Exploring the Hybridity and Fluidity of PSL

David M. Boje

January 17, 2001

I was sitting at the campus dining, between meetings, and leisurely reading the Round Up, when my eye fell upon two articles, on opposite pages.  The right page was a letter to the editor "NMSU is big enough for two student publications," a piece by Jeremy Sideris (2001: A12) January 11) a Ph.D. student in Rhetoric who helped found the SIC newspaper as an alternative to the Roundup.  I thought of PSL (Physical Science Lab) and my next presentation. He raised the question of whether NMSU was big enough for both student papers.  I thought about PSL and what modes of being it could tolerate.  As I looked to the left page, I kept thinking about my upcoming PSL presentation, and casually read an article titled "What I would do if I were a regent" by Lucas Peerman (2001: A10), the editor of the Round Up. He laid out a number of changes he would make if he were a regent, the first being "I'd change the New Mexico State Athletics log. Most teams have ferocious carnivores or bad-ass, bun-toting, sword-wilding men striking rear into the eyes of their opponents..." (p. A10).  I thought about the PSL vision statement, and how I was PSL, I what would I do to change it? 

In Part One of this essay, I go through the implications of "is PSL big enough to be more than bureaucracy" and explore four modes of being PSL (bureaucratic, chaotic, quest and network) and match up styles of leadership I suspect fit with each one; and in part two, I answer the question "what would I do if I were Prince?"

 Part I: Is PSL big enough to be more than bureaucracy?

  "Is this town big enough for both of us?" Is there room enough at PSL for Bureaucracy, Chaos, Quest and Network? I can appreciate each of these modalities of being PSL, as depicted in Figure One. In Figure One, each arrow points to a modality that is in perpetual nihilation. Each modality (B, C, Q or N) stands in relation to the modality it is not (Boje, 2000a). Each mode is useful in its respective context; I can respect that.  Each mode localizes itself to its uniquely adaptive situations and contingencies.  

First Tool: Four Modes of Being PSL

PSL has X, Y, and Z dimensions to locate the modalities of its being PSL.  PSL has both monophonic voice and a polyphony of voices, a "hybridity" that is "fluid," allowing PSL to meet the varied needs of diverse customers with adapted processes, addressing differing economic, social, and political environments. The point of my essay is that PSL is the hybridity of modes and fluidity of adaptive actions and experiences. PSL has a mono voice to speak to some stakeholders and a polyphony of voices to speak to many different stakeholders.

    Figure One: PSL in its Four Modalities

 

    PSL is a hybrid of the four models. PSL is the sober, cautious, and conservative voice of Bureaucratic modality with its pretense of objectivity, tradition, and rational-legal authority (the Weberian dream machine). This is also what in modern times we call the "bureaucratic mindset."  People become cogs in the bureaucratic machine, doing simple jobs, being micro-managed, with little incentive to learn more. PSL is also the chaos voice of more liberal and risk-seeking with its pretense to tracing unseen complex forces with innovative and sometimes prideful and irrational tactics.  PSL is the more adventurous questing voice with its pretense to embarking on the journey of tranformative change. PSL is a network of voices with a pretense to coordinating the flight of the buffalo (Boje, 2000b; Boje, 2000c). The nature of PSL is hybridity and fluidity of localized and collective experience. In its move from bureaucratic to a hybridity, there is more space for the "democratic mindset." This is where people are multi-skilled (able to do several jobs), develop their skills, and become part of self-managed teams, especially in the case of network organizing modes of being PSL. Fred and Marilyn Emery's work, for example talks about the need to learn the six basic requirements of psychological work. 

  1. People have elbow room, to become their own bosses.
  2. There are chances for feedback and on the job learning.
  3. A variety of skills to use at work (i.e. multi-skilling).
  4. People help and respect their team mates.
  5. A sense that one's work contributes to the social welfare.
  6. Job has a career path to a desirable future.

    But PSL seems to have forgotten to respect its fluidity, its hybridity of modes of being PSL in different competitive contexts; each contexts demands a different mode of being PSL.  

    Much of PSL will probably remain the Buffalo, a mainstream organization playing its show before the normative values of particular stakeholders (customers, contractors, government, university, employees, managers, students). A conservative performance is valued by particular stakeholders who are attuned to life in a bureaucratic context of NMSU, government, and some of the defense industry. A deviation from the theatrics of bureaucratic performance would cause, I am told, consternation in many PSL stakeholders.  These are powerful influences on the show.

    How often has PSL been persuaded to avoid all other modalities beyond bureaucratic? I do not have to remind you that as part of the defense industry and the State University systems, PSL finds itself suspended in a web of bureaucratic influences, in the transactions of X and the will to serve of Y, as well as the mono voice expected of its leadership. PSL operates within that definite modality, one different than quest, chaos, or network performances.  Yet, it would be a grave mistake to describe PSL as only bureaucratic; that is just not going to work.

    PSL is now and has always been more than bureaucratic with relations to projects and contexts that are stifled by bureaucratic modality. In some experiences, PSL has never been bureaucratic. PSL has always had to be fluidity, to be able to admit its own hybridity, to be more than a "hammer" for all its varied situations, to be a hybridity of processes and projects.  Otherwise PSL is as intellectually impotent as the managerial capitalism described in Flight of the Buffalo. And there is a market for the intellectual capitalism where PSL has much of its potency (excuse the male metaphors).  

    Yet, it is also true that chaos, quest and network exist outside and beyond the mainstream contexts of bureaucratic PSL.   C, Q, and N do not pretend to be B; they do pretend to be beyond B, and probably are not beyond at all. The point is that B, C, Q, and N each has a bias; eliminate its other modes of being.  Yet, to apply the standards of any one to all the others would be ethically questionable and morally bankrupt PSL.  

    In sum, I am not implying hare that limitation of one mode over any other is beneficial to any of PSL's competitive endeavors.  Though if one were to win the war against all others, it could bring more peace of mind, at least for the victors. But, there are two forms in nihilation. First, this town is not big enough for all these modes of being PSL, so we will gun a few down.  Pistol Pete would be proud.  

CPA - The second is the nihilation of the mode you inhabit, the self-destruction of your sense of being this or that mode, in order to move beyond to a sense of the other ones.  This is what I have called "CPA," to Create, Perpetuate and Allow; CPA is realized in acts of self-reflection; how did I CPA this mode of being PSL?  

Another Tool: Eight Modes of Leadership

    I hypothesize that there are at least eight modes of leadership at PSL, as depicted in Figures Two and Three.  I suspect that some modes are more compatible with our four modes of being PSL. For example, Bureaucratic is suited to both the serve the people bureaucratic executive who has much familiarity with the transaction costs and details (X attitude); "its all in the details."  But bureaucracy is also home for the princely leader, the one Machiavelli told us about who has a will to power (Y attitude), as Boje (2000d) describes. The first four of my suggested leaderly types are depicted in Figure Two as Prince, Superman/ Superwoman, Bureaucrat and Hero. These are sorted by two attitudes, the X dimension of Transactional to Transformational, and the Y dimension of Will to Serve to Will to Power.

Figure Two: The X and Y Attitudes

    In Figure Three, the typology is extended to eight modes, by including the Z attitude, running from mono voice leadership to polyphonic. There are two (at least) leaders of the quest, the hero who is sometimes charismatic and the superman/ superwoman that Nietzsche writes about (actually he was bit of a sexist in this, but I am being politically correct). The difference being the hero is willing to serve the people who called them to the journey and ask that the boon be returned to save them from their perils, where as the superman is out to save the day for himself, or the superwoman for herself, in the quest for the will to power.  These are very different quests, and the leader can self-reflect about will to serve versus will to power (Y attitude).  And the collective will always be watching, gazing the mode of leadership being enacted.

    Chaos and complexity demands its own leaderly modes of being.  These are more revolutionary and reform modes (admittedly there is overly with the heroic and super being quests here, but I like a tidy display). The difference is in the Z attitude, whether the leader is mono-voiced or caters to the polyphony. Both the revolutionary and the reformer are more polyphonic than that hero and superman/ superwoman. I hope you agree that the former is somewhat more democratic and inclusive in their consciousness and action. 

Figure Three: 8 Modes of Leadership

    Finally, in the network modality of being PSL, there are at least two leader styles that get called out by the audience to perform.  These are the government and the opinion leaders.  You may want to make these bureaucratic leaderly performances, except that once again the Z attitude comes into this play.  For the opinion leader and the government one (we are speaking idealistically now) is a play for power, but one that involves a polyphonic leaderly style. If you want a leader who had multiple styles, and all monophonic, see Douglas MacArthur (Boje, 2001)

    Once again, my thesis is that hybridity is a good way to explore the gendered, economic, and political influences of leadership on the fluidity of PSL experiences of being PSL. 

    A Cautionary Tale - Here, I offer an example of what I mean. PSL dropped the ball when I asked: "who can recite the vision statement of PSL, and only the CEO could answer."  PSL is in its Buffalo modality. The Q, C, and N modes, the polyphony of voices became just the one monophonic energy. When there is polyphony, then we know we are in either chaos or network modes of being, and the Buffalo have taken flight. Thought it is nailed to the wall of the lobby and doubtless in many other places of high visibility, none but one could recite it. A network leadership would result in shared governance and a variety of opinion leadership; a collective vision would have been articulated and realized, instead of a vision easily forgotten, the job of the one to realize its being. A network vision is produced by the opinion leaders and by the shared governance of PSL. It is for the people, and for the many PSL stakeholders. Perhaps, today, the day of the second PSL workshop, I will be surprised, and everyone will have read the vision statement on the lobby wall, and all will be prepared to transform PSL, to fly with the Buffalos. Miracles do happen. 

    Part of expanding and growing PSL is rearticulating who are its stakeholders, its contexts, and rearticulating what is a stakeholder? Such is the nature of both mono and poly vision.  What else is network or chaos than being in many contexts, while bureaucratic and quest is being in or finding one? Again, I wish to express my confidence in the fluidity and hybridity of PSL. I think this town is big enough for all four modalities and all eight leaderly styles.  

PART II: What would I do if I were Prince

    I am not the Prince or the Superman, so I will not be able to enact any of my proposals.  Still, I think PSL is a practical audience and they like a few suggestions, even though they are unsolicited ones. Again I wish to express my confidence in the fluidity and hybridity of PSL. A town big enough for four modalities of organization and eight leaderly styles is big enough for this Prince. 

    If I were Prince of PSL, this is what I would do.  I would change clothes into Superman, make my proposals, then become mild manner Clark Kent and seek the polyphony of voices necessary to reform. But for now it is best to make bold statements.

    First, I'd change the PSL vision statement, the one nailed to the wall of the lobby. It would be a vision that would strike fear into my competitors (You don't step on Superman's cape) and confidence in my customers (Faster than a speeding bullet). 

    Second, I'd conduct classes in basic management of network hybridity and fluidity with all due respect to quest, chaos, and master bureaucracy. i am already doing this, so this is but a vote to continue.

    Third, I would encourage PSL to offer real incentives to set up a network of semi-autonomous strategic business units (SBUs), each support teams for accounting and information systems. I am borrowing some ideas I have heard in the the PSL meetings. 

    Fourth, I would use my super powers to tear down the walls of PSL. PSL has a plentiful asset, lots of office space. I would move all the people and desks so that each SBU had its own location, and invite each to become a Skunkwork (they were popular in the 1980s). Each SBU would design its space for ideal operating conditions, but I would award them mobile walls and furnishings to keep it all fluid and flexible. 

    Fifth, each SBU would be free to adopt the mode of organizing and the styles of leadership fit for its stakeholders. And there would be a roundtable where the leaders of the SBU teams would gather, with Super Leader Don (the leader of leaders seated at 12 O'clock high). 

    Sixth, let each SBU compete for its resources (space, budget, personnel, support services). This is a network that is dynamic, with self-managing SBUs who are accountable for performance.  And, if customers demand something, if a contract is won, then a SBU is set up quickly to take care of their business.

    Seventh, on this day there would be rest.  How about a 4-day work week?  Who wants to work Friday anyway? Fours work 8 to 6 will get the job done. Better yet, 8 to 5! Americans work too many hors; there is too much workaholic behavior already; better to be like France and have 35 hour work weeks and a month off every summer. I'm Superman, I can dream my fantasy.

That to me would be the Flight of the Buffalo.

The Flight of the GE Buffalo

    PSL is not alone in tis quest to be Flight of the Buffalo, to find the Network Organizing mode and make it part of the hybridity and fluidity. In "Engines of Democracy" (Fast Company, 1999), there has been a move from the Buffalo, "bureaucratic mindset" to the Flight of the Buffalo, "democratic mindset" and an implementation of the six basic requirements of psychological work. The 170 employees have just one Boss, the plant manager. People are doing multi-skilling on sine self-managed teams making all the decisions, once they are assigned the deadline to make their jet engines, such as:

Everyone know how much money each team mate is paid.  The team is responsible for the work, from the point when parts are uncrated to the moment they ship the finished jet engine.  IN the multi-skilling no one does the same job shift after shift, day after day. There is always variety.  There is no time clock. Works are free to leave to go their kid's soccer or band practice or a little League game.  Every team member has an email address, WWW access, voice mail and business cards, even a desk.  

    The only boss is a Super Leader, a leader of teams, with everyone a leader.  She has no big office.  Teammates like Pat Miller talks about how the team comes up with the assembly process without a lot of bosses looking over his shoulder:

Pat Miller knows that as vividly as anyone. His last job was as technically advanced as any in the aviation-mechanics world. "I came from Northrop Grumman, in Palmdale, California, where I was working on the B-2 bomber," says Miller. "That plane, which used Stealth technology, was as high-tech as you can get. But someone else wrote the assembly process. Here, I write the process -- at the mechanic level. There, I was on a 'team,' but I also had a supervisor. He had a boss. And there were other bosses above him. In two years of working there, I never saw the plant manager. Every day, my boss would just hand me my job. I had no input at all -- none. I'm much happier here. I can change what goes on."

This GE plant is a network of self-managing teams.  They interview and hire team mates....

References

Boje, D. M. (2000a) Existential Leadership.

Boje, D. M. (2000b) Flight of the Buffalo, a Review.

Boje, D. M. (2000c) Network Leadership

Boje, D. M. (2000d) The Theatrics of Leadership Model

Boje, D. M. (2001) Douglas MacArthur