Is the Edge a Separate Organization?

In a fascinating paper given at the 13th ICCRTS, Frank Barrett and Mark Nissen assert that the answer to this question is “yes.” In this paper, they discuss the agile and adaptable organizational pattern sometimes called an “edge organization.”

The authors assert that the key barriers to creating this organization are found in two basic features of hierarchical organizations:

• They are grounded in a “rational-cognitive framework” that is dominated by analytically- oriented processes focused on planning, organizing, and controlling.
• They are guided by “teleological action” that assumes clear and relatively static purposes and goals.

A purist might argue from an epistemological perspective that there’s no escaping some amount of reason-cognition and telos. However, I think the authors are using these terms to refer what dominates the organizational culture, not an organization that is either all reason-cognition/telos or no reason-cognition/telos.

The edge organization breaks both assumptions:

• Its decision context is too ambiguous and dynamic to be analyzed and planned.
• Its decision context is too ambiguous and dynamic to support the creation and/or sharing of a formal and detailed description of purposes and goals

If you’re familiar with Cynefin, this sounds like the contrast between Unordered and Ordered domains. Or, Tushman’s Exploration-Exploitation contrast.

Regardless, the authors focus on how organizational identity is formed and how that identity constrains organizational sensemaking. Their conclusion is that hierarchical and edge identities are so different that it’s not feasible to try to morph a hierarchy into an edge.

This question is an important one in NCW. I've assumed over the past few years that selected individuals could form up an edge organization within an existing hierarchy, and depicted this as an edge overlay on a standard hierarchy. The overlay resembles the informal social networks that allow any structured organization with formal processes to adapt to an inherently messy world.

And, I've assumed that the decentralizing technologies (SOA, Web 2.0, etc.) that are beginning to emerge would tend to catalyze this sort of transition from the bottom up since these technologies seem to have a strong edge orientation.

None of this is trivial; the agile management of roles/responsibilities/rights is a significant challenge, but I’ve always assumed that as the technology matured, edge-like communities (e.g., COIs) would be chartered and/or emerge. These authors seem to be implying that my assumptions are both naive and dangerous.

They cite several theoretical bases for their assertion. Among those are:

• Gidden’s structuration theory - this proposes that structure is created and recreated by action, and action is constrained or enabled by structure.
• Situation action theories - these focus on the dynamic interplay between the subject and the context.
• Pragmatic theories - these emphasize the interdependent nature of means and ends
• The phenomenological philosophy of Merleau-Ponty - among other things, this asserts that “embodiment is constitutive of perception and cognition.”

Merleau-Ponty’s perspective is especially provocative in that it highlights not only how our actions shape our perception of an environment and how our perception shapes our actions, but also how this recursive dynamic depends on the sensemaking locus of a body.

My summary of this dynamic would be “context elicits available embodied skills, which frame the context for action.” Or, in data-frame (Klein) terms, our repertoire of frames is largely the result of acquired embodied skills. The authors summarize this discussion by saying “Most of the time, we act spontaneously and pre-reflectively in accord with embodied skill.” For the individual this may seem obvious, but for a group, it raises interesting questions.

For example, what exactly is a group’s “perception” (or frame set) and how does that “perception” (frame set) interact with individual members’ “perceptions” (frame sets). A group’s “actions” is perhaps a bit clearer, even if the nature of group embodiment is not. In both cases, emergent behavior and understandings come from the interplay between individual actions and each individual’s perception of their own actions and other’s actions. A reductionist might approach these questions with some sort of modeling framework, but a much more appropriate and common locus seems to be that of "identity", which is perhaps the closest concept we have to individual and group "embodiment."

The authors assert that the various theoretical frameworks imply that individual and group identity is so strongly shaped by either a hierarchical culture or an edge culture that it’s not possible for a group of individuals to morph between the two cultures/identities. Instead, one must grow an edge organization outside of a hierarchical context, and the edge organization must be kept separate from the hierarchy to maintain its effectiveness.

In the second half of the paper, the authors describe five levels of competency using the perspective described above. They then assert three maxims for practice (emphasis added):

• “The doing, learning and on-the-job experience required to develop edge-like behaviors must take place in an environment that encourages and reinforces such edge-like behaviors.”
• “Edge organizations can emerge [only] from the activities, dialogs and interactions of people working together in an environment that encourages and reinforces edge-like behaviors.”
• “The people working together in an environment that encourages and reinforces edge-like behaviors must learn the kinds of activities, dialogs and interactions required for Edge organizations.”

Finally, they propose a three phase approach to building an edge organization. This approach focuses on increasing levels of organizational competence and involves (1) selecting and developing edge-oriented personnel, (2) creating edge-oriented conditions, and (3) engaging individuals and the group in edge-oriented activities.

Bottom line: In a sea of papers that are often techno-centric rehashes of existing sensemaking/NCW frameworks, this paper is a much needed reminder of the centrality of individual and group identity/skill formation and development in creating an ability to thrive at the edge.