# Fragmented Thinking **_Summary_**_:: The structure and processes of organizations frequently reveal fragmented thinking in organizations. Organizational models that incorporate fragmented thinking need to change, because they reduce performance._ November 20, 2001 by James B. Berger Have you ever returned an item to a store because it was broken and had the clerk say, “Oh, those guys in the warehouse…”? Or, have you told a server in a restaurant that your table was dirty only to hear, “Yeah, those busboys just don’t do their job”? Do you sometime get the feeling that the person you are talking to on the phone does not really work for the same company as the people who make the products? These, and many other, instances provide evidence of the prevalence of fragmented thinking in organizations. People in organizations see them as just a collection of parts and they happen to work for just one of the parts. But this thinking does not reside only in the individuals (as a fragmented thinker might surmise), it pervades organizations. | | | --------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | _A pile of bricks, or a brick wall? <br>Fragments or a whole?_ | In the traditional organizational model, managers assemble a collection of parts to create whole organizations. They design and they manage organizations using this model. One can easily see why the people in organizations act as if they only have responsibility for their little part of their organizations. Managers design organizations this way in the belief that they will have more control over of the parts of those organizations and thereby will assure that the organizations will produce better performance. They start from the premise that they can control the behavior of a small group through direct supervision—guiding and directing their every move. They then assume that when they combine the work of separate workgroups—each under direct supervision—that the performance will excel. In a small organization, this strategy seems to work because the manager can directly supervise all of the organization’s employees. When organizations become larger, and direct supervision becomes impossible, managers still cling to the same fragmented thinking. Using the same logic, they substitute extensive policies and procedures for direct supervision. They feel that they can maintain control over whole organizations, by defining in detail what each of the parts can do. Then, if performance declines, they simply need to find out who has not been following the predefined procedures. This sort of organizational design—based on fragmented thinking, however, hampers organizational performance. The following represent a few examples of how fragmented thinking and organizational design affect the three elements of performance—effectiveness, efficiency and adaptability: n     Fragmented designs reduce **effectiveness** because they impede the synchronization of different parts of organizations. Even the most detailed procedures will not account for all variations in circumstances. One action in a part of the organizations may conflict with the desired results in another part of the organization. n    Fragmented designs cause the loss of **efficiency** because each part requires it own set of resources. People in these organizations do not share resources because they frequently don’t know about resources in other parts of those organizations, and the policies sometimes discourage sharing. n    Fragmented designs reduce the **adaptability** of organizations. When organizations operate according to a detailed master plan, changing that plan frequently does not occur as rapidly as the environment changes. Living Organizations, on the other hand, thrive on their complexity—they consist of parts and wholes at once[1](#_ftn1). Instead of designing the wholes by first designing the parts, the managers of living organizations understand and design the wholes first. The always see the parts within the context of the whole. This complex thinking results in better organizational design and better organizational performance. The following examples show the impact of the complex design of living organizations. n    Complex organizational designs boost **effectiveness** because organizations have the capability to move as units. All the people know their role in creating the wholes—so they do their part as parts of wholes. n    Complex organizational designs increase **efficiency** because they have the ability to share resources for maximum effect. Although living organizations tend to have significant redundancies, improved efficiency through sharing overshadows inefficiencies from those redundancies. n    Complex organizational designs increase **adaptability** by speeding the rate at which the organizations can respond to change. Living organizations operate on a core set of guiding ideas; they do not need elaborate, detailed policies and procedures. The people in living organizations know why they belong to the organizations and they have the freedom and responsibility to act within that purpose. Some people argue that even in complex organizations people sometimes need to focus on parts instead of wholes. They need to get their individual jobs done. They cannot concern themselves about the big picture. Even writing an article like this requires beginning at the beginning and ending at the end; I cannot do both at the same time. Is that not building a whole from parts? But this thinking contains a significant flaw. People cannot do their best work when they don’t know to what wholes it belongs. I cannot write an article when I don’t know the whole of what I want to say. This point reminds me of the story of a man who encountered two masons working on a project. When the man asked the first mason what he was doing, the mason replied, “I am laying stones in this wall.” The second mason responded to the same question, “ I am building a cathedral.” Whatever your position in your organization, see the whole. Be a cathedral builder, This article was published on Suite101.com November 20, 2001.  Copyright © James B. Berger --- [1](#_ftnref1) _Complexity_ does not represent the exact opposite of fragmentation. I refer to complexity because it represents a preferable alternative to _unity_. Complexity incorporates the simultaneous existence of diversity (e.g. fragmentation) **and** unity.