Adizes and Spiral

The Adizes methodology and the body of knowledge are closely aligned with the views of Dr Don Beck on natural design. Over the years, integration increased between Spiral Dynamics and the work of Ichak Adizes. A very symbiotic relationship was formed, that led to the co-facilitation of various PhD programs at the Adizes Business School, and the integration of SD into the PhD curriculum of the institute.

Adizes Components

The body of knowledge called Adizes is composed of four parts: a model, a method, an ethic and a language. Further to this is an Adizes Professional Practice. Conceptually these parts are different, but, in reality, they form a unified and highly-integrated body of knowledge and practice.

The intent at this stage is not to describe the Adizes components in detail, but to present a synthetic view that complements the functional Spiral Dynamic YELLOW decision-makers.

Organizations as Organicism

The root metaphor of organicism is a living organism. It is synthetic because it sees entities as a whole, and it is integrative because it takes a gestalt vision of events. For Adizes, organizations are living systems with conscience and consciousness; as such, Adizes's model comprised the following:

• A human-inspired model of organizations
• A method to treat organizations as one would treat a person
• A humanistic ethics (Selznick 2008)
• A language.

Of the four world hypotheses, organicism is the one that presents the highest level of integration. It is critical to remember that the most important message from a metaphor relates to the behavior, not the entity (Morgan 1997).

Adizes Corporate Life Cycle

Organizations are born, grow, mature, age and eventually die. In other words, organizations have a life cycle with predicted characteristics. These cycles can be divided into two categories: growing and ageing. As people, organizations hold values, and as living, cultural beings, organizations have a language. In Figure 11.1 the Adizes life cycle is displayed.

It is clear from Figure 11.1 that, over time, as an organization ages, control increases to the detriment of flexibility, resulting in an internal focus that is crucial. Very much like the Sigmund Curve, and the Leadership Equation of Beck, the graph warns leaders to be aware of the life conditions in their social spaces both externally and internally.

For Adizes, the world has a Heraclitean nature, as an ever-changing reality. He views change as a source of both opportunities and threats. Organizations, like other living organisms, are in a continuous autopoietic (self-creative) process of perceiving and adapting to world changes for survival and development (Varela et al. 1974).

Bearing in mind change, when the sub-systems do not change in synchronicity, it generates disintegration. The challenge for organizations and for all living organisms is to be able to change while remaining integrated. For that reason, integration is the key value and leitmotiv of the Adizes Method.

The method views organizations as people-like entities, living at a higher level of being. In order to function in the short and long term, they need energy and must perform four basic functions: produce, administer, innovate and integrate (Adizes 1970).

In order to adapt to external change, organizations need to decide on internal changes and implement them. For Adizes, the process and factors required for decision-making are different and opposed to those required for implementation.

Four Sources of Internal Conflict

Adizes sees four sources of internal conflict (three original ones and one suggested by Valdesuso, based on Beck and Cowan (1996)):

• Different Managerial Styles – PAEI
• Different Interests – CAPI
• Different Perceptions – Is, Should, Want
• Different Values – Spiral Dynamics.

Each of the above-mentioned is briefly discussed below.

CAPI

For decision-making, one needs a complementary team. For implementation, one needs to coalesce what Adizes calls CAPI, the Cooperation of people with Authority, Power and Influence. John Anderson (cited in MacIntyre 1991) said that “it is through conflict and sometimes only through conflict that we learn what our ends and purposes are.” CAPI is presented in Figure 11.2.

The Adizes Method

Rather than focusing on content, the Adizes Method focuses on form. Consensus on procedures creates an environment in which conflicts are more easily resolved (Selznick 2008). A structured process provides the form for developing knowledge and wisdom (Aubrey and Cohen 1995). Underpinning the Adizes Method is an Adizes Basic Equation (ABE) which reads: “Mission should be reflected in the Structure; both should be reflected in the Information Systems, and all three should be reflected in the Rewards System.”

In other words, the four sub-systems should be integrated through alignment. Since there is continuous change, Adizes explains that the ABE components rarely change in synchrony, causing disintegration, and disintegration is the source of all problems

The Adizes Method Ethics

The Adizes Method adopts the position that ethics involves working for an organization's present and future welfare, and not for the individuals, even if they are the owners. Since the model sees organizations as living organisms, and since living is being integrated and dying being disintegrated, integration, not elimination, of diversity becomes the number one value. All problems are manifestations of the lack of integration; if there is a problem, one should immediately seek the point of disintegration. This is where the insights provided by Spiral Dynamics can prove beneficial.

All other Adizes values and virtues, namely Respect, Trust, Tolerance and Patience, support integration. Integration is so important to organic entities that the energy is first directed to maintaining internal and physical integrity.

Each Spiral Dynamic value system holds different views on respect, trust, tolerance and patience. In order to create organizational integration or inclusivity, as Viljoen (2015) describes it, all the different worlds should come together in an integral tapestry.

Adizes highlighted that when facing conflict between personal convictions and the ethics of a profession or office, one must favour the ethics of one's role. The issue is not only whose ethics should prevail, but the true ethics for the organization or profession involved.

New ways to look at the world require new languages (Seely and Duguid 2000). According to Rorty (cited in Tsoukas 2005), a new vocabulary is a tool for constructing a new vision that has not been seen before. A language permits collective forms of action. One must be aware of the role of both our own vocabulary and that of others. Language not only describes, but also interprets, the world (Tsoukas 2005).

A common language facilitates communication and understanding that in turn facilitate the achievement of change. The language of Spiral Dynamics has different value systems holding different body language positions (Laubscher 2013). Silence, physical space and mannerisms are often used consciously or unconsciously; and are impacted by diversity of thought.

Conclusion

The key conclusion is that the four Adizes components arise from the root metaphor of organizations as living beings; the organicism root metaphor (Pepper 1942) is synthetic and integrative, thus privileging, like no other metaphor, the wholeness of the entities (organizations) and events (gestalt). To really understand Adizes, one must understand that all the components are based on the humanism root metaphor and that integration is its key value, that is, the state of being that allows an organization to survive and flourish.

Simple Vital Signs and Vital Signs Monitors (VSMs)

Your organization, social movement or government needs feedback to understand where its culture is, as Thomas Q. Johns explains in this section that he authored on Vital Signs Monitors (VSMs). This feedback is necessary because if you are going to move forward you must understand where you are. Every organization becomes an organism as a whole, but unlike natural organisms, the organization must build the systems for it to hear itself. The systems serve to help it see where it is in terms of the environment or superordinate goal. This is a system that lets the head know where the feet are. This often results in reflexive feedback loops where the subject becomes the object and the object becomes the subject.

The creation of Vital Signs Monitors to monitor the health of your organization or constituency is recommended. One needs to understand the phase of change in which the community is, as well as the prevailing life conditions. This isn't necessarily a complex system, but you need a way to quantify and observe the flow of world views in your constituency. This can be as basic as a survey or as advanced as a neural network scanning system. The important thing is to have data that help you understand the kind of message to which your group is receptive. Helping you in creating a policy that aligns with the way in which a value system feels safe, but without stoking the dark sides of that value system. Essentially this means looking at the needs of that value system.

Vital signs of an organization capture the culture where it is, and allow predictive inferences about where it is going. These vital signs can be captured manually through the use of polls, or they can be automated. Vital signs may be Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that help you meet strategic goals, or they may be systems that measure where your culture is. Regardless, they should inform you of what your life conditions are and the response of cultures to them. They should cut through the noise. There is a deluge of information now, but much of it is not conducive to making decisions.

• Understand your superordinate goal, and then understand how you or your organization relate to it. This should not necessarily be a top-down process, but must include the whole organization.
• Find statistics that directly influence your superordinate goal, and that can be influenced by you or the team. Many companies have KPIs for the sake of having KPIs but, as Deming (1994) said, “Management by results is like driving a car by looking in the rearview mirror.” The organization may begin to look to just meeting those KPIs. For example, a company has a directive that salesmen must have three meetings per month. This may become a problem as salesmen may start focusing on meetings instead of making sales.
• Make these statistics easily available. Almost to the point of being present at all times, similar to a Vital Signs Monitor in a hospital.
• Act on them.

Figure 11.3 shows the Vital Signs Monitor (VSM) that is in the process of being built, which aims to automatically capture the value systems of people as they use social media. The goal is to give an idea to the organization on how they should motivate a population and alert leadership of early warning signs in the system.

Introduction

It is widely accepted in psychology that as soon as the human mind has adopted a view or opinion it will integrate all other things to support and agree with it. This constructivist nature of the psyche results in the assimilation contrast effect that will be described in this section.

Lisa Rosenbaum (2017) highlighted the power of narratives in the cementing of a certain belief. When the context stimulus and target stimulus have similar or close characteristics, assimilation is more likely. However, depending on how we categorize information, contrast effects can also occur. The more extreme the context stimuli are in comparison with the target simulation, the higher the propensity of contrast effects.

Leon Festinger already in 1954 explained that individuals would value their own opinions and abilities by comparing them to others in order to define self. This argument forms the basis of social comparison theory. Muzafer Sherif was a founder of modern social psychology. He especially focused on understanding social processes, social norms and social conflict. Beck was largely impacted by the work of Sherif, and ultimately completed his PhD in social psychology.

The Experiment

Sherif developed realistic conflict theory that describes inner group conflict and negative stereotypes as groups which compete for desired resources. He validated this theory with the Robbers Cave experiment. This experiment involved 22 white, eleven-year-old boys with above average intelligence and school performance in the fifth grade. Further, they came from two-parent protestant backgrounds and were sent to a special remote summer camp in Oklahoma, Robbers Cave State Park, far away from home to reduce the influence of external factors. They were assessed to be psychologically normal, and did not know each other before the camp.

Researchers also adopted the role of counsellors and divided the participants into two groups. They were assigned cabins far from one another. Initially the groups did not know about each other, and group cohesion formed through involvement in various outdoor activities. They even had to create group identity by choosing a group name and similar shirts and flags. Group norms developed, and a leadership structure emerged in both groups. Prejudice started to develop between the groups – initially it manifested only verbally in the form of taunting and name-calling, but as the competition deepened, the prejudice became more direct. One group, for example, burned the other group's flag.

The tension built up to a level of aggression that was so strong that the researchers had to physically intervene. A two-day cooling-off period was allowed, and team members were asked to list characteristics of the two teams. One group of boys presented themselves as highly favorable and the other group as extremely negative. Attempts after this by the researchers to reduce the prejudice between the groups of boys simply made matters worse.

Only forcing groups together to reach common goals eased the tension among them. Sherif described the goals that can reduce prejudice significantly during the integration phase of conflicting groups as superordinate goals. He defined superordinate goals as goals that require the cooperation of two or more people or groups to achieve, which usually results in rewards to all the opposing groups.

Application

Beck applied the ^VACE effect three times in South Africa to directly impact the racial dynamics at play during Apartheid. It was also used in Palestine/Israel. The South African Case and the Palestine/Israel case are presented in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 respectively. Beck and Cowan (1996) explain the assimilation contrast effect in detail in the article on terrorism. This article is available at https://goo.gl/L1nYa2. In Figure 11.4, various permutations of how we assimilate and then contrast the Me/Us versus the Them are visually displayed.

In the first continuum of Figure 11.4, due to different horizontal windows, not everyone will be able to separate the different shades, grades or degrees of diversity of thought. Two kinds of distortions happen. First, if a position on the scale is close to a person's own position, then the individual may deny differences, and assimilate the position as equivalent to his or her own.

Under other conditions, a person will push the other position away from his or her own, thus shoving it further into the camp of the “enemy”. You may then think we are similar, but I conclude that you are one of them. This is known as the contrast effect as can be seen in the second continuum. From the other pole, the direction of the contrast change, a parcel of extreme thinking is created on the opposite pole.

There is also a vertical continuum to apply as part of complex thinking systems. This continuum can be seen in the assimilation-contrast effect where value system codes are applied, as described in Figure 11.5. A spectrum of beliefs and actions result in six degrees of intensity, as shown in the Figure.

In Figure 11.5 a lens of Spiral Dynamics is superimposed on the spectrum of intensity of beliefs to display the impact and complexity of the various horizontal and vertical lenses in a society.

In the ^VACE:

In assimilation, a person will deny or ignore differences between their own preferred position and pull other positions into an acceptance zone. This is a form of distortion that leads to agreement.

OR

In contrast, a person will displace other contrasting positions, and push them further away than they actually are. Both extreme ranges will contrast the middle views into a camp of the enemy. This causes the middle to vanish as polarization into only two camps begins to form. Us versus Them sets in and serious conflict is generated.

In Figure 11.6 different ^VMEME Codes for different spectrums are presented.

It is clear from Figure 11.6 that, without a superordinate goal that binds together the different ^VMEMEtic Codes, a social system like this will forever be troubled by fundamentalism, polarization and conflict. A new goal that can provide social cohesion is essential if any country wants to meet the needs of its people. Further, all the different parts and sections should be integrated, aligned so that a synergy of multiple elements, entities, interest and motives are all woven together in a healthy functional environment. We call this MeshWORKS.

Introduction

Value management became an essential part of operational processes in organizations in the 1980s as part of Continuous Improvement or Kaizen ().² This is an ongoing effort to improve products, services or processes. In Japan, W. Edwards Deming (1950) taught top management representatives how to improve design, and therefore service delivery. Quality circles formed an integral part of these processes, David Hutchins (2008) postulates. Various versions of this process are still found today in manufacturing businesses such as Green Circles in Interstate Bus Lines, Quality Circles in Toyota South Africa and PDSA test cycles in health care.

Beck and van Heerden (1982) write that Japanese high-quality products have resulted in an increase in exports with subsequent friction with other countries. They describe the basic philosophy of quality-circle activities as follows:

• Contributing to the improvement of the organic structure of the company, as well as to company growth.
• Making the job site an enjoyable, and yet challenging place by paying respect to human personality.
• Demonstrating the full capacity of human beings so that potential human capability can be used unlimitedly.

In the 1980s, companies in South Africa tried desperately to implement these Japanese philosophies. For many of these companies this initiative was like most other fads: it soon faded. One of the reasons identified by Beck and van Heerden (1982) was that, unlike in Japan, 50% of South Africa's adult labor force in any given factory was illiterate. The statistical methods followed in the Japanese quality circles thus presented problems.

Loraine Laubscher (2013), who worked very closely with Keith van Heerden and Don Beck, realized that codes in Japan are very different from those in South Africa. BLUE optimization initiatives did not impact on PURPLE systems.³ A different approach was needed to ensure that different thinking systems would connect across the boundaries of diversity of thought. Value management deliberately leads a group of people through a structured, shared decision-making process where groups interplay analogue and digital thinking in achieving common understanding and inclusivity. This became known as human mandalas – Value Circles for inclusivity.

In this part of the chapter, the value engineering applied through the integration of Spiral Dynamics is presented. Various cases of where this approach was applied are shared in the form of short cases.

Value Engineering

The first time the term “value engineering” was heard, according to Beck and van Heerden (1982), was when he was employed at the Virginia Gold Mine, in 1963, in South Africa. A work study group was set up that integrated thinking from Edward de Bono and Edwards Deming. Van Heerden was also influenced by Larry Miles and the work done in the General Electric Corporation after the Second World War. Van Heerden later received various accolades from the Society of American Value Engineers – in 1974, that of Certified Value Specialist, later in January 1988, the Value Specialist Life Award, and the Value Engineering Merit certificate in May 1988.

The extensive differences in religion, race, language, culture and thinking systems in South Africa made it imperative that new, effective ways of bridging diversity be developed as a matter of urgency in the early 1980s. South Africa is generally recognized as a microcosm of the world in one country. The key to a golden future for this country and its people was seen to lie in total commitment and dedication to action plans and policies to achieve mutually agreed and understood goals and objectives, van Heerden (n.d., p. 2) argues.

Van Heerden heard Beck speak at a conference in America in the early 1980s. It became clear to him that Don had to visit South Africa. Later, they did a lot of work together in the unstable mining sector during social uprisings in this diverse yet troubled country. The National Value Centre in South Africa was established in 1986 and Beck, van Heerden and Laubscher became the principals of this progressive, value-adding entity. The case studies in this chapter were all conducted under this entity.

Value Engineering and Value Circles

Edward Deming (2000) asserts that the blame for 85% of all faults in production procedures can be laid at the feet of management. Van Heerden (1974), continues to say that, in South Africa, the blame is invariably attributed to workers, whose opinions and feelings are not considered. The long-term sustainability of an organization, through the implementation of a culture of inclusivity, is often not the concern of management. The human energy in systems to perform is a critical element for leaders to consider. People that do not feel respected or appreciated, feel less engaged (Viljoen 2015). Engagement has direct correlations to success, as measured by business indicators (Viljoen 2014). A way of unleashing this human energy in systems is through quality circles, a method of value engineering.

A quality circle, Hutchins (1995) explains, is a volunteer group composed of workers, together with their supervisor (or team leader), who are trained to identify, analyze and solve work-related problems. The solutions on how to improve the performance of the organization are shared with management. During the process, employees are motivated. Hutchins continues (1995, p. 23): “… quality circles are an alternative to the dehumanising concept of the division of labour, where workers or individuals are treated like robots.” Different problem-solving techniques are taught to team members. These include fishbone diagrams, Pareto charts, process-mapping, graphic tools such as histograms and the pie chart, run charts, control charts, scatter plots and correlation analysis flowcharts.

Spiral Dynamics philosophy can enrich value engineering and management significantly. The workers at Litemaster developed the name Value Circles and created a logo. After being part of a circle, and experiencing its value, they were asked: “What should we call this circle?” They then drew three intersecting circles and explained that one circle was for Quality, another circle was Quantity and the last was Cost. According to them, the three together would give you Value. The concept “Value Circles” was born. In facilitating a Value Circle, the emphasis is on finding a balance between quality, quantity and cost through the inclusivity of all. In this chapter, the approach of Value Circles is positioned, a typical process is discussed and five case studies are shared.

The Process of Value Circles

Stakeholders such as customers, shareholders, unions and management have specific expectations from systems. Through a systemic process of input, transformation and output, a final output is delivered that can lead to stakeholder satisfaction. During the transformation phase of the process, support is provided by service functions such as Human Resources and Finance. The process improvements are co-created through a process of inclusivity as conceptualized in the doctoral study of Viljoen-Terblanche (2008).

Beck and van Heerden (1982) described Value Circles as a program that allowed participation and stimulated implementation of solutions. Laubscher adapted this concept to integrate different thinking systems in a holistic whole, a people mandala. Basically, Value Circles stimulate personal growth in individuals. They also facilitate an enabling shift from right-brained people to using their left brains and vice versa. In that way, it is good at harvesting latent brainpower.

During this process, the consultant alternates analogue and digital thinking activities. In such a process the consultant draws heavily on Spiral Dynamics understanding, especially PURPLE and RED. Mostly, consultants ignore how these thinking systems differ from BLUE and ORANGE world views. This results in confusion when carefully planned strategies seemingly have no impact whatsoever.

Employees appointed to solve the dilemma must be those who noticed the difficulty or who complained about it. This may be referred to as “fitness for purpose.” Observations about the attitude and behavior of people are integrated with the study of various psychological theories, management theories, the writings on thinking and an understanding of industry.

A leader, facilitator or organizational development practitioner should act as a catalyst. A catalyst maintains its own dimensions although it is inserted into and removed from the system in which it enables change.

A Typical Value Circle Process

In Table 11.1 a typical process flow of a value is discussed. The outcome of this process becomes the input for report-back meetings.

Different Value Management Cases

Benefits of Value Circles

The benefits that typically manifest from a Value Circle include:

• The creation of an open environment within the company for unrestricted communication at all levels.
• By the participation of workers at all levels the company is able to fully utilize the abilities and skills of all of its human resources, and owing to their involvement, the staff are far more motivated towards effecting improvement within their areas of responsibility.
• The voice of the employees in the organization is heard and inclusivity is strengthened.
• Decision-making becomes more structured and sustainable. Creative, cost-effective decisions can now be made at all levels.

Tangible benefits to the various companies materialized in the form of increased production, staff involvement and engagement and ultimately monetary turnover. Simultaneously staff turnover decreased. Participants of these sessions reported a permanent shift of consciousness. This did not only change the way in which they functioned and worked, but also how they fulfilled their roles in their families, communities and society at large.

The Theory

The core of Carkhuff's work is concerned with helping people through counselling. His major contribution is the provision of a means by which one can learn how to help people who are in need of counselling. The cornerstone of his work is that one need not necessarily be a professional; a lay person may also be able to help, provided that such a person is well-versed in Carkhuff's seven dimensions for effective interpersonal facilitation. The Seven Skills of Carkhuff (1969) are described in Table 11.3.

The Application

Carkhuff adopts a broad approach to interpersonal interactions in order to encompass all interpersonal engagements, and not only those intended as a helping interaction (see Table 11.3). The model includes three critical helping stages: exploration, understanding and action.

Debate – Competitive, to Convince Others

People hold one view and then push strongly by finding flaws in other arguments. This adversarial argument polarizes the thesis and antithesis of the argument. The goal of the debate is to beat the opponent. This tactic is helpful in finding flaws in an argument, and in learning whether the weakness can be strengthened in an argument, or whether the logic is fatally flawed. During debate disagreement is discovered.

Dialogue – Talking Together Using Anecdotes and Personal Life Experiences

Dialogue is the process of generating collective learning, shared meaning and commitment for implementation. People talk with each other, and not necessarily against one another, and seek shared understanding. Bohm (1998) explained that it is aimed at understanding consciousness per se, as well as at exploring the problematic nature of day-to-day relationships and communications. The process of dialoging can be very time-consuming and should move through the Seven Steps in a well-planned facilitated manner.

Deliberation – Trying to Understand and Beginning to Create a Solution

Typically, dialogue leads to the identification of areas of agreement, and probes in depth for some discoveries. It also facilitates the holding of various viewpoints on a topic. During deliberation the group explores the various points raised to seek a deep, meaningful understanding. At times, people stop at deliberation, but in order to effect systemic change, solutions often have to be designed.

Diagnosis – Different Hypotheses Are Posed

After the first three steps we begin to have the history of a problem from multiple different points of view, which allows a group to create a hypothesis about the problem. Different attempts are made to understand the dynamics at play in the system. Analysis of the critical thought structures which generate the possibilities for progress is possible.

Design

In this step a plan is co-designed for addressing the hypotheses that take all of the varied viewpoints and problems into account. During this phase, the group searches for the dynamics that will continue the problem and make it worse. The impetus is to try it out. There could be bias towards action and field testing. Joint action planning can be facilitated.

Dismissing – Forms of Dismissing the Status Quo by Off-loading

The Sixth Step of Functional Design asks groups to dismiss the status quo. Senge, et al. (2004) described this stage as letting go in order to let be. Three methods of dismissing the status quo are:

Disengage – Keeping what is useful.

With this method, an organization gets rid of what they no longer need, and keeps only what is necessary.

Destroy – Getting rid of total systems that are in place.

Decommission – Preserving, to honor and celebrate the progress of systems. Here we celebrate the establishment of new systems.

Deployment

Deployment of the new system consists of implementing and laying out the proposed solutions, co-designed in Step 5. Here the new systems are embraced and constructed. During this step glitches that were not anticipated may be uncovered.