Authority and Boundaries

“We love to overlook the boundaries which we do not wish to pass.”

… Samuel Johnson (1709 – 1784) English lexicographer & critic

One aspect of my work has been to observe organisations and, in doing so, develop interpretations of how they work. I have written about the distinction between structural and relational issues within organisations as it relates to accountability. Here I want revisit the relational breakdowns within organisations and speak about influence.

One of the most obvious outcomes of an organisation’s structure is it creates boundaries within that organisation. Human beings spend their lives creating boundaries by distinguishing one thing from another. This applies to groups. We all identify with certain groupings of people. For instance, I am Australian not American. I am an ontological coach not a banker. These distinctions point to how I see myself, but also points to who I am not. Even though making these distinctions is useful, we also can create major issues for ourselves and others when we lose sight of the fact that we are creating those boundaries. This leads us into the world of ‘Us and Them’.

One advantage of using an integral approach is to consider the impact of relationships on a situation. Let’s look at a simple organisational example. Most larger organisations that define their structure based on functionality have sought to gain more effective outcomes by creating what is generally called shared services. These shared services include functions such as information technology, communications, human resources, finance and quality. The idea is these services then support the business in general. This leads them to develop systems and processes that, in theory, are to be used widely by the organisation. This often leads to significant breakdowns and here is one reason why.

One effect of the creation of group boundaries is people tend to develop better relationships with those inside the boundary than those outside it. This in turn means we tend to have more effective conversations with those within our group than those outside it. In shared services areas, this tendency leads to the development of processes and systems within the group without enough effective consultation with others outside the group. Once the process or system has been created, the shared service area must then implement it through the organisation and this is where the relational breakdowns come to the fore.

Authority relates to the linguistic act of declarations. For example, we give someone authority when we accept their decisions. There are fundamentally two ways that we can establish our authority with others. One is through effective relationships built on trust; the other is the use of position, threat or force. More often than not, processes and systems developed in isolation by a shared service are then attempted to be imposed on the organisation. If there has not been enough done to establish effective relationships between the shared service and others in the organisation, then it is likely they will resort to a more forceful approach. Ironically this leads to further breakdowns in relationships, an organisational story about the shared services as blockers and not as competent as they could be and a sense of frustration within the shared services often showing up as a defensive, rather than constructive culture.

The key shift required here is for the shared service area to have conversations designed to build a sense of involvement with the rest of the organisation and to create a platform of trust to create influence rather than the need to resort to power and process.

Related Concepts

The Integral Model
Control, Influence and Concern
Our Core Concerns
Declarations
The Basis of Relationships
Collective and Personal Authority