Turning to Kurt’s intentions, I would first focus on organizational culture. “What does your distinctive culture represent in terms of core values that you never want to abandon? How are these values reflected in the daily work done by your employees and the way in which they relate to one another? A second set of questions concerns what Kurt eventually wants to do with his business. “Why might you want to keep your business in your own family?” “What would be the desired outcomes associated with selling your business?” “Why might you simply close the business when you are ready to retire?” I would notice not just the words he would use when addressing these potentially challenging questions, but also the emotional reactions he is likely to have when considering the core values and decisions to be made about his business’s future.
Finally, in shifting to the domain of ideas, I would first invite Kurt to share his own ideas, based on our excursion into the domains of information and intentions. I would then make use of the advocacy-inviting-inquiry to introduce the notion of cooperative advantage (as an alternative to the perspective offered by a focus on competitive advantage. I would “advocate” for Kurt’s formation of a cooperative with other small, family-owned furniture stores.
This cooperative could offer shared purchases of furniture or auxiliary items (such as tables and lamps), providing a potential reduction in purchase price. The cooperative could also provide shared training programs, as well as a forum for the store owners to share problems, solutions, and future plans. Since these stores are not directly competitive with one another (featuring differing styles of furniture), a fair amount of candor and reciprocity is available. I would invite Kurt to identify and discuss both the positive and negative features of this proposal.
Another point of advocacy might relate to the matter of Kurt’s business in the future. I could offer a “preposterous” proposal involving Kurt’s sale of his business to a large furniture outlet. Why is this such a bad idea (probably bringing us back to the domain of intentions)? What would be the benefits, if any? This would probably bring us back to the domain of information. This advocacy-inviting-inquiry allows Kurt to think about the unthinkable and to discuss the non-discussable (which is probably not possible with anyone but me as his coach).
The Modern World: Giants and Managers
Large organizations represent the pinnacle of modernism in most societies. We know that we have become modern when the first high-rise building is constructed in our community. We know that modernity has arrived when men and women are being trained in our organizations and universities to fill technical and managerial positions in large organizations. Modern organizations speak a common language. They look alike and operate in the same manner. The languages of nations may differ, but the language of modern organizations is universal. Instead of the distinctive, vernacular (ritual, stories, customs) of premodern organizations, we live with the universality of modernism. Furthermore, we read not about leaders or administrators, but now about managers (a word that was not used until early in the 20th century).
The primary objective of modern organizations is to become and stay large. While premodern organizational leaders concentrated on organizational continuity and tradition (which usually required very gradual growth), modern organizations emphasize rapid growth. As modern organizations expand in size and add more units and levels of organizational structure to accommodate their growth, the organization becomes more difficult to control. While the premodern culture of an organization provides some integration through its customs, dress, ritual, and stories of great triumphs (and defeats), this premodern glue is often disparaged in most modern organizations. Furthermore, this culture does not offer sufficient integration for very large organizations.
Download Article
