The Power of Linking Tools

Friday, August 24, 2007

I was having coffee with a colleague last week and the conversation turned to Dr. Ichak Adizes’ work on the life cycle stages of organizations. I checked out his website and as I read through the different stages, it struck me that this model and the Denison model are quite complementary. In particular, the Adizes model recognizes that the Prime stage “is the optimal position on the lifecyle, where the organization achieves a balance between control and flexibility.” I immediately thought of the Denison model and its Adaptability and Consistency culture traits.

I think this idea of balance is critical to understanding how the Denison model plays out in the real world and the challenges that come with it. I think of the model as actually a plate that one would hold as if a waiter. The trick is to balance it among the four culture traits (Involvement and Mission being the other two) to produce the greatest organizational performance level. What the Adizes model helps us to see is why this imbalance can occur over time. It also identifies which of the issues that lead to this imbalance are normal problems -- that is, those that could probably go down lower on the priority list because “they tend to resolve themselves during the natural course of growth and development.” More importantly, the model also identifies the abnormal problems associated with each of the lifecycle stages. It is these problems that require as much of an organization’s limited time and resources as feasible to address and resolve if the organization is to move to the next lifecycle stage.

An analysis of organizational performance can benefit from integrating the two models because they each bring a unique dimension to the task. The Adizes model brings more of a time dimension while the Denison model brings more of a depth dimension to the analysis. If we think of an organization as a large-scale organism, it’s as if the Adizes model calls upon our skills as a developmental psychologist over time and the Denison model as an internist at particular moments.

For example, an organization can conduct a Denison culture survey and learn that its organizational capability of coordination and integration is relatively low. The leadership team may be tempted to devote time and resources to address this. But if the organization is at the Infancy lifecyle stage, it may be wasting time and resources because the higher priority at this stage for continued survival is being action-oriented and opportunity-driven. But the very next stage of the lifecycle, Go-Go, requires the ability to start adding structure and control if the organization is to transition to the next lifecycle stage, Adolescence. Integrating the two models gives you a better picture as to the health and ability of the organization and where to focus time and resources to keep the organization developing.

Integrating the two models can also provide insights as to why an organization may score low on the Involvement capability in the Denison model. At the Go-Go lifecyle stage, the Founder’s ability to “do it all” is reaching its limits. The need to bring in professional managers as well as decentralize decision-making is becoming more and more important. How the Founder views this situation and approaches this transition will play a critical part in moving the organization along its development path. The Denison model can point out the degree of deficiency in this capability and the Adizes model can point out the importance of addressing it.

These are two great tools to have at your disposal to help organizations achieve their full potential.