of things, but they can make getting anything done so difficult that it may never get done or, what’s worse, turn people off from even trying. An organizational beaver is dangerous because while he doesn’t knowingly try to etch out his own domain as a spider does by spinning a web, he unwittingly builds barriers, effecting something similar to that of the spider.”
“How can an organization protect itself from such people?” Steve asked.
George smiled. He had been waiting for the question. “By having some chiefs who are bears. A bear is strong enough to tear the spider’s web apart and to rip down the beaver’s dam. A spider or beaver would never openly confront a bear. A bear can run faster than a horse, climb a tree and swim like a fish. One roar from his mouth or sweep of his forelimb is enough to set everything straight. A bear stands out front, unafraid, and has no need for the web of a spider nor the dam of a beaver. A bear is strongly independent and fiercely in love with freedom. Spiders and beavers would have no place in his domain.”
“You make it sound like we need a protector of some sort,” Harold remarked.
George replied, “An organization is a system of subparts interacting to form a whole and the whole is programmed to achieve specific goals. The system must be watched over. It must be protected from spiders and beavers. Sometimes, they are located in the network of subparts. On occasion, they achieve positions of high authority near the top of the tree. An organization can slowly die if it is infested with spiders and/or beavers. Finding a way to encourage communication between all the subparts, in addition to the formal ways built into the organizational structure as, for example, with committees, is a way to prevent a spider from hiding his web or a beaver from building his barriers.
“It should be remembered that it’s the nature of a spider to spin a web and a beaver to build a dam; therefore, fierce bear-like leadership is needed to destroy non-productive webs and dams and to deal with their creators as well as to prevent their return.”
George reached for his briefcase. “I think we will end our session with that thought.”
“Thanks for the nature lesson,” Harold said as he got up.
George smiled and wondered how Harold saw himself. Was he a spider, a beaver, or a bear? “Think of the Bible and the bear,” he said to Harold’s back as the chief left the room.
