Mental Models In and Of Organizations

Mental Models In and Of Organizations This prÊcis describes how, from origins in Mintzberg (1979, 1989) and Morgan (2006) and in consideration of their assumptions and shortcomings, a personal mental model of organizations—more suited to the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity of the 21st century—was arrived at.

Olivier Serrat 22/02/2019

1 Define: Model A model is a schematic description of something—typically, a phenomenon or a system—that people employ to make out important properties or dynamics, reach better decisions, and sometimes advance predictions.1 In the world of science, models are customary tools of sensemaking in such disciplines as chemistry, mathematics, and physics; but, evermore it seems—doubtless to help cope with the intensifying complexities of the modern world, they are found elsewhere too (e.g., in business, computer science, economics, leadership studies, management, etc.). In general, models have an information input, an information processor, and an output of expected results, or comprise what Richardson, Andersen, Maxwell, and Stewart, (1994) termed more accurately means, means/ends, and ends sub-models: the feedback process (or loop) is sometimes basic, sometimes sophisticated. Most models are (no more than) simplified representations, often enough mere generalizations, and so understandably have limitations; others have more tangible ambitions; but, all can be modified as new evidence becomes available;2 for superior outcomes, obviously, we had better test and improve them.

There are abstract, concrete, and mimetic models (Friedman, Friedman, & Pollack, 2008).3 In the realm of cognitive science, Craik (1943) laid the foundation for the concept of mental models—otherwise called habits of thinking, linguistic paradigms, and mindsets—by suggesting that the mind constructs "small-scale models" of reality that it uses to anticipate events.4 Forrester, the father of systems dynamics, added the following precision: "The image of the world around us, which we carry in our head, is just a model. Nobody in his head imagines all the world, government or country. He has only selected concepts, and relationships between them, and uses those to represent the real system" (p. 53).

Comprehensively, Jones, Ross, Lynam, Perez, and Leitch (2011) explained that: "Mental models are personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to interact with the world around them. They are constructed by individuals based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world. Mental models are used to reason and make decisions and can be the basis of individual behaviors. They provide the mechanism through which new information is filtered and stored" (p. 46).

1

Comparing, (a) a framework is a set of assumptions, definitions, concepts, ideas, practices, principles, and values that describes a complex concept; a way of perceiving reality; (b) a methodology is a body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods; (c) a process is a series of actions, changes, or functions that produce something or lead to a particular result; and (d) a tool is allpurpose terminology for anything one uses to accomplish a task; ambiguously, a tool can be a framework, a methodology, a model, and a process.

2 "People are untrustworthy" or "people act with noble intent" would be examples of simple generalizations; supply-and-demand or game theory would be more powerful constructs; irrespective, all mental models also guide their holder's perception and behavior.

3 Abstract models can be analytical (e.g., statistical formulas), numerical (e.g., system simulations), and theoretical (e.g., chaos theory); concrete models can be two- or threedimensional physical constructs such as, respectively, architectural blueprints and model airplanes; and mimetic models can be imitations of life such as works of art and virtual reality environments (Friedman, Friedman, & Pollack, 2008).

4 Group mental models, which are not the focus of this précis, represent the collective knowledge and understanding held by a specific population of individuals in a particular domain.

2

Mental Models in Organizations Most (but not all) of our mental models of how things work are unconscious and implicit: typically, they are based on repeating what we have done before and so carry the past into the future; more often than we realize (or own up to), we also copy what others do (Pfeffer, 2005).

Elsewhere, notably in organizations, collective mental models can be powerful drivers of organizational culture that Schein (2017), for one, defined as: "… [T]he accumulated shared learning of [a] group as it solves its problems of external adaptation and internal integration; which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, feel, and behave in relation to those problems. This accumulated learning is a pattern or system of beliefs, values, and behavioral norms that come to be taken for granted as basic assumptions and eventually drop out of awareness" (p. 6).5 More tersely, Handy (1976) defined organizational culture as "the ways things get done around here". The crucial point is that organizational culture and associated mental models are passed to new generations through the process of socialization and acculturation. "In this regard, culture is a mechanism of social control and can be the basis of explicitly manipulating members into perceiving, thinking, and feeling in certain ways" (Schein, 2017, p. 12).6 Deeply held internal images of how the world works are prime determinants of success or failure. And so, where change is called for, for example to adapt to the external environment and solve organizational problems, it is essential to diagnose and as necessary replace mental models by means of sensebreaking and sensegiving (Macy, 2015).7 (Mental models that have dropped out of awareness would have to be surfaced first.)8 Mental Models of Organizations Mental models in organizations are one thing; personal mental models of organizations are another. Here, there, and everywhere, people live in a world of organizations from birth to death: and so, one might think they would—at some time or other but preferably before they join one— intellectualize individual mental models of organization; but, few do. At any rate, blissful ignorance (and an embarrassing lack of assumptions) characterized me when, all 21 years of 5

Specifically, Schein (1985) identified three distinct levels in organizational cultures: artifacts and behaviors; espoused values; and assumptions.

6 To note, socialization and acculturation does not prevent the emergence of subcultures.

Schein (2017) explained also that, as they age and grow, all organizations undergo a process of differentiation. Variously, this is caused by functional or occupational differentiation; geographical decentralization; differentiation by product, market, or technology; divisionalization; or differentiation by hierarchical level as the number of people in the organization increases (p.

211–212).

7 Marcy (2015) defined sensebreaking as "what needs to happen for people to be able to understand and accept the change" (p. 382); sensegiving is "how to inform people about the change" (p. 382).

8 The biggest problems with mental models arise when they have dropped out of awareness.

Unconscious and implicit mental models remain unexamined: as the world changes, the gap with reality widens and leads to increasingly counterproductive actions (Senge, 2006, p. 166). "It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so," is a bon mot attributed to Mark Twain (among others). Failure to surface mental models with skills and tools of reflection can only retard systems thinking.

3 age, I embarked on securing my first employment during a gap year: organizations were, well, organizations.

Mintzberg (1979) was an early explorer of organizational configurations (or species): Mintzberg's (1979) insight was that organizational structure emerges from the interplay of an organization's raison d'être—aka the theory of the business; the environmental forces it experiences; and the organizational structure itself. The organizational configurations that Mintzberg (1979) identified were (a) the entrepreneurial organization, (b) the machine organization (bureaucracy), (c) the professional organization, (d) the divisional (diversified) organization, and (e) the innovative organization ("adhocracy"). Subsequently, for a total of seven configurations, Mintzberg (1989) added the missionary organization and the political organization to the list. Mintzberg's (1979, 1989) insights on organizational configurations were precious, and for a while formed a primary mental model of mine: soon enough, I saw machine organizations (bureaucracies) everywhere.9 In the course of time, however, I found Mintzberg's (1979, 1989) taxonomy unsatisfactory: consider, for example, that even entrepreneurial organizations have elements of the machine organization (bureaucracy) in them; and, some organizations such as international organizations boast elements of all seven configurations.

And, what of the networked organization? Sped by the Internet and by mobile computing, a phenomenon that Mintzberg could not have foreseen in the 1970s or even in the 1980s, networks are becoming the new social operating system. The real test of a mental model is not truth but utility. And so, moving on with reluctance from Mintzberg (1979, 1989), I looked elsewhere for other inputs to my mental model of organizations.

Enter Morgan (2006), whose work juxtaposed in my mind different images (or metaphors) of organizations. In the most explicit recognition to date of the significance of mental models, Morgan (2006) was based on the premise that most of our thinking about organizations is framed by one or more of eight basic metaphors: (a) machine, (b) organism, (c) brain, (d) culture, (e) political system, (f) psychic prison, (g) flux and transformation, and (h) instrument of domination.10 Soon enough, on a variant of organizations as organisms, I developed a personal metaphor of organizations as parasites, that might explain the calculated dysfunctionality one finds in the machine organization (bureaucracy). Dictionary.com defines a parasite as "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment".11 That said, there is no chance that a single metaphor will explain 9

The machine organization (bureaucracy) is defined by its standardization. Work is very formalized, there are many routines and procedures, decision-making is centralized, and tasks are grouped by functional departments. Jobs are clearly defined; there is a formal planning process with budgets and audits and procedures are regularly analyzed for efficiency. There is a tight vertical structure, with functional lines that go all the way to the top, allowing top managers to maintain centralized control. The machine organization (bureaucracy) can be very efficient but relies heavily on economies of scope and scale for its success; however, formalization leads to specialization and functional units soon develop goals that can be inconsistent with overall corporate objectives; formalization can also come to the detriment of organizational health.

10 In a parallel to Mintzberg (1979), for example, Morgan (2006) drew attention to the organization as machine, in which people are parts, and notes that the thrust of much management thinking is that organizations are rational and can be optimized for efficiency.

11 Now, why would a host not rid itself of its parasite? Admittedly, some parasites—such as the remora (or suckerfish), which attaches itself to large fish (e.g., a shark) by means of a sucker on top of the head—provide services of sorts, just enough to be tolerated (some would say invited) by the host; it is a delicate balancing act that, when performed well, is akin to symbiosis. (The remora feeds on its host's external parasites.)

4 everything. Also, there is every likelihood that different persons will view the same object through different eyes and, indeed, that the same person may shift perspective depending on job or situational contexts;12 if so, by what metaphor are we then to explain, say, a proposed organizational change? To repeat, the real test of a mental model is not truth but utility.

Much as models are wont to, Mintzberg's (1979, 1989) and Morgan's (2006) underplayed the principle of yin–yang, which accepts that seemingly opposite or contrary forces may paradoxically actually be interconnected, complementary, and even interdependent. To discover order in an increasingly complex world, we need to evolve greater intelligence. And so, I continued my journey up what Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1994) termed the "ladder of inference", taking care—much as the foregoing showed—to step down a rung every now and then.13 Recognizing that organizational configurations and images of organization à la Mintzberg (1979, 1989) and Morgan (2006), respectively, no longer make discrete sense in the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (aka, VUCA) world of the 21st century, I eventually evolved a new mental model. The new mental model brings to light hybrid forms of organizing (that most observers once considered mutually exclusive) and suggests forms, combinations, and contents of "leadership management systems" to better serve their metagovernance. This is but the end of the beginning: much as the original mental models and their associated assumptions were ultimately found wanting, my now transmogrified version needs perpetual validating—not mere validation—if it is to find enduring utility. Specifically, the idea will be to close the gap in knowledge of what situation-specific modes—not styles—of leadership can support metagovernance of hybridized forms of hierarchies (authority), markets (price), and networks (trust) in the future (Serrat, 2018). Toward this, nested in the research paradigm of social constructivism, a study will leverage grounded theory by means of explorative, systemizing, and theory-generating expert interviews with four or five authorities in metagovernance, complexity leadership theory, and knowledge management.

12

One organization that I originally saw a brain became in turn—in my imagination—a machine, a culture, a political system, an instrument of domination, a parasitic organism, and a psychic prison; I never saw it as flux and transformation.

13 Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1994) defined the ladder of inference as a common pathway of increasing abstraction that, in the absence of reflection, often leads to misguided beliefs: "(i) observable "data" and experiences, (ii) I select "data" from what I observe, (iii) I add meanings (cultural and personal), (iv) I make assumptions based on the meanings I added, (v) I draw conclusions, (vi) I adopt beliefs about the world, an (vii) I take actions based on my beliefs [emphasis added]" (p. 243). The way to avoid the fallacies of the ladder of inference is to become more aware of one's thinking and reasoning, make one's thinking and reasoning more visible to others, and inquire into others' thinking and reasoning (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, p. 245).

5 Learning with Mental Models Single-loop learning stops at a question such as: Are we doing things right? Double-loop learning asks: Are we doing the right things? (Argyris, 1991). Triple-loop learning inquires: How do we decide what is right? (Hawkins, 1991).14 Models, including mental models, are simplified representations of reality (or a part thereof). More meaningfully, they should be described as simplified representations of reality (or a part thereof) that we want to learn about continuingly: this means models must integrate feedback if they are to productively power the cycle of planning, acting, reflecting, and learning (and not become belief traps). Models demand reflection, that being the active process of (preferably recurrently) revisiting experience to examine it more closely, give new meaning to it, and learn more from it. What? So what? Now what? Oft-repeated, this set of questions will galvanize more intentional and evolved mental models that, beyond sketches of reality, will generate the kind of knowledge that Eliot (1942) speaks of in the poem Little Gidding: "We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time."

References Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99– 109.

Craik, K. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eliot, T. (1942). Little Gidding. London, UK: Faber & Faber.

Forrester, J. (1971). Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technology Review, 73(3), 52– 68.

Friedman, L, Friedman, H., & Pollack, S. (2008). The role of modelling in scientific disciplines: A taxonomy. Review of Business, 29(1), 61–67.

Handy, C. (1976). Understanding organizations. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Hawkins, P. (1991). The spiritual dimension of the learning organization. Management Education and Development, 22(3), 166–181.

Jones, N., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011). Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 46–46.

Marcy, R. (2015). Breaking mental models as a form of creative destruction: The role of leader cognition in radical social innovations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 370–385.

Mintzberg, M. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, M. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations.

New York, NY: The Free Press.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Richardson, G., Andersen, D., Maxwell, T., & Stewart, T. (1994, July 11–15). Foundations of mental model research. Paper presented at the 1994 International System Dynamics Conference, Stirling, Scotland.

Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.

Serrat, O. (2018). Research concept paper for leading organizations of the future. Unpublished manuscript, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

14

There is talk also of quadruple-loop learning, which considers systemic options and evaluates the foundational claims of each.