The organization-as-iceberg as a counter-metaphor

Abstract

Collier, 2013;Cummins, 2001) as well as practitioner simplifications for disseminating complex system thinking (Kim, 1999). It has recently resurfaced in 'Theory U' approaches to organizational learning and development (Scharmer and Kaufer, 2013).In most popular introductions to organizational behaviour (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011: 479-80; Mullins and Chrysty, 2010: 4-9), and similarly popular introductions to change management (Senior and Fleming, 2006: 138/139), the iceberg figures prominently as a means of re-focusing attention onto: 'covert, behavioural' as well as the 'overt, formal' dimension of organizations; the powerful impact the former elements have; the dangers of failing to understand and attend to their consequences, as they are 'often hidden and resistant to change' (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2011: 479); and the difficulties in detection given that the characteristics are 'mainly hidden', 'rarely talked about' and one has to 'guess' at how large it is and its significance. In popular parlance the implication of the iceberg metaphor is to highlight the 'hidden' nature of the tacit, informal and covert dimensions of organizational life, and the 'dangerous' consequences of a failure to appreciate its depth and significance. As Senior and Fleming (2006: 139) note, the 'difficulties in detecting the extent and characteristics of the hidden part of the iceberg are analogous to the difficulties encountered in examining and understanding the more informal, hidden aspects of organizational behaviour ' and, as Mullins and Chrysty (2010: 4) remark, citing Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman (1998: 5), 'What sinks ships isn't always what sailors can see, but what they can't see.' Rick (2014; 2015) reinforces the Titanic icon, in warning that seemingly well-planned and structured 'unsinkable' change interventions often founder after 'collision' with the less visible and not considered bulk of the organization that lies beneath the surface.