Alistair Mant[1], one of my favourite writers on leadership, argues that “truly intelligent leaders” know very clearly the difference between bicycles and frogs, especially when leading organisational change.
Mant explains his metaphor as follows:
“You can disassemble a bicycle completely, clean and oil all the separate parts, and reassemble it confident that it will work as before. Frogs are different. The moment you remove any part, all the rest of the system is affected instantly, in unpredictable ways, for the worse.”
So why is the distinction between frogs and bicycles important in leading and managing in a pandemic.
According to Mant, “Most big organisational systems contain “bikish” and “froggish” bits – that is, “bikish” parts which can be hived off and reattached in a new way without harming the overall system, and “froggish” parts which really are part of the core process. If you remove them, you damage the whole.”
He goes on to say, “Binary ‘leaders’, and quite a few management consultants too, really do think that complex organisational systems will respond to the bicycle treatment. They think you can get a realistic picture of the total system by simply aggregating its component parts.”
As dire predictions circulate around the world of the likely negative economic impacts of a Covid19 cliff, some boards and managers may be inclined to reach for their organisational bolt cutters with a view to cutting non-core cost components from their respective bicycles.
As Mant suggests, however, if separate cost cutting exercises are done in isolation, the effect can be to weaken the integrity of the ‘whole frog’, a systemic effect often not immediately evident, especially to the “disembodied cost cutters”:
“If their minds are wired up in a ‘bicycle’ sort of way, all they can see is the component level of operations where some short term recovery may be occurring, yet at a system level, the whole frog may be weakening.”
From my observations, it is usually front-line staff and customers who are the first to sense this happening. As organisations exist only if key stakeholders, for example customers, believe they exist (forget the omnipotent head office towers and advertising billboards), loss of faith and hence support can occur very quickly and unexpectedly. Many thousands of small businesses, newspapers, airlines and cruise ship companies are likely to disappear over the next 12 months for this very reason.
Mant maintains “the bicycle approach is concerned only with the ‘what’ – the functionality of internally consistent sub-systems. Frogs on the other hand are determined by their environment where the intelligent total systems question is not what or how, but why?”.
With many people still working from home on operational activities to keep their organisations functioning, there may be a danger of too much emphasis being placed on technical (bicycle) processes and projects, and not enough on organisational health and well-being issues.
For example
· The fast-changing, pandemic-driven regulatory, market, social and economic conditions
· On-going business-model viability and longer-term product and service relevance
· People engagement and collaboration across divisions, functions and teams
· The ability of their organisations to adapt and manage environmental change.
· The on-going need for prudent governance.
Of course, a characteristic of creative leadership is the ability to turn threats into opportunities and this is now happening in a number of product and service sectors. For example, small manufacturers are now rejigging their 3-D printers to product PPE, or using their technical capabilities to build new products like respirators. However to extend the frog metaphor (a bit risky I know) some of these organisations have quickly realised their current ‘ponds’ are in danger of ‘boiling’ dry and have chosen to pro-actively pivot and even ‘ribbit’ out instead of staying put until its too late.
Looking ahead, the new normal in Australia for many small and large organisations (until viable vaccines arrive) may well be cycles of virus acceleration and deceleration moderated by varying degrees of government-mandated health protections.
Adapting to the ever-changing mix of home and office working routines is, and will continue to require lots of professional, technical and social flexibility. As many people have already discovered, families all working from home need to share many bicycle components like laptops, modems, relatively soundproof working spaces etc. However, if the willingness and ability to care, share and support each other breaks down, productivity can plummet. Sadly increases in domestic violence during Covid19 may mean some homes may not be safe workplaces for some employees.
This is where I believe HR and L&D people have a special leadership role to play in encouraging managers and team-leaders to build and maintain interdependent and supportive social networks both in offices and indirectly in working homes.
As Mant reminds us, bicycle perspectives are primarily concerned with the functionality and efficiency of internal rational systems and processes. Whereas frog considerations centre more around stake-holder sentiment, behaviour and well-being. For example, people who feel insecure (especially in a pandemic) may tend to ‘hold back’ be they team members, customers or investors.
As I understand an aging Albert Einstein once exclaimed, “we are human beings, not human doings!”.
There will of course be occasions (especially in the current turbulent times) where “organisational frogs” do need to be repositioned and restructured perhaps by amputating a leg, inserting a new hip joint or transplanting some organs.
If this is necessary, the American change practitioner William Bridges[2] suggests it is vital to not only manage ‘operational change’ but also the associated ‘transitional processes’. It is these transitional processes that are all about helping the ‘frog’ deal with the trauma of change.
Bridges believes: ‘operational change’ is generally:
• external
• situational
• event-based
• defined by outcome
• and can occur quickly
whereas ‘transition processes’ are generally:
• internal
• psychological
• experience-based
• defined by process
• and always takes time
Transitional processes are almost always needed in complex organisational systems where people are involved.
Bridges believes transition has three distinct phases: ending; neutral zone and new beginning. The ending phase leads to disengagement; the neutral zone, a kind of fallow time when old habits are extinguished; and the beginning “when people really buy in, get on board, feel at home with the new.” When we are restructuring ‘organisational frogs’, provision needs to be made for each of these phases. For example, in the ending phase it may be important to symbolically recognise the valuable contribution which previous knowledge, skills, processes and structures may have made to an organisation’s past image and reputation. Being valued for what we have contributed helps most of us let go of the old and encompass the new, especially if we also know and understand ‘why’ the new is now needed.
Equally, in the neutral (confused) zone, when old systems and procedures are being dismantled and replacements ‘installed’, regular face-to-face communication is often vital to pick up potential glitches and oversights. This of course requires especially sensitive facilitation when using video or teleconferencing, coupled with an understanding that resistance can be a natural (and potentially valuable) reaction which is so often underpinned by very real and practical concerns of experienced people.
To go back to Mant’s frog metaphor, even if urgent surgery is required, the organisational frog needs to be well informed and ‘prepped’ prior to the operation, vigilantly monitored during the operation and carefully nursed in the recovery ward. If transplants are involved, immune reactions or resistance responses will also need to be carefully monitored and managed.
Of course, if we are dealing with mechanical or bikish bits of organisations, no such transitional care is needed. On the other hand, ‘bicycle thinking’, especially when overused can rapidly erode both the capability and commitment components of human capital upon which most organisations depend for their ability to adapt and reinvent themselves.
In summary for today’s leaders in complex organisations in a VUCA Covid19 World (where V = volatile, U = uncertain, C = complex and A = ambiguous), it can be very costly and even career limiting to mistake frogs for bicycles!
Stay safe
Humphrey Armstrong
Organisational Psychologist and Executive Coach
References:
[1] Mant, A., 1997, Intelligent Leadership, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, pp 51-54
[2] Bridges, W., May 1996, Both Change & Transition Must be Managed, HR Monthly, Australian Human Resources Institute, Sydney, p 14
If you enjoyed this post and would like to read more like it - please sign-up for our newsletter below: