Organising principles: fear & love

When I first joined the BBC I was given some sage advice by someone soon to retire:

‘Just remember Nick, nobody ever got fired for not making a decision.’

I have often thought back to that advice.

I see a lot of fear in organisations. And that fear makes people behave badly: arse-covering emails, a culture of blame, failure to speak up, cowardice, selfishness.

Doing nothing becomes the safest thing to do.

But it is important to note that fear is not an accident – it is often the substance of large organisations, something organisations actively generate (though one should not speak of this). They do so through hierarchy, and policy, and policing. They operate like Russia; creating a litany of laws so confusing that one is always effectively in breach of something. Moreover the hierarchy embodies a parent-child mindset in which the lower orders of moral development: punishment-avoidance, self-interest and conformity are actively fostered.

Why?

I think it is because organizational continuity depends on stability and coherence in the face of change. Organisations are like buildings in a storm: maintaining rigidity in spite of the elements. And – as Machiavelli observed – fear is a more powerful way of maintaining order than love.

But there are two things that I would observe: there comes a point in the storm – when the ferocity reaches unexpected heights - when it is better to flex. And, being an agent of change requires utter fearlessness - you will only achieve change if you abandon self-interest.

There has been some interesting commentary on this recently: LaLoux describes organisations founded on the ‘love’ principle – in which people love what they do and why they are doing it. DanielPink and Stephen Sinek both describe the power of organisations in which there is deep connection to a sense of purpose. Yves Moreiaux highlights the dramatic fall in productivity and engagement organized according to the ‘fear’ principle (i.e. rigid structures & territories rather than collaboration & purpose). In effect, the cost of organisational rigidity is loss of productivity.

What I am left wondering is: how does an organization transition from one to the other? Is such a thing possible?