The concept of intersecting organizations holds many implications—especially regarding numbers. Boulding indicates that the problems of measurement and evaluation associated with the Intersect organization will become even more common in the future. We are likely to find more of Rumsfeld’s fourth condition where we are unaware that we have no idea as to how intersect success might best be assessed. When these problems of measurement in Intersects are compounded by Rumsfeld’s condition four ignorance, then skepticism regarding clearly perceived and measured realities will arise and expertise is in trouble. The new reality in the Intersect organization is the communication (and collectively constructed reality) that occurs among members of the various constituencies that are incorporated within and served by the organization. Measurement is a negotiated matter and outcomes are perceived similarly from a negotiated perspective. Expertise in the areas of conflict management and problem solving are needed—not traditional expertise in areas of assessment. Dragons of the Internet are slain (or at least kept at bay) by engaging the four elements of what I call the Empowerment Pyramid: communication, conflict management, problem-solving and decision-making (Bergquist, 2004).
Some coaching expertise can also be of great value—especially when coupled with leadership development training. Kenneth Boulding suggested that the Intersect organization must be led and managed in ways that are somewhat different from those used in more traditional organizations. There are often multiple stakeholders (even several different boards that provide guidance), as well as multiple (and at times contradictory) sets of goals, purposes and organizational values. Put simply, the new reality in the Intersect organization is the communication that occurs among members of the various constituencies that are incorporated within and served by the organization. The intersect itself is nothing more (or less) than the messages being sent across boundaries that exist among the diverse constituencies in the intersect. Expertise regarding the social construction of reality and the role of narrative in human relationships can be of great value.
Challenges of the Intersect Organization
Elsewhere (Bergquist, 1993), I have suggested that contemporary organizations must have clear intentions, for they are likely to have unclear boundaries. This being the case, the Intersect organization must be particularly concerned about intentions, given its shattering of traditional boundaries. Leadership of the Intersect Organization must devote a considerable amount of time to communicating about their intentions and to building a consensus regarding mission and purposes among its diverse constituencies and governing board members. This might very well be the place where valid and useful expertise is of greatest value. According to Boulding, intersect managers need mediation and negotiation skills and will rarely be able to make much use of traditional decision-making or problem-solving processes of a rational or linear nature. Experts are needed Hatfill need not apply.
Late in the 20th Century, John Goodman and Gary Loveman (1991) suggested yet another central issue in the management of Intersect organizations—or more precisely, in their case, public functions that have been privatized. This is the blending of public interest and private benefit. They note that “neither public nor private managers will always act in the best interests of their shareholders. Privatization will be effective only if private managers have incentives to act in the public interest, which includes, but is not limited to, efficiency.” (Goodman and Loveman, 1991, p. 28) Thus, if an Intersect leader is to be effective, she must be given the freedom (that is found in private sector organizations) to manipulate the reward systems within the organization to achieve results. Legitimate experts can apply.
