The differentiation of many contemporary organizations is not confined to the private sector, let alone to fast-growing, high tech organizations. We also find ample evidence of stretch marks in contemporary public institutions. In describing his own governmental organization, one administrator with whom I am acquainted has observed that:
. . . it is as if this organization is a modern day chameleon. It is changing its colors in reaction to a hostile environment that seemingly is threatening its survival. The heart of the creature attempts to be modern with uniform, systematic and planned movements within its environment. However, its postmodern personality is jagged, fragmented and stems from its self-imposed reactions to the environment. This postmodern behavior doesn’t really endanger its life but does impact self pride and its ability to properly direct itself in serving its fellow chameleons.
. . . The problem facing the organization is mending the fragmentation with each other, between departments and across manager’s so-called “turfs.” They are learning how to be conscious and responsive of each other’s diverse needs. As one manager stated in a recent local managerial retreat, “We need to get a sense of what the rules are that we should be playing by. We need to develop a better appreciation of where we are.” That seems to be a statement of survival. . . . [T]his organization is confused and frightened. The state of fear generates reactiveness that creates additional internal chaos.
Small organizations and small towns are not immune if they have experienced rapid and unmanageable growth. A small-town hospital leader observes that her organization has grown dramatically during the last ten years and can no longer expand at its present location to meet growing, local health needs. This hospital has had to offer services through fourteen off-site centers. These widely distributed centers are difficult to administer, and coordination has become a nightmare. The same story is heard in many other organizations that have experienced rapid growth or are of large size.
Many utility companies have decentralized over the past several decades as a way of coping with massive size and complexity. Vice Presidents at these often massive utilities are asked to manage semi-autonomous organizations that are not easily coordinated from the top. Leadership in this highly decentralized structure requires the acquisition of new skills and new attitudes regarding accountability and freedom of choice. The same can be said for many large public corporations and government agencies. It is hard to hold the center in these massive “elephants” that don’t easily dance (Kanter, 1989).
We can move to an international level and find similar issues regarding size, growth, differentiation and integration. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, considerable attention was directed toward the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emerging autonomy of the Eastern European republics. In the late 1990s we witnessed a similar dissolution of national boundaries and movement toward splintering nationalism throughout the world (most notably in the Balkans). The center clearly did not hold in many of these nation-states—nor will the center hold in many contemporary organizations. The myth of bigness has been destroyed and growth is no longer considered to be the only or even primary pathway to efficiency and organizational prosperity. As Peter Drucker (1989, pp. 260-261) prophetically observed more than three decades ago:
