THE FISHER PARADIGM©™

The Fisher Paradigm © ™
Organizational Development1

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

Noun. Grammar. Any of a class of words naming or denoting a person, place, thing, action or quality.

Intuition. The direct knowing or learning of something without conscious use of reasoning; immediate understanding.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary (2001)

* * *

The Fisher Paradigm©™ is anchored in the nominative case, or noun -- name of a person, place or thing - with the verb or action implied from the analysis of the subject.

* * *


ABSTRACT – OD is not HR!

The Fisher Paradigm © ™ is a diagnostic tool that is primarily intuitive. It is cognitive in the sense that it describes problems but mainly intuitively from a meta-rational basis. It provides a descriptive blueprint for meaningful intervention. Stated differently, there are no algorithmic verifications, yet it is an authentic organizational development (OD) diagnostic tool. It is not the mind that disrupts or destroys an organization but its mindset or culture.

* * *

The purpose of an organization is what it does. Purpose relates to strategy. What it does relates to tactics. Both are essential to organizational success, but they are not the same.

OD is a strategic tool leveraged to realize operational success and therefore fulfill organizational purpose.

HR is a tactical tool concerned with organizational practices such as policies and procedures, rules and regulation, motivation and morale, job descriptions and performance standards, training and development, authority and discipline, or operational protocol supportive to organizational purpose.

OD grew out of a need to bring oversight into tactical operations, as purpose got lost in counterproductive activities.

HR grew out of human relations and human rights in the management of operating personnel.

* * *

Over the last half century of the twentieth century, the complex organization realized unfettered growth and development without a clear understanding of its shifting character (personality), changing construction (geography) and transforming culture (demographics), and therefore sustaining viability.

What is called “work” today has been revolutionized from being primarily brawn or manual doing to essentially brain or strategic thinking. What is called “management” has matured from being primarily giving orders and assessing performance to being redundant.

So, in the twenty-first century, managers are basically atavistic and management, per se, is effectively anachronistic. The fact that manpower is managed, manipulated, motivated and mobilized with little change over the previous century, other than cosmetically, illustrates the severity of the problem.

In today’s complex organization, there is a discernible breach between what an organization does (purpose) and what it accomplishes (performance).

* * *

OD evolved rather than being systemically designed, developed, marketed and implemented into the system as a strategic organizational tool. Instead, OD has become an appendage of and subordinate to the function of HR. The consequence of this slipshod accretion has been to find OD underused or misused as a tactical function at the expense of its strategic mission.

OD is a terminal function (purpose) whereas HR is an instrumental value (activity).

OD is a qualitative assessment tool that looks at people, places and things, as well as management, objectively vis-à-vis organizational purpose, whereas HR is a quantitative evaluative process that looks at workers and management subjectively vis-à-vis operational indices (hiring/firing, placement, training & development, goals and objectives).

HR is an insider discipline with its client operations via senior management. OD is an outsider discipline with its client the organization via operations.

HR, in practice, reflects the values of current management. OD, in practice, reflects the values of the accrued organizational mindset (culture).

HR is primarily cognitive and quantitative; OD is primarily intuitive, counterintuitive and qualitative.

HR uses critical thinking to solve problems; OD uses creative thinking to complement critical thinking in solving problems.

The “Morality Principle” (dependent management) as surrogate parent guides HR, whereas the “Reality Principle” (interdependent management) as the adult guides OD. The consequences of this disparity in manager-worker relationships are that HR has been prone to unwittingly sponsor the “Culture of Comfort” (management dependent) or “Culture of Complacency” (submissive management) in its quest to realize the “Culture of Contribution” (purposeful management).

HR revolves around instrumental relations (policies); OD revolves around terminal values (performance).

* * *

The task of OD is to establish a mnemonic culture that operates intuitively with overt synchronicity in support of the organization’s strategic goals. OD does this by assessing the cultural system in terms of its efficacy in support of its mission. Counterintuitive thinking suggests that if any one phase of the system is operating as well as it might than the overall system is unlikely to perform as well as it should. HR in its awards programs inadvertently promotes this discrepancy.

* * *

Organizational culture in the complex organization is critical since the structure of work determines the function of work; the function of work creates the workplace culture; the workplace culture predicates organizational behavior; and organizational behavior determines performance levels.

* * *

Culture represents the conscience or mindset of the organization. Since culture is an irrational and subjective aspect of organizational life, it requires tools that are familiar and comfortable with unobtrusive exploration of operations. The Fisher Paradigm©™ is such a tool. It bridges critical thinking, what we already know with creative thinking, what we don’t know but can find out, and applies them in practical economic interventions.

* * *

The complex organization has been placed at risk by relying solely on critical thinking and cognitive reasoning, which has found it often spinning out of control into crisis management schemes, reacting to organizational issues rather than identifying and dealing with chronic problems.

The Fisher Paradigm ©™ identifies the unconscious mindset of the organizational culture, which is often the site of conscious operational discord. It explores the conscious organization (personality) to uncover the organization’s collective unconscious (essence), which is teleological influence on the character and performance of the organization by assessing and calibrating these two forces to see if they are supportive and synergistic, or not. .

* * *

1 The Fisher Paradigm © as of October 10, 2002 has sought copyright protection. The Fisher Paradigm™ has also trademark certification protection for “consulting and advisory services with respect to infrastructure organizational development in commercial, educational, industrial, military, government and religious institutions as well as for individuals therein and separate from same.” No one may use The Fisher Paradigm©™ or a variation of it in writing or application without the expressed written approval of the author and The Delta Group Florida. Licensing agreements are available as well as application seminars in the innovative use of this design by contacting The Delta Group Florida, 6714 Jennifer Drive, Temple Terrace, FL 33617, Phone/Fax: (813) 989 –3631, or by cell phone (813) 990 – 7472, or by email: TheDeltaGrpFL@cs.com.