Articles from Integral Leadership Review

Featured Article: The Tensegrity Mandala: A Model

for Organization Design
2011- 01- 01 12:01:39 Gagandeep Singh

Gagandeep Singh

Preamble

T his art icle t akes a close hard look at Organizat ion Design. We
asked ourselves, why should we writ e about Organizat ion Design amidst t imes
when managers all across t he world, are f acing unnerving dilemmas and
painf ul t ransit ions, as t hey st ruggle t o respond t o a global downt urn, under a
looming t hreat of a possible collapse of west ern capit alism.

We believe t hat many of t hese dilemmas t hat leadership conf ront t oday were
seeded a long t ime ago in t he way organizat ions have been designed over t he
years. And t his t hread of perspect ives is of t en ignored as CXOs look at t ough
choices around managing t he polarit ies of ‘et hics versus expediency’, ‘invest
versus harvest ’, ‘local versus global’, ‘communit y welf are versus wealt h
maximizat ion of invest ors’ et c.

Some of t he above ment ioned challenges are mere consequences of

unquest ioned axioms and inherent assumpt ions of organizat ion design and
cult ures laid down decades ago. T hese axioms have only perpet uat ed
inef f iciencies and reinf orced greed; t hat lie beneat h t he t ide of posit ive cash
f lows and prof it abilit y as organizat ions scale up in size and complexit y.

When we dialogue wit h t he pract icing managers on how organizat ion design is
held in t he mind, we of t en come across a simplist ic yet dynamic image – t hat
of pyramidal st ruct ures depict ing complex hierarchies along wit h associat ed
privileges, t hat of management cont rol syst ems and a host of processes and
procedures, and t hat of conf ormist cult ures reinf orcing compliant f ollower-
ship, dependencies, and mediocrit y.

In t his art icle, we present a concept ual f ramework – t he T ensegrit y Mandala,

evolved f rom our consult ing experience t hat provides a new set of
perspect ives in visualizing, underst anding, and designing t he modern
organizat ion t oday. We discovered t hat our ideas, ment al models, and
const ruct s were get t ing rest rict ed and impeded by our language. Our
language was not allowing us t o explicat e t he pluralit y, t he diversit y, and t he
mult iple realit ies wit hin Organizat ion design.

In our search f or new language and models, we serendipit ously discovered

many insight s and pioneering ideas of Buckminst er Fuller, St af f ord Beer,
Ant hony Judge, Prasad Kaipa, and ot hers. T heir perspect ives energized us
f urt her in our at t empt t o discover organizat ions and t heir manif old realit ies
t hrough a comprehensive model. T his paper int roduces an act ion-researched
model t hat builds on t he concept of T ensegrit y. We have int egrat ed
T ensegrit y wit h our underst anding of organizat ional socio-psychology, and our
underlying philosophy t hat has it s root s in Indian t hought . However we would
like t o emphasize t hat it s applicat ion is not rest rict ed t o t he Indian or Orient al
geographies, but f or any organizat ion across t he globe.

We wish t o explore t he f ollowing t wo quest ions:

1. How is t he “Role based T ensegrit y Mandala’ model dif f erent f rom ot her
perspect ives on design?
2. How do we link t he ‘Role’ wit h individual ident it y as well as wit h
organizat ion ef f ect iveness?

Introducing T ensegrity

T radit ional Organizat ion St ruct ure

T radit ionally organizat ion st ruct ure has been depict ed as invert ed t rees or
pyramids, wit h boxes laid across mult iple levels represent ing various job
posit ions, based on t he assumpt ions of horizont al and vert ical dif f erent iat ion
t hat def ine f unct ions, vert icals, depart ment s, and hierarchy.

Hist orically, as per Alf red Chandler, t he f irst f ormalized organizat ional chart
was creat ed in 1854, when Daniel McCallum became general superint endent
of t he New York and Erie Railroad – one of t he world’s longest railroads.
According t o McCallum, since t he railroad was one of t he longest , t he
operat ing cost s per mile should have been less t han t hose of short er railroad
lines. However, t his was not t he case. T o remedy management inef f iciencies,
McCallum designed t he f irst organizat ional chart in order t o creat e a sense of
st ruct ure.

T he organizat ional chart was described as looking like a t ree, wit h t he root s
represent ing t he president and t he board of direct ors, while t he branches
symbolize t he various depart ment s and t he leaves depict t he st af f workers.
T he result of t he organizat ional chart was a clear line of aut horit y showing
where subordinat es were account able t o t heir immediat e supervisors

Over t he last 150 years, t his image has represent ed organizat ion st ruct ure as
a symbol, having wit hst ood t he t est of t ime, new perspect ives and emergent
philosophies. T he t ree symbol, st anding or invert ed, st anding f or organizat ion
st ruct ure has been consist ent ly deployed across dif f erent part s of t he world,
perpet uat ed by mult inat ional organizat ions, business schools and consult ing
organizat ions.

In India, t he symbol or t he map get s f urt her st rengt hened and imbued by a
f eudal cont ext , of t en lending organizat ion st ruct ure a t onalit y of rigidit y,
saf et y, non-negot iabilit y, and social st at us. Many an employee ends up
seeking a job posit ion, wit h associat ed privileges and power. In our consult ing
especially in our f ocus on t hroughput alignment and cust omer cent ricit y, we
have grappled wit h legacy of t he t ree st ruct ure – severely impact ing on how
t he t hroughput get s visualized, experienced, owned, and worked wit h by
individuals and t eams across t he organizat ion.

However, t he most crit ical impact of t his paradigm is on t he role-t aking

processes wit hin individuals and groups. T he pyramidal or t ree st ruct ures only
exemplif y or def ine t he ‘job-posit ion’ f or t he individual wit hin t he organizat ion.
What remains unart iculat ed is t he set of requisit e behaviors t hat are crit ical
t owards energizing t he job posit ion, and desired wit hin t he individual. T he
absence of specif ic role-behaviors desired of t en leaves t he incumbent
member of t he organizat ion perplexed and unaware of ways of engaging wit h
and occupying t he job-posit ion. T he underlying dilemmas, t ensions, and
leadership challenges seldom get ident if ied and inst it ut ionalized.

Last ly t he t ree / pyramidal paradigm has never allowed us t o underst and t he

nat ure of cult ure and organizat ional values, as t he mapping of t he st ruct ure
and design excludes any ref erences t o crit ical int angible dimensions of t he
organizat ion.

All organizational pyramids look the same. And yet all organizations are
experienced differently.

It was a painf ul discovery t hat hierarchy and it s associat ions wit h st at us,
f eudalism, and power of t en led t o relent less debat es and argument s over t he
st ruct ure and t he array of job posit ions t hat t ook t he f oci away f rom working
wit h t he process ef f iciencies, individual role ef f ect iveness, and t hroughput
orient at ion wit hin t he syst em.

T he New Paradigm f or Design: Parallels f rom Architecture – T he

T ensegrity Metaphor

It was t he work of Buckminst er Fuller, a revolut ionary archit ect and

philosopher, t hat lef t us in considerable int rigue and excit ement (1). Fuller used
t he t erm Tensegrity, coining it f or Kennet h Snelson, an art ist who was
producing sculpt ures such as t he 18-met er high ‘Needle T ower’ in 1968 .

Fuller def ined T ensegrit y as ‘tension plus integrity’. T he idea was adopt ed int o
archit ect ure in t he 1980s wit h David Geiger designing t he f irst signif icant
st ruct ure—a compet it ion hall f or t he Summer Olympics of 1988.

Imagine t hat you are driving a car wit h a t railer at t he back, going up a hill.
When you are driving up t he slope, t he car and t he t railer are pulling against
gravit y. T he t railer converges behind t he car as t he car pulls it up t he slope.
Every t ime t he t railer sways behind you f rom lef t t o right , what you need t o do
is t o accelerat e t he vehicle, and t his accelerat ion dampens t he swaying
mot ion.

When you are going downhill, however, t he t railer may begin t o push t he car.
T his produces a st rong side t o side f orce—‘divergence’. T he t railer will begin
t o sway f rom side t o side again. Push again, is divergent . When t he t railer
begins t o push, you are advised t o accelerat e slight ly in order t o re-est ablish
pull. Pull is convergent, and t he t railer will st raight en course.

T ensegrity is t he pat t ern t hat result s when push and pull have a win-win
relat ionship wit h each ot her. T he pull is continuous and t he push is
discontinuous. T he cont inuous pull is balanced by t he discont inuous push
producing int egrit y of t ension and compression. Fuller explained t hat t hese
f undament al phenomena were not opposit es, but complement s t hat could
always be f ound t oget her. He f urt her explained t hat push is divergent while
pull is convergent .

In archit ect ural t erms, Fuller held ‘compression st ruct ures’ as inadequat e t o
t he modern t imes, t erming t hem as cumbersome and inef f ect ive in many
ways. We, at T AO, realized t hat t he concept of T ensegrit y had plent y t o of f er
in t erms of applicat ions, philosophy, design and development of
organizat ions.

We, f irst used t he t erm “T ensegrit y” t o explore psychological and sociological

dimensions of an organizat ion including role t aking, conf lict , individual and
group processes wit hin t he organizat ion, where we sought t o def ine t he
cont inuous pulls and t he divergent pushes t hat lend a design and st ruct ure t o
t he organizat ion, apart f rom def ining t he nat ure of ext ant cult ure wit hin.

However, bef ore, we go deep int o applying principles of T ensegrit y f or

organizat ions, we would like t o int roduce anot her key t erm—Mandala, t hat
enabled us t o depict t he syst emic as well as inst it ut ional & human energy
propert ies.

Def ining Mandala

A Mandala

T he t erm “Mandala ”, amongst ot her st reams, has been used ext ensively in
Indian socio-polit ical syst ems, and is best def ined as a syst em t hat emerges
out of t he rhyt hm, harmony, and int erplay of opposing f orces(2). What makes
t he t erm ‘Mandala’ unique is it s resonance in def ining and illust rat ing bot h
explicit and t angible syst ems (t he solar syst em f or example, in Sanskrit is
t ermed as a ‘surya – mandala’), as well as t acit , inst it ut ional and polit ical
syst ems. For example, in India, we use t he t erms ‘Gram Mandala’ f or polit ical
and administ rat ion st ruct ures and syst ems.

In t erms of inst it ut ional energy and syst ems, a Mandala represent s t he

universe it self ; a Mandala is bot h t he microcosm and t he macrocosm, and we
are all part of it s int ricat e design. We f irmly believe t hat t he Mandala capt ures
and mirrors t he nat ure of energy wit hin t he organizat ion, as t he Mandala is
more t han an image seen wit h our eyes; it is an act ual moment in t ime. It is
here t hat we need t o emphasize on t he complexit y of voices t hat exist in an
organizat ion, and how t hese voices creat e mult iple realit ies.

T he Four Voices – A Historical Context:

On of t he most powerf ul imageries of t he pre-

indust rializat ion era of t en romant ically alluded t o in t he shape of an argument
against t oday’s complex t imes is t hat of t he craf t sperson owning and
cont rolling t he product ion of goods. It was believed t hat t he bot h t he modes
of product ion and t he psychological ownership of t he product belonged t o t he
craf t sperson in t hese idyllic agrarian t imes, a phenomenon t hat cont ribut ed t o
individual well-being and social order.

For example, T homas Hardy in his lit erary works uses t he t ransit ion f rom t he
sylvan, agrarian t imes int o an indust rialized societ y as a backdrop f or his
t ragedies.
Marxist s proclaimed t hat indust rializat ion only augment ed t he st rengt h of a
new emergent class t hat cont rolled t he means of mat erial product ion, and
subsequent ly cont rolled t he means of ment al product ion. Alienat ion was used
t o describe t he split t ing of t he product f rom t he process of product ion at t he
individual level.

In t erms of social st ruct ure, t he era of indust rializat ion wit nessed t he f irst
st ep t owards a complex t ension t hat lay bet ween t he ‘voice’ of t he
craf t sperson, who owned t he craf t and t he means of product ion (t he Voice of
T echnology), and t hat of t he voice of t he emergent invest ors, who mobilized
capit al t o reinf orce t he pace of indust rializat ion (Voice of Wealt h).

For example, in America, ‘The Putting-Out System’ exist ed in t he Unit ed St at es

f rom 1790 t o 1840 as one complex mechanism creat ed as a response t o
expanding market s and geographies. In t his business syst em, merchant s or
t he t rader class, who represent ed t he voice of wealt h, purchased mat erials,
delivered t hese mat erials t o t he workers in t heir homes and arranged f or t he
sale of t he complet ed art icles. T he second experiment in t he USA, was
around ‘The Inside Contracting System’ – anot her met hod of coordinat ing
act ivit ies where t he syst em of inside cont ract ing was widely used by New
England and Middle At lant ic manuf act urers, especially among t he met al
f abricat ors and machine-t ool builders.

However all t his changed wit h F.W. T aylor est ablishing t he school of ‘Scient if ic
Management ’ in 1911; t his paved t he way f or large f inancially st rong
capit alist s and ent repreneurs amalgamat e and scale up product ion
operat ions t hat were erst while owned by t he craf t sperson. T he Inside
Cont ract ing syst em was st eadily replaced by t he hegemony of modern
scient if ic management , wit h t he ‘manager’ as t he designat ed apost le of
market capit alism. T he organizat ion was indeed evolving int o a complex
syst em, which no longer resembled it s avat ar in t he 18t h cent ury of t he
diligent craf t sperson cat ering t o t he local communit y.

Limit ed Liabilit y Legislat ion in Brit ain (1856) and subsequent similar laws t hat
emerged in most count ries, laid t he f oundat ion f or t he concept of t he modern
organizat ion, t he world over, limit ing t he exposure of t he invest ors and
ent repreneurs. T his gave a f urt her impet us t o t he rising st rengt h of t he
Invest or, and in many ways also led t o t he de-skilling of t he craf t sperson as a
process wit hin t he larger phenomena.
Introducing T he Four Voices: What is a Voice?

If we were t o revert back t o t he cont ext t oday we would f ind t hat all
organizat ions exist in a complex and t urbulent environment . T his t urbulence is
not just out t here ext ernal t o t he organizat ion but is also mirrored wit hin t he
int ernal processes and syst emic realit ies. In our at t empt t o decode t his
complex environ, we t ake t he f irst st ep—t hat of viewing t he organizat ion as a
dynamic int er-play of f our key and dist inct universes, which co-exist and of t en
compet e f or t he at t ent ion of t he organizat ional leadership.

T his clust er of f our universes is cont inually morphing and changing. Each
universe in it s dynamics wit h t he ot hers has it s convergent pulls t hat creat e a
sense of cont inuit y and st abilit y. However t his int erplay also exhibit s a series
of discont inuous pushes t hat creat e divergences wit hin t he syst em.

As st at ed earlier, each of t he “Four Voices” is a “vect or of challenge” f rom t he

environment bot h out side t he organizat ion or t he macrocosm, and wit hin t he
organizat ion. T his vect or is “dynamic and inscrut able”. T he ext ent t o which t he
members in t he organizat ion act ively list en t o t hese vect ors & decode t he
underlying pat t erns accurat ely becomes a st art ing point . T he person / or
persons who t hen communicat e t his “decoding’ end up anchoring t he voice of
each universe f or t hat moment i.e., t hey voice t he realit y of t hat universe t o
t he organizat ion.

It is in underst anding and explicat ing t hese voices, t hat we t ake t he f irst st ep
of creat ing t he T ensegrit y Mandala. T hese f our universes and t heir respect ive
Voices are:

Voice of Wealth (VoW):

Wealt h, and wealt h creat ion, has been t he subject of many a debat es,
argument s, ideologies, and philosophy. It is necessary perhaps t o spend some
t ime in exploring and def ining t he Voice of Wealt h. Wealt h and wealt h
creat ion is considered a signif icant and legit imat e dut y of t he householder in
t he Indian cult ure. T he t rading communit y or t he cast e holds wealt h creat ion
as key and signif icant social / communit y process, and upholds t his process
wit h all humilit y and sacrif ice.

T his universe comprises and st ands f or t he expect at ions, demands,

decisions, processes, and t he voice of owners, shareholders, invest ors,
bankers, analyst s, and all t hose who are concerned wit h t he wealt h creat ion
capabilit ies of t he organizat ion. Invest ment , divest ment , f unding, f inancing,
risk management , and rewarding are key processes t hat are associat ed wit h
t he Voice of Wealt h (VoW).

We have already made a brief comment on how t his voice became ext remely
prominent during indust rializat ion, and separat ed f rom t he voice of
t echnology, brought in a t ension bet ween t he invest or and t he producer.
Some of t he key dilemmas t hat belong t o t his universe, have t o do wit h ‘risk
versus reward’, ‘long t erm wealt h creat ion versus short t erm gains’, ‘growt h
versus consolidat ion’, and ‘cont rol versus empower’ et c. T he microcosm of
t his universe as experienced wit hin t he organizat ional space, is associat ed
wit h symbols such as bean count ers, audit ors, and account ant s.

Voice of the Customer (VoC):

In t he last f if t y years, t he voice of t he cust omer has been writ t en and spoken
about in all f orums and spaces t hat are t o do wit h organizat ions. T his universe
comprises t he concerns, demands, expect at ions, and opinions of t he
market s, compet it ors, new ent rant s, exist ing cust omers, prospect s, and
pot ent ial cust omers, lat ent and undiscovered needs of t he cust omer. T he
VoC universe is of t en cit ed as t he reason f or exist ence of t he organizat ion.

Voice of Technology (VoT):

T he universe comprises t he energy and st ruct ures of t hroughput s, value

st reams, innovat ion, research & development , emergent t echnology et c. T he
Voice of t echnology (VoT ) expresses t he concerns around delivery, delivery
capabilit y, and delivery qualit y of t he organizat ion in meet ing t he demands of
t he market and cust omers.

Some of t he f ashionable language deployed t o represent t he VoT would

include t hroughput qualit y, cost , delivery, t ime t o market , t ake t ime, down
t ime, SLAs, scaling up, wast e, and Value St ream. Some of t he underlying
dilemmas t hat get experienced in t his universe include ‘qualit y versus cost
versus delivery t ime’, ‘t echnology f or t echnology sake’, ‘make or buy’ et c.

Voice of the Employee (VoE):

T his universe comprises t he concerns, wishes, f ant asies, expect at ions,

demands, and grievances of t he prof essional employee, t he worker, t he
manager, and t he human being wit hin t he organizat ion. Of t en erroneously
labeled as Human Relat ions problems or challenges, many aspect s of t he
Voice of Employee phenomena are around disappoint ment s, non-negot iat ed
expect at ions, behavioral propensit ies, role-t aking, and mult iple cult ures t hat
co-exist wit hin t he organizat ion.

T his voice also represent s t he energy wit hin t he organizat ion, t he nat ure of
levers and blocks t hat rest rain t he energy and t he human spirit . Some of t he
t erms and language used in t his universe include cult ure, t ransf ormat ion,
empowerment , career planning, aspirat ions, leadership et c. Many of t he
dilemmas t hat imbue t his universe include ‘at t ract versus ret ain’, ‘grow versus
buy’, ‘inst rument alit y versus inst it ut ion building’, ‘loyalt y versus expert ise’,
‘individual versus t eam’ et c.

Summariz ing the Four Voices

In any organizat ion, t he leadership cont inually f ormulat es a response t o t hese

“vect ors of challenge” as voiced by t he persons who experience and decode
t hem. Of t en t he nat ure of t his response t o each vect or or Voice creat es a
cont inuous Pull (or t ension) t hat is aligned across t he st rat egic int ent of t he
organizat ion. T he Pull evokes a sense of convergence wit hin t he organizat ion.

It is also t he case t hat t he leadership wit hin t he organizat ion experiences

it self as react ive and myopic, of t en provoking a discont inuous Push (or a
compression) f rom t he organizat ion. T his of t en happens when t he leadership
is unable t o “decode” t he dynamic Voice, giving rise t o polit ics t hat make t he
organizat ion ‘push’ orient ed. Very of t en t his renders t he organizat ion
inf lexible, st uck, inef f icient and sick amongst ot her t hings

T his decoding of a part icular Voice or t he set of Voices, is ideally done

t hrough a process of dialogue and cont inual pull or a t ension as represent ed in
T ensegrit y st ruct ures. However when organizat ions choose t o eliminat e or
ignore dialogue, t he inherent st ruct ures, processes, and syst ems get
charact erized by discont inuous push or cont rol as evident in compression
st ruct ure. T he st ress on t he leadership is immense where a designat ed leader
or a leadership t eam, claim t o complet ely underst and and visualize t he nat ure
of unf olding and movement wit hin a voice. T his st ance of t he leadership also
creat es wast e wit hin t he organizat ion.

It is necessary at t his junct ure t o walk t hrough a hist orical anecdot e t hat helps
us underst and t he evolut ion of all f our voices in India in t he past sixt y years.
Revisit ing t his narrat ive would hopef ully creat e an illust rat ive f oundat ion on
which t he T ensegrit y Mandala rest s.

Phase 1: T he Era of Production Centric Organiz ations

In t he indust rial era, t he t ransit ion saw small craf t sperson’s businesses morph
int o a reasonably simple and predict able t wo-universe clust er t hat of t he
invest ing capit alist and t he t echnologist or t he craf t owner. T he emergent
experience of t he organizat ion was a series of dramas / narrat ives bet ween
pulls and pushes bet ween t he t wo voices – Voice of wealt h (VoW) as
represent ed of t he invest or and t he Voice of T echnology (VoT ). In India,
indust rializat ion on t he lines of what happened in t he West , sped up af t er
independence. It was also cont rolled and prot ect ed by government policies
including t he process of licensing indust ry in India.

Tension 1: INVESTING:

Invest ing

T he emergent business model t ill t he 1960s and 1970s was f airly simple—
t hese were t he t imes were of t he sellers’ market , and if one was grant ed
prot ect ion t hrough a license, t he business was built around a cost -plus model.
T he t wo voices—Voice of Wealt h and Voice of T echnology—gave rise t o a
simple t ension of ‘Investing’.

All businesses were viable as long as t he ‘Pull’ bet ween t he t wo Voices was
“decoded” correct ly, and organizat ions evolved. As long as an ent repreneur
could garner t he right license t hat prot ect ed him f rom compet it ion, business
was quit e simple t o sust ain.

It must also be not ed t hat a signif icant part of indust rializat ion was rout ed
t hrough public sect or undert akings (PSUs) in key areas including energy,
banking, insurance, mining et c. Many of t he PSUs were known f or bringing in
t echnology and knowledge t o India.

Wit hin t his Investing tension, some of t he key pulls relevant t o t he init ial
f orays by privat e invest ment as well as PSUs were and st ill are:

Capacit y creat ion: How much capacit y do I creat e? T he dilemmas were

around ‘over capacit y versus under capacit y’, and f inancial implicat ions
t hereof . T he concerns were around – how do I measure capacit y?
Technology focus: Do I f ocus on t echnology and explore what it s
implicat ions are f or me in t erms of prof it abilit y and ret urns? Do I make a
choice bet ween current t radit ional capabilit ies versus f ut urist ic
capabilit y?
Added to these concerns of that era, the Investing tension also comprises of
dilemmas, challenges, and concerns around these today:
Research and Development Initiatives: What is my perspect ive t owards
R&D? How do I look at f inancial ret urns? What is an appropriat e
invest ment int o R &D?
Knowledge Management: How do I creat e explicit knowledge and not be
rendered dependent on t acit knowledge or subject ive knowledge? What
are t he barriers t o knowledge sharing and how do I break t his down? How
do I scale up t he apprent ice model of learning?
What is my underlying philosophy towards investing and running the
business? Am I in the business for a certain period and do I have an exit
strategy?

Most organizat ions in t his simplif ied environment were able t o make
supernormal prof it s and spect acular wealt h while deploying a simple business
and revenue model.

Business Model 1: Cost Price + Desired Prof it = Selling Price

T hese organizat ions were quick t o ident if y t heir cost st ruct ures, and t hen t o
det ermine t he selling price by adding a desired prof it margin. Most of what got
produced was sold. T he main concern was t o do wit h product ion. Viable
businesses only had t o f ocus on t he right t echnology model, and source it .

Even in t his environ, t here were many large business groups who chose t o
build organizat ions wit hout enlivening a healt hy “Invest ing” t ension. Greed and
manipulat ion rendered t he required dialogue bet ween t he t wo voices as
redundant . T he Invest ing t ension collapsed int o dysf unct ional pushes of sub-
opt imal invest ment s, and react ive disinvest ment s as t he owners t urned int o
f ly by night operat ors and myopic cont rollers. Labor was exploit ed t o
compensat e f or poor invest ment inf rast ruct ure. Most of t hese unit s did not
live beyond a f ew years.

However t his simplif ied environ did not last long, as a t hird Voice emerged and
became st eadily crit ical t o t he f unct ioning of t he business. T his was t he Voice
of t he Cust omer t hat like in t he west ern economies, which led t he business
environment t o morph int o t he next phase.

Phase 2: Managing T he Market-Driven Organiz ation

T his part icular phase revolut ionized t he way business was t o run wit hin India.
T his phase was t riggered by t he Voice of t he Cust omer, and t he emergence
of t he VoC implied many new and signif icant rules. T he world of business,
erst while a simple t ension bet ween t wo voices, experienced a new paradigm
– leading t o a complex int erplay of t wo new t ensions in addit ion t o t he f irst
t ension of Invest ing.

T he Voice of t he Cust omer (VoC) emerged as an aspiring and ambit ious

middle class in India grew in t erms of size and in it s philosophical shif t f rom
Gandhism and Socialism t owards consumpt ion. Americanizat ion of t he Indian
cult ure t hat made a humble beginning in t he lat e 1960s and 1970s, was int ense
during t he 1980s. Birt h of business schools such as t he Indian Inst it ut es of
Management and t he consequent generat ion of prof essional managers only
heralded t he onset of supremacy of market s.

In t erms of organizat ion design, and modeling, t he t wo new t ensions changed

t he nat ure of inherent polit ics and conversat ions wit hin t he organizat ion.

St rat egizing

T he t wo new t ensions t hat now emerged were:

a) T he Strategiz ing T ension bet ween t he Voice of Cust omer and t he

Voice of Wealt h
b) T he Improving T ension bet ween t he Voice of t he Cust omer and t he
Voice of T echnology

Tension 2
The Strategizing Tension (VoW – VoC)

Ironically, most product ion cent ric organizat ions were never ready t o engage
wit h Voice of Cust omer. T here were assumpt ions made on t he size and
buyers made of course—very of t en t hese assumpt ions were built around
t rends once every year, but t here was no real cont inual dialogue bet ween t he
t wo Voices. From an owner’s perspect ive, t he cust omer ought t o be ready t o
buy f or what ever get s produced.

T he ot her aspect t hat is import ant t o not e, during t he product ion-cent ric era,
were t he st ories around t he power of t he f act ory manager. Voice of
T echnology was anchored largely in t he product ion f acilit ies, and t he f act ory
manager was t he King. He det ermined product ion scheduling, and dist ribut ion
t act ics. T he Product ion head and his t eam def ined t he not ion of Qualit y and
what it meant t o t he cust omer. All t his changed f or most organizat ions during
t he 1980s.

Def ining Strategiz ing as a T ension

T o def ine and symbolize t he nat ure of t ension bet ween t he t wo key Voices –
Voice of Wealt h and Voice of Cust omer, we have used t he word ‘St rat egizing’.
By t he St rat egizing t ension, we are ref erring t o t he patterns, choices,
dilemmas, and perspectives evolve and get deployed on a daily basis as
opposed t o t he cont ent approach – a strategic plan or ploy .

T he key challenges and dilemmas t hat underlie wit hin St rat egizing T ension
are:

Designing and aligning the Business Model, the Revenue Model, with the
Strategic Intent:
While t he product ion cent ric organizat ions grappled wit h t he delivery
model and it s linkage wit h t he invest ment model; t he st rat egizing
t ension brought in newer dilemmas and challenges. What emerged was
t he need t o align t he Delivery Model t o t he Business and Revenue
Model. T his meant t hat crit ical decisions around pricing, dist ribut ion,
promot ion, and posit ioning became import ant quest ions.
What are the market place dynamics? What does t he cust omer really
want ?
T his phase wit nessed most leadership t eams ref lect ing and seeking t o
underst and t he mind of t he cust omer. T erms such as buyer-behavior
and segment at ion became a part of t he emergent language.
Companies had t o be become curious and vigilant of t he market s, t he
cust omer segment s and most import ant ly t he compet it ion.

Some of t he ot her dilemmas and quest ions were around t he f ollowing:

What will evoke a long-term relationship with the customer? Who are our
potential customers?
Which Markets? What is the Value Offering(s)? Product Portfolio?
Product Positioning? Branding? Distribution? Pricing? Managing Competition?

T o us, t he act ion and decisions around dilemmas and perspect ives, as
demonst rat ed by t he organizat ion help underst and how t his ‘T ension’ is co-
held wit hin t he leadership t eam. As posit ed by Mint zberg, Strategizing is a
perspective – its content consisting not just of a chosen position, but also of an
ingrained way of perceiving the world. Strategy in this respect is to the organization
what personality is to the individual.

T he old f ormula as per t he earlier equat ion during t he product ion cent ric era,
gave rise t o a new f ormula, almost inst ant ly recognizing t he t hird t ension:

Business Model 2: Selling Price (Market determined) = Cost Price

(Reduce) + Prof its

T his meant t hat organizat ions t oday could not longer sust ain a cost -plus
model as t he market s det ermined t he selling price. All t hat was wit hin t he
cont rol of t he leadership was t he levers of cost . In t he 1990s, t here was f renzy
wit hin most organizat ions around opt imizat ion, and cut t ing cost s, as
organizat ions lived up t o t heir int ent s t o be leaner and more ef f icient .

T his meant t hat t he ST RAT EGIZING T ension was co-held and given as much
import ance as t he t hird t ension – T he IMPROVING T ension.

Tension 3: The Improving Tension

T he Improving t ension links a dynamic universe of t he Cust omer / Market

(VoC) t o a f airly st able medium t erm commit ment t o a part icular t hroughput
t echnology or a t echnology model wit hin t he Voice of T echnology (VoT ).

Most organizat ions invest int o capabilit y and capacit y, only t o discover t hat a
large proport ion of t heir invest ment plans did not ant icipat e changing needs
and demands wit hin t he market place. T his would creat e a t remendous st rain
on any organizat ion, as invest ment int o product ion asset s is a f airly medium
t o long-t erm decision.

Coinciding wit h t he emergence of t he Improving t ension was t he f ocus on

Syst ems T heory in academic inst it ut ions and research in India. Sof t syst ems
t heory, and t he works of Beer, Checkland, Senge, et c. became crit ical t o
underst anding primarily t his t ension wit hin t he organizat ions.

T his meant t hat t here was a new t ension t hat emerged – t hat bet ween t he
product ion capabilit y and capacit y const raint s and t he emergent new needs
of t he cust omer. Managing t his t ension became a key dif f erent iat or f or most
organizat ions t o survive, as t hese organizat ions cont inually grapples wit h new
needs as well as f ocus on minimizing t he cost , improving qualit y, and reduce
cycle t imes.

For most organizat ions, t he t ension of Improving meant f ocusing on t he

f ollowing dilemmas and choices:

What is the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery system? Can we bring
in process measures along with existing content measures?
What are the areas within the throughput, where the improvements will be
most rewarding to our customer?
What can we learn from the work place? How do we deploy our learning in
the place?
In Phase 2, most organizat ions in India chose t o invest int o and deploy
Japanese management t echniques such as Kaizen, Qualit y Circles, Lean
T hinking, T ot al Qualit y Management , T PM et c. t o f ocus on t he t hird t ension in
a st rat egy t o improve Qualit y, Cost , and Delivery of t he t hroughput .

In t erms of cult ure, t his meant cut t ing across t he depart ment al hierarchies
and silos wit hin t he organizat ion, and t o bring in t he concept of t he “end t o
end t hroughput ”. T here are many organizat ions t hat st ill st ruggle t o def ine
“Improving” in a holist ic sense, and at best deploy cert ain opt imizat ion ef f ort s
t hat at best sub-opt imize t he t hroughput .

A large majorit y of t hese int ervent ions have been “Implement at ion Ploys” and
“Change Plans”, and not really re-def ining t he “Perspect ive” in t erms of t he
employee mindset or in t erms of shared organizat ion cult ure.

Phase 3: Institutionaliz ing the T acit T ensions in addition to the Explicit

T ensions

So f ar, t he second phase f rom t he product ion cent ric organizat ions t o
market -driven organizat ions, implied t hat managing t he ent ire business was
around managing key processes or t ensions of “St rat egizing”, “Invest ing”, and
“Improving”.

All t he t hree t ensions are f airly easy t o underst and, map, and measure. T hus
most leadership ef f ort s were concent rat ed around aligning t hese t ensions
t hrough process design, adherence t o process measures, and a t hroughput
orient at ion.

Hist orically, it was in t he rise of t he Inf ormat ion T echnology Indust ry in India
t hat heralded and legit imized t his new Voice – t he ‘Voice of t he Employee’.
Some organizat ions in t his part icular indust ry vert ical were quick t o realize
t hat despit e huge invest ment s int o t echnology and knowledge syst ems,
successf ul delivery of project s was dependent upon t he int ernal employees.
Ret ent ion of t he capable and commit t ed employee was as import ant as t he
ot her t hree processes. Decoding t his Voice meant moving beyond t he
cust omary appeasement of t he Employee and responding merely t o hygiene
f act ors wit hin t he organizat ion.
T he Invisible T ensions

Most organizat ions were t ill now grappling wit h t he mechanist ic orient at ion of
‘cont rol and command’, ‘hierarchies’, silos et c.

T his meant t hat many organizat ions had t o learn t o respond t o t he three
T acit/Invisible new t ensions (T4 – Valuing, T5 – Serving, and T6 – Energizing).

In indust ries such as Banking, Insurance, IT , and manuf act uring, t he Voice of
Employee was now resurgent , and t his meant t hat t he organizat ions t o be
viable and growt h cent ered had t o examine t he t hree t acit / invisible t ensions
of Valuing, Serving, and Energizing.

Tension 4: The Valuing Tension

(Between the Voice of Wealth and the Voice of Employee)

As ment ioned earlier, t he Valuing T ension has been legit imized only very
recent ly. Most brick and mort ar organizat ions in t he past decades have held
t he employee as an inst rument at best , and as source of nuisance at worst .
Unions represent ing t he Voice of t he Workers were t o be managed and
cont rolled. Most middle management had no real Voice, as t hese sect ions of
t he organizat ions responded t o t he demands and whims of t he owners and
senior managers.

It was in t he 1990s t hat wit nessed t he real engagement wit h t his voice and co-
holding t he t ension. T his meant t hat organizat ions had t o creat e a space or
an inst it ut ion where each and every individual or t eam creat es value and f eels
valued. T his was f ar more dif f icult t o def ine, measure, or t o deploy as
opposed t o t he t ensions of st rat egizing, invest ing, or improving, as it meant
engaging wit h an energy f ield and an invisible or subject ively held t ension.

Engaging wit h t he Valuing T ension/Dialogue means exploring, dialoguing, and

ident if ying t he f ollowing dilemmas, choices, and const raint s amongst ot hers:

What does it mean to value Employees?

Many of t he cont ent mot ivat ion t heories including Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
or Alderf er’s t heory of Mot ivat ion have not really been insight f ul t o respond t o
t his quest ion. T he quest ion demands an inquiry int o t he socio-cult ural cont ext ,
individual aspirat ions and codings, and t he emerging cult ure. T he dilemmas
and const raint s are f elt because of t he immense const raint s t hat st em f rom
t he VoW. T he quest ion is perpet ually alive and dynamic, and cannot be
responded t o only in t erms of a remunerat ion policy or a diversit y
management chart er.

It requires t he manager and t he leader t o st ay in t ouch wit h emergent

realit ies.

Socialization & Indoctrination—What kind of people do we attract and retain? How

do we define the Values and the Membership Criteria?

T he last t wo decades have seen a great er f ocus on organizat ional values, as

organizat ions have grown larger and beyond personalized cont rol. T his has
meant a new challenge in def ining t he right cult ure, and t aking it across all
part s of t he organizat ion.

How do we invest in people? How do we evoke commitment to the organization,

customer and from each individual?

St ruct ures, syst ems, and processes are inadequat e when it comes t o
creat ing commit ment and sust aining it over t he years. Individual leaders may
bring in a personalized emot ional cont ract wit h t heir report s. T he key
challenge is t o work wit h t he human energy wit hin t he syst em.

Organization Culture – How do we define Leadership

Dist inguishing a leadership process f rom t he leader is crit ical t o def ining t his
t ension. A leader can at best bring in a discont inuous push; a cult ure can bring
in a cont inual pull, and creat e a T ensegrit y.

T he key dif f erent iat or across organizat ions is how t his int angible and yet so
crit ical a t ension (or a process) are worked wit hin t he syst em. T he rise of
Employee Sat isf act ion surveys in t he 1980s and 1990s was anot her sign of t he
t imes. T he employee sat isf act ion scores and survey dimensions have evolved
over t he years, and yet are st ill crit ical t o t he underst anding t he f low of
employee energy wit hin t he organizat ion.

Tension 5: The Serving Tension

(Between the Voice of Customer / Markets and the Voice of Employee)

T he Serving T ension ref ers t o t he deployment of human energy t owards

delight ing t he int ernal and ext ernal cust omers of t he organizat ion, and in
ushering in a cult ure of developing capabilit ies and resources f or t he
cust omer.

T he Serving t ension is of t en seen as t hat int ense and yet invisible ef f ort t o
ensure t hat t he cust omer remains loyal t o t he organizat ion, and t o move f rom
creat ing value t owards part nering value. T he Serving T ension / Dialogue wit hin
t he organizat ion helps it t o anchor t he f ollowing t hemes:
Who is my Customer(s)? What are my customer expectations?

Clarif ying t his quest ion and negot iat ing t he consequent expect at ions set t he
f oundat ion f or each employee. An employee cannot exist wit hout having a
real int ernal or ext ernal cust omer, and t his becomes a basic premise. Many of
t he t radit ional pyramidal organizat ions were not orious f or creat ing
depart ment s and t eams t hat had no cust omers.

T he next set of quest ions essent ially map t he nat ure of t he invest ment and
rigor t hat t he employee invest s int o underst anding and empat hizing wit h t he
cust omer / market s.

1. Where do my products/services fit into the customer’s operation?

2. How do I maintain an effective dialogue with him/her /them?
3. How do I build and sustain a meaningful relationship with my customer(s)?
4. How do we identify areas of improvement in our service?
5. How do I serve my customer better? What data do I look at while I enhance
customer satisfaction?

Tension 6: The Energizing Tension

(Between the Voice of Technology and the Voice of Employee)

Monday Blues and Frant ic Fridays are a part of many such phrases coined by
employees t o ref er t o t heir work cont ext . It is quit e common t o hear of
let hargy and f eeling de-energized f rom employees as t hey st ruggle wit h work
monot ony, rout ines, adherence, and deliverables. It is t hese days quit e rare t o
hear narrat ives around breakt hrough creat ivit y and innovat ion t hat energize
t he t eam member.

Senior management ref ers t o leveraging of f sit e ret reat s and out bound
workshops t hat replenish, renew, and re-energize t heir t eams. T he key
t hemes t hat get f ocused upon include exploring t rust , conf lict s, link
responsibilit ies, and t ransparency. Many a t imes, t here is a legit imat e space
of f ered f or expression of f at igue, anger, sadness, disappoint ment s t hat get s
accumulat ed over t ime as t he employee works wit hin a given delivery model.

T he Energizing T ension examines how each employee is energized and

involved in his / her int erf ace wit h a given t echnology or t hroughput design.
T he Energizing T ension explores and co-holds t hese t hemes:

What does work mean to each one?

How can we make it more meaningful?
What can I do to improve the teamwork?
How can we inspire each one to bring his/her best?
How conducive is the environment to learning and performing?

Summariz ing the T ensions

T he Organizat ion can be now depict ed as a t hree dimensional Mandala, where

t he T ensegrit y of f ered balances and int errelat ionships on dualist ic
perspect ives and dilemmas wit hin each t wo voices comprising a t ension.
T ensegrit y helps us rest at e some of t he problem of organizat ional conf lict s –
t echnology demands versus wealt h creat ion, employee needs versus invest or
concerns, employee needs versus t echnology const raint s et c. By t he handling
t he dualist ic compression relat ionships in a holist ic st ruct ure, it is no longer a
quest ion of what one is “f or” or “against ”, of what one considers “right ” or
“wrong “, or “correct ” or “incorrect ”, et c.

T ENSEGRIT Y MANDALA

T he challenge of const ruct ing t hese t ensions t oget her is t o present a model
t hat is able t o represent t he emergent mult iple realit ies wit hin t he
organizat ion t hat co-exist .

Many writ ers have debat ed over which T ensegrit y polyhedron should be used
t o represent or const ruct an organizat ion. For example Prasad Kaipa uses t he
pyramid or t he t et rahedron but not as a basis f or T ensegrit y syst ems. We
f ind t hat t he t et rahedron as t he most apt polyhedron f or represent ing t he
T ensegrit y Mandala. Not only does it allow t he depict ion of t he f our universes
or voices as t he f our nodes of t he organizat ion.

Def ining T ensegrity Equilibrium

T he T ensegrit y Mandala of any Organizat ion, Division, or an SBU is in

equilibrium(3) if t he six t ensions, linking t he Four Nodes have been opt imized in
relat ion t o each ot her. A sub-opt imized T ension eit her in t erms of excessive
t aut ness or slackness, would render t he organizat ion in st ress. T here have
been many inst ances, where we have encount ered organizat ions in severe
st ress f or not having recognized or invest ed in a part icular t ension.

For example, most organizat ions work on opt imizing t he Visible T ensions of
St rat egizing, Invest ing, and Improving. T hese organizat ions invest in f orums,
processes, syst ems, and people who become a part of t hese t ensions.
However t he T acit t ensions t hat are a source of energy f or t he Visible
t ensions are never worked wit h. T hus Energizing, Valuing, and Serving become
under-opt imized, leading t o a great deal of st ress f or t he Organizat ion.

Corporat e hist ory worldwide has demonst rat ed rise and f all of organizat ions
t hat have f ailed t o address all t he six t ensions t oget her, and creat e
equilibrium f or sust ainable growt h and development . T he Dysf unct ional
T ensions render t he organizat ion inef f ect ive, and inf lict almost irreversible
damage t o bot h t he T acit and Explicit aspect s of t he Organizat ion. Most
organizat ions do not survive, in case t he equilibrium is not rest ored quickly
enough. We also believe t hat t he T enacit y of t he organizat ion is a f unct ion of
t he how t he T acit T ensions are kept alive. T he T acit t ensions of Valuing,
Energizing, and Serving and t he 6 nodal roles are crit ical t o t he long t erm
healt h of t he organizat ion.

We began asking ourselves—Who or what determines the nature of tension/s

within the organization?

T he f irst st ep in t his direct ion is t o begin by def ining t he concept of a “Role”,

and explain how t he Role is t he crit ical building block t o t he modeling of t he
organizat ion, and it s t ransf ormat ion agenda. We def ine t he Role as a set of
behaviors, an individual chooses t o play is based on her process of making
meaning out of any sit uat ion (or t he gap) and her basis f or making choices

It is t his Role, where t he employee “decodes” t he vect ors or t he Voices of t he

f our universes, and renders alive her own ef f ect iveness as well as t he
Organizat ional ef f ect iveness. In T ensegrit y Mandala, it is t his cryst allizat ion of
an Organizat ional Role (Behavior) wit hin each t ension f or t hat part icular node
t hat det ermines t he enlivening of t he T ension.

T he Role becomes a ‘Lens’, as well as an ‘Act ion Choice’, t hat anchors t he

T ension f rom each side.

T he axioms under t he T ensegrit y Mandala are:

a) T wo roles, each anchored in a Voice, det ermine t he t aut ness of a
part icular t ension (4).
b) T hese t wo roles, which are anchored in dif f erent Voices, comprise key
behaviors as appropriat e t o t he “decoding” of each Voice.

Tension 1: The Investing Tension

T he Invest ing T ension seeks t o int egrat e and co-hold t he int erest s and f oci of
t he t wo universes – Wealt h Creat ion (Voice of Wealt h) and T echnology (VoT ).
T here are t wo roles wit hin each universe t hat anchor t he t ension.

Role 1: The Technology Architect (anchored in Voice of Wealth)

T his role demands owning Voice of Wealt h, and anchoring dialogue concerning
t echnology in t erms of wealt h creat ion and knowledge creat ion. T he
T echnology Archit ect role requires designing delivery capabilit ies, but would
also anchor t he whole process f rom a business cont ext t hat demands
appropriat e capacit ies, opt imized invest ment s, pragmat ic capit al budget ing
and resource allocat ion, R&D init iat ives et c. T he T echnology Archit ect owns
t he design of t he Delivery Model, as well as t he Invest ing Model.

Role 2: The Throughput Developer (anchored in Voice of Technology)

T he role requires a signif icant underst anding of t he designed t hroughput or

delivery syst ems. It requires t ranslat ing all t echnology or knowledge
endeavors of t he organizat ion int o sust ainable t hroughput capabilit y building,
and an ownership of delivery. T he T hroughput Developer role requires a
syst ems t hinking perspect ive, and would have t o creat e inf rast ruct ure and
processes t hat guarant ee qualit y, cost , and delivery commit ment s t o t he
cust omer.

How t hese roles engage and dialogue wit h each ot her def ined t he nat ure of
t ension of t he Invest ing process. The Critical question is – ‘When does the
Tension become dysfunctional? And what are its consequences?’

Tension 2: The Strategizing Tension

T he st rat egizing dialogue is rendered f unct ional by t wo key anchors or roles

wit hin t he T ension.
Role 3: The Business Architect (anchoring the Voice of Wealth)

T he Business Archit ect ’s role requires a cont inual review (decoding of t he

market universe) and evolving appropriat e business models and revenue
models f or t he organizat ion. Anchoring t he Voice of Wealt h, t his role requires
challenging and t ranslat ing market / cust omer realit ies int o a wealt h creat ion
cont ext .

T his role anchors t he St rat egizing process f rom t he wealt h perspect ive where
t he role-holder has t o manage, negot iat e, and examine t he expect at ions of
t he invest ing st akeholders. T he role-holder t hen builds a connect wit h
emergent market realit ies and part icipat e in t he process of creat ing a cogent
and convergent st rat egy spanning posit ioning, pricing, branding, penet rat ing,
and designing a business model.

Role 4: The Business Developer (anchoring the Voice of the Customer)

T he Business Developer role co-holds t he St rat egizing T ension by bringing in

crit ical insight s of t he evolving and dynamic market realit ies. T he role behavior
of t he Business Developer includes invest ing int o processes such as market
scanning, market int elligence gat hering, selling approaches, and import ant ly
compet it ion analysis.

Scanning t he market s f or example requires t he role-holder t o engage wit h

crit ical st akeholders including compet it ion, alliances, prospect s, and
cust omers. T he Business Developer role demands explicat ing and
communicat ing back t o t he Wealt h st akeholders – all emerging t rends,
challenges, and dilemmas conf ront ed at t he cust omer int er-f ace.

Tension 3: The Improving Tension

T he Improving t ension links a dynamic universe of t he Cust omer (VoC) t o a

f airly rigid and st able commit ment t o a t hroughput t echnology (VoT ) in t he
medium t erm. Managing t his t ension becomes a key dif f erent iat or f or t he
organizat ion, as it cont inually grapples wit h an ever-changing f luid universe of
t he cust omer. T his t ension is enlivened by t wo roles anchored at each
universe.

Role 5: The Solution Designer (Voice of the Customer / Market)

T he role-holder is key t o underst and t he cust omer’s needs. T he Solut ion

Designer art iculat es t he lat ent cust omer needs, designs solut ions t hat deliver
t he requisit e value proposit ion t o t he cust omer, but wit hin t he exist ing
t echnology const raint s. T his role-holder is crit ical t o aligning exist ing delivery
capabilit ies t o t he evolving cust omer’s needs. T he Solut ion Designer’s f ocus
is t o help t he organizat ion cont inually improve t hrough an underst anding of t he
Cust omer’s realit y, needs, and cont ext .

Role 6: The Innovator (Voice of Technology)

At t he ot her end of t he t ension, anchored in t he Voice of T echnology is t he

role of t he Innovat or who enables t he organizat ion t o meet non-negot iable
cust omer specif icat ions in t erms of Qualit y Cost and Delivery. Wit hin t he
const raint s of exist ing t echnology and or t hroughput models, t he Innovat or
role is crucial t owards inst it ut ionalizing a cult ure of cont inual improvement .

Tension 4: The Valuing Tension

T he Valuing T ension links t he universes t he Shareholders (Voice of Wealt h)

wit h t he Voice of t he Employees. T his t ension seeks t o int egrat e t wo dif f erent
universes, and t o negot iat e cont rast ing perspect ives. T he ideal int ent would
be t o creat e an inst it ut ion where each individual or t eam creat es value and
f eels valued. T he t ension is co-held by t he f ollowing roles:

Role 7: The Organization Architect (Voice of Wealth)

T he Organizat ion Archit ect role explores and anchors key processes such as
Organizat ion Design and cult ure building. Anchored in t he Voice of Wealt h, t he
Role examines t he sust ainabilit y of generat ing wealt h f rom empowered and
valued employees.

If t he Business Modeling, Revenue Modeling, and Delivery Modeling were

owned by t he ot her t wo roles of Business and T echnology Archit ect , t his role
anchors t he modeling of design and t ransf ormat ion. It reinf orces a
Socializat ion and Values orient at ion as def ined by t he Wealt h st akeholders,
and seeks t o art iculat e t he nat ure of Policies and syst ems t hat support t he
Organizat ion Mission and Leadership. T he Organizat ion Archit ect is cont inually
grappling wit h t he pivot al query of “what is t he nat ure of organizat ion t hat we
would like t o creat e?”

Role 8: The Team Developer (Voice of Employee)

T he T eam Developer is a role t hat demands an underst anding of human

behavior at a delivery level along wit h an int ent t o invest and guide t he
individual / t eam t owards superior perf ormance. T he T eam Developer role
comes close t o t hat of being a Ment or, and being a role model—generat ing a
drive and creat ing an ambiance/inf rast ruct ure f or people t o grow and develop.
T he T eam Developer apart f rom being in t ouch wit h operat ional realit ies of
t oday, is t he crucial link t o t he aspired realit ies of t omorrow f or his report s.

Tension 5: The Serving Tension

T he Serving T ension is t he t ension linking t he Voice of t he Cust omer (int ernal

and ext ernal) and t he Voice of t he Employee. While t he Improving t ension links
T echnology t o t he Cust omer, t his t ension brings in t he human t ouch and t he
int erf ace bet ween t he supplier and t he cust omer; it becomes int egral t o t he
organizat ional capabilit y of delight ing it s cust omers. T he t wo roles t hat
anchor t he Serving T ension are:

Role 9: The Self-Developer (anchoring the Voice of the Employee)

Every employee wit hin t he organizat ion serves an int ernal or an ext ernal
cust omer. T he Self Developer role is f ocused on t he employee’s need t o
creat e and sust ain a relat ionship wit h t he cust omer by a commit t ed ef f ort on
developing self , and skills, knowledge, and capabilit ies. T he Self Developer
t racks and scans t he emerging cust omer needs and demands, and invest s
energy and t ime t o bring his or her abilit ies t o mat ch t hese t rends.

Role 10: The Customer Delighter (anchoring Voice of Customer)

T he Cust omer Delight er is a role where t he prime object ive is t o t ransf orm
every moment of t rut h int o a moment of delight f or t he int ernal / ext ernal
cust omer. T he role demands sensit ivit y t o t he needs of t he cust omer
universe and in examining where and how improvement s can be made when it
comes t o serving t he cust omer.

Tension 6: The Energizing Tension

T he Energizing T ension or Dialogue get s anchored by linking t he universe of

t he Employee (Voice of t he Employee) t o t he universe of T echnology (Voice
of T echnology). T his t ension examines how each employee is energized and
involved in his / her int erf ace wit h given t echnology or t hroughput st ruct ure.
T his t ension is co-held by t he t wo roles:

Role 11: The Craftsperson (anchoring the Voice of Technology)

T he Craf t sperson is a role t hat demands dedicat ion t o a given t echnology or
t hroughput expert ise. T he quest of t he Craf t sperson role is t o become a
mast er or a “guru” on a specif ic t echnology and t o evangelize t he craf t wit h
t he purpose of energizing ot hers. T he Craf t sperson role encompasses
behaviors such as t eaching, coaching, document ing, researching, and
mot ivat ing ot hers t o a given t echnology or a t hroughput model.

Role 12: The Team Player (anchoring the Voice of Employee)

T he T eam Player is a role t hat each individual get s t o play in t he process of

energizing t eams. It pert ains t o one’s behaviors in creat ing t eamwork and
openness wit hin t he syst em. Very of t en t he t eam player role enables
individuals t o check bureaucrat ic rules & regulat ions and disable silos. T he role
is legit imat e in bringing in empowerment , evocat ion, and a learning ambiance
wit hin t he syst em.

T he f igure below illust rat es t he t welve Nodal Roles and t he Role-based

T ensegrit y Mandala:
Summary

In t his art icle, we have evolved t he T ensegrit y Mandala as a syst emic

f ramework t hat allows t he reader t o examine and explore organizat ional
realit ies f rom a non-t radit ional perspect ive, and t o underst and t hat
Organizat ion Design is not about just t he invert ed t ree st ruct ure. Organizat ion
Design, as per t he T ensegrit y Mandala, is a process t hat ent ails a shared
underst anding of mult iple realit ies wit hin t he organizat ion, and how role-t aking
propensit ies wit hin t he organizat ion leads t o a t ransf ormat ional agenda.

We hope t hat you have joined us in ref lect ing over t he nat ure of healt h and
f unct ionalit y wit hin each t ension, and how role t aking wit hin t he organizat ion
around t he 12 key roles is crucial t o t he organizat ional equilibrium.

Notes

1. As per Wikipedia, Russian art ist Viat cheslav Koleichuk claimed t hat t he idea
of T ensegrit y was invent ed f irst by Karl Ioganson, Russian art ist of Lat vian
descent , who cont ribut ed some works t o t he main exhibit ion of Russian
const ruct ivism in 1921.

2. Mandala : man·da·la n. A geomet ric or pict orial design usually enclosed in a

circle, represent ing t he ent ire universe. It is used in medit at ion and rit ual in
Buddhism and Hinduism. Jungian psychology, a symbol represent ing t he self
and harmony wit hin t he individual, experienced t hrough t he int erplay of
opposing f orces.

3. Equilibrium: In sociology t his is known as t he equilibrium problem not ed by R.

Bales (1955). T he group solidarit y act s in opposit ion t o dif f erent iat ion and
divisor of labor necessary in adapt ing t o it s environment ; all groups are caught
in t ransient equilibrium result ing f rom t hese f orces. A st ruct ure most ef f ect ive
f or t he ends of t he group may not be most sat isf ying int erpersonally.

4. T here is t hen a t endency f or each role-f unct ion t o act as t hough it was at a
cent ral point on a “f lat -eart h”, rat her t han appreciat ing t hat it has t o deal wit h
“f unct ional roundness”—and t hat even t he most dist ant and apparent ly
“irrelevant ” are in no danger of “f alling of f ” an edge.

T his paper is an ext ract f rom a f ort hcoming book by t he aut hor.

About the Author

Gagandeep Singh is t he f ounding member and ex-Direct or of T AO Knoware.

An Alumnus of Indian Inst it ut e of Management (IIM) – Ahmedabad, and a
Fellow wit h Sumedhas Academy of Human Cont ext , Gagan works wit h global
and Indian organizat ions on Alignment , St rat egy, and Organizat ional
T ransf ormat ion. He has consult ed wit hin t he Inf ormat ion T echnology indust ry
and t he Pharmaceut ical indust ry where organizat ions are consolidat ing t heir
global leadership. He is a visit ing f acult y t o IIM Ahmedabad, FLAME, and IMDR
Pune, and is a Consult ant t o Nat ional Inst it ut e of Design (NID). He also brings
in expert ise in t he areas of market ing, sales, and sales syst ems. He has been
a t rainer in t he area of management development f or many blue-chip
companies. Gagan f ocuses on t he processes of organizat ion alignment and
cult ure. Gagan specializes in t he areas of St rat egy, and Market ing. He can be
cont act ed at gagan@t ot allyalignedorganizat ion.com

T weet
Facebook
LinkedIn