How well adapted are we? By Teresa Strausz

So what in the world does this video have to do with organizations or organization development? As we work with and in organizations, asking the question “How will the chicks fare here?” as the narrator does in this video, can help us open up to what ways we might adapt to an ever-changing organizational landscape. How are our organizational dynamics and resources faring in the face of new landscapes? Are we adapting our structures or are we hanging onto our old way of nest-building as the tried and true way of surviving?

The need for adaptation in our organizational and leadership lives is in direct relationship to the degree we are or are not “matched to a new set of circumstances.” How are you currently matched to your circumstances? How are your chicks faring?

State of the Solutions | Seth Bate

I admit to only half-listening to the coverage leading up to and following the State of the Union address on January 28, 2010. It’s just a speech, right?

Even so, a quote from Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell got my attention when I heard it on the radio – enough so that I went to his website to find it in an official press release.

“Americans aren’t happy with the administration’s approach,” McConnell said. “They want a step-by-step approach to our problems, not grand government experiments and schemes.”

What I heard was, “Americans want technical solutions, not adaptive responses.” And I have to agree with the Senator. That’s exactly what we want. Unfortunately, it’s not what the situation requires.

Over the last few years I have learned and in turn taught about the difference between technical and adaptive challenges. My first exposure was an article written by Ron Heifetz that a colleague shared with me, and it’s a concept that is central to the work of our partners at The Kansas Leadership Center.

McConnell’s statement points at a key distinction between the two kinds of challenges.

Technical challenges may be difficult and complicated, but they can be tackled with expertise that currently exists. If you get the right combination of brains, resources and influence, there may well be a step-by-step approach to these kinds of problems. Finding that approach is reassuring; if the administration could find it, Americans would likely be happier.

Adaptive challenges are also difficult and complicated, not to mention persistent. And there is no single entity with enough brains, resources or influence to fix them. As we’re reminded in the evolving Kansas Leadership Center Field Guide, these challenges “require learning to understand what is going on. The solutions also require learning to develop new tools, methodologies and practices.”

Job creation, health care and energy ― among other topics in the president’s speech and the Republican response – are adaptive challenges.

The only way to move forward on these enormous issues is to experiment, because no one yet knows what the answers are. Of course, we may disagree on the choice and scope of the experiments. Still, if we are ever to make progress, we have to give up our reliance on step-by-step approaches and embrace innovation, learning as we go.



Learn more about the properties of an adaptive challenge here (pgs. 19-22):

Photo courtesy of Philo Nordlund

Change Part 1 | by Kevin Bomhoff

When my daughter (now grown and managing pension funds for hospitals and medical clinics) was six years old, I remember picking her up after her first day of first grade.   She had loved kindergarten and all available data confirmed our suspicions that she was indeed a genius.

The new first grader walked slowly to the car and climbed in without a word.  We belted in and I waited for a report.   More silence.  She peered straight ahead; I could see a small simmering hole forming in the dashboard.   “So, how’s first grade?” I asked.   The silence broke as she announced, “Dad, there are a lot of rules.”

Despite my efforts empathetically strike up a conversation, she sank back into reflective silence.   I tried to comprehend the enormity of her dreadful discovery:  The joy of kindergarten had been systematically destroyed by some uniformed autocrat.   Not only did the system impose unnecessary constraints, the length of the day had been doubled.  Twice as much fun - not a problem.   Double the tyranny – unacceptable.

Change.  Ronald Heifetz  talks about the “Pathway of Adaptive Change” using terms such as the “Productive Zone of Disequilibrium” and “managing the heat.”   

Change is life’s (and work’s) crucible.   Much energy is spent managing, avoiding or complaining about change.   At CCSR, we often get called when organizations are on the precipice of change:

•    Increased demand for services
•    Reduced resources
•    Seeking to collaborate with others to address a common concern
•    Need to prepare for what’s next  

The lesson from Heifetz is this:  there is a productive zone of disequilibrium in every system.     The “productive zone” is a place where observation, interpretation, and intervention take place in a cycle that promotes learning and progress.  

I invite you to come back next week for a look at how knowing about this zone is helping CCSR - and, we hope, other Kansas organizations - respond to change.



Photo courtesy of Rachel