“It is not the components of a system that generate the properties and behavior of a system, but
the relations among the components that do. It is the swirling mass of relationships within and
among the elements that matter.”
Stem Cells as Metaphor
Implications for Organizations and
Organization Development
By Steven W. Page
Stem cells are a useful metaphor for
organizations. The metaphor evokes a
conception of organizations as a pattern
of relationships established to create
value. The pattern of relationships that
is established, in turn, determines the
forms of value that are created. This model
addresses gaps in our understanding of
organizations and OD. It provides a rationale for how value is created collectively. It
also integrates critical human, social, and
cultural factors involved in value creation.
In what follows, I first present a model of
organizations. Then I develop the stem
cell metaphor, translating the properties
that stem cells possess to the context of
organizations. The article concludes with
the implications for OD and a look at the
strengths of the metaphor.
A Model of Organizations
Mary Jo Hatch (1997) has provided a useful model of organizations (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Structure of an Organization
The model characterizes
organization structure
as a dynamic pattern of
holistic relations.
Adapted and modified from M. J. Hatch (1997 p. 15)
Stem Cells as Metaphor: Implications for Organizations and Organization Development
29
Table 1: Structural Elements of Two Different Organizations
Structural Element
Small Town Church
Multinational Corporation
Physical Structure
Stand-alone church
Geographically dispersed office buildings
(Core) Technology
Spiritual guidance, religious instruction
and services, charitable efforts
Financial services
Social Structure
Hierarchical, authoritarian, specialized
church personnel plus unspecialized
congregation
Matrix, decentralized, networked, encompassing
thousands of employees and tens of thousands of
shareholders
Organizational Culture
Based on shared religious beliefs and
practices; dedication to spiritual wellbeing of parishioners
Based on shared identification as part of a particular
business organization, common practices and policies;
dedicated to increasing profitability and share price
Organizational Environment
Local small town
Global
Hatch distinguishes five broadly conceived
structural elements that together form the
overall structure of an organization: physical structure, technology, social structure,
culture, and the organizational environment. This overall structure, comprising
both tangible and intangible elements,
forms a complete organizational system.
Table 1 illustrates how this generalized model applies to two specific but very
different types of organizations: a local
small town church and a large publicly held
multinational corporation in the financial
services sector.
This conception of an organization
reinforces important notions about value
creation that have been largely neglected
in management and organization research.
One such notion is value creation as a complex collective enterprise (Bridoux, Coeurderoy, & Durand, 2011). This model also
explicitly recognizes the critical human,
social, and cultural factors in value creation
that have been neglected at the firm level of
analysis (Kianfar, Milana, & Smith, 2010).
The structural elements that comprise
an organization are mutually influential
and ultimately inseparable. They are in
constant interaction. It is the elements
plus the interactions that constitute an
organization. A fundamental insight from
systems theory undergirds this model. It
is not the components of a system that
generate the properties and behavior of
a system, but the relations among the
components that do. It is the swirling
mass of relationships within and among
the elements that matter. An organization
30
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 44 No. 2 2012
reduced to simply these elements, and
absent the mutually influential relationships among them, is something considerably less than an organization.
This understanding of organizations is
still not commonly reflected in the literature. Clegg and Hardy (1996) note a clear
division in the field of organization studies
reflected among all the contributions to
The Handbook of Organization Studies. They
observed that contributions fell into either
structuralist or culturalist camps, with
each failing to account for the other. Other
scholars have noted the same division
(Lane, 2001). The structuralists stress organization structure yet downplay the agency
of people. The culturalists emphasize
people and their cultures and the centrality
of actors and action to organizational life.
Both perspectives are accommodated by
Hatch’s model and the stem cell metaphor,
which integrate actors and action with
organization structure.
The environment is considered an
integral component of an organization’s
structure in this model. It surrounds and
encompasses the other components. It is
therefore not limited to an organization’s
“internal environment.” An organization
is dynamically related to a broader environment. The broader environment of course
includes the competitive environment
populated by other organizations in which
an organization participates, but also the
local environment in which the organization operates, and the natural environment accessed by and affected by the
organization.
Stakeholders are part of organization structure. It should be noted that in
Figure 1 Society appears as a component
of the environment. Society is subsumed
as an element of the environment in
Hatch’s model. I have singled it out and
added it to the model to highlight its
increased prominence in our thinking
about organizations. To be relevant today,
any model of an organization should
encompass all of an organization’s stakeholders (Sachs, Groth, & Schmitt, 2010;
Schneider, 2002). Society is increasingly
considered a stakeholder, and the environment, if not actually a stakeholder, is
also being increasingly accounted for in
the stakeholder approach (Henriques &
Sadorsky, 1999; Phillips & Reichart, 2000;
Polonsky, 1999). The most commonly
agreed upon definition of stakeholders
suits the model of organizations considered here: stakeholders as the groups and
individuals who can affect or be affected
by the organization (Freeman, Harrison,
Wicks, Parmar, & de Colle, 2010).
By considering the various elements
that comprise an organization and stressing their mutually influential and interdependent patterns of relations, we sense
what the structure of an organization really
is. It is not composed of discreet parts and
solid boundaries. Rather, an organization’s
structure is a dynamic pattern of holistic relationships. This is a view of organizations as
organizing. An organization’s structure is
a plurality of elements that occur together
as depicted in Figure 1. None of the elements is ever absolutely stable. It is the
pattern of co-occurrence of the elements
and the shifting interrelationships among
them—all of them—as they co-adapt,
which defines the overall structure of an
organization.
The functioning rodent heart I saw
started out as a heart that had been thoroughly drained of all specialized cells. This
left only a white gelatinous heart shaped
structure that was quite dead. By introducing the stem cells to the heart structure,
A Description of Stem Cells
the cells were induced to do what comes
naturally to them. They set upon a course
In January 2008, stem cells made newspa- of becoming increasingly specialized (the
per, TV, radio and internet news all over the process of differentiation), resulting evenworld with headlines such as “Researchers tually in a reconstituted and beating heart.
Grow a Beating Heart” (Greenfieldboyce,
Scientists are now able to induce
2008) and “‘Spare part heart’ beats in lab”
something akin to the reverse of the
(BBC News, January 13, 2008). Sensationprocess of increasing specialization.
ally overstated as this sounds, I myself
Specialized adult cells can actually be
visited the lab of Doris Taylor, PhD, the
“reprogrammed” genetically to assume a
Director of the Center for Cardiovascular
pre-specialized stem cell-like state. This
Repair at the University of Minnesota,
new type of stem cell is referred to as
who along with her colleague Harald Ott,
induced pluripotent stem cells.
MD, led the research effort resulting in the
Stem cells serve to repair and regenerheadlines. At Dr. Taylor’s lab I witnessed
ate. “Aging,” Dr. Taylor said, “is a failure
one of the most incredible sights of my life. of stem cells.” Stem cells help to keep our
Suspended in a tall narrow cylindrical glass organs and tissues healthy by repairing
container was a beautiful pink living, beat- damage, even regenerating new tissue and
ing rodent heart. It was from Dr. Taylor that organs. With these properties, the ability to
I learned most of what I present here about induce already specialized cells to become
stem cells. Table 2 (next page) lists the
unspecialized holds immense promise. If I
properties of stem cells and implications
have a critical problem with my own heart,
for organizations and OD. The properties
for instance, then it may be possible to
are discussed in more detail in the followreprogram adult cells from my heart to deing section.
differentiate into stem cell-like cells. These
One property in particular marks
cells from my own heart should be able to
stem cells as remarkably different from all
then get to work specializing to repair damother cell types. Stem cells are not specialage and regenerating tissue without any
ized. Each of the more than 200 other cell
threat of rejection.
types found in the adult human body are
All of these special properties of stem
specialized, playing a specific role in form- cells have important implications for orgaing muscle tissue or a particular organ,
nizations and the practice of OD, covered
a neuron, skin, bone, etc. Stem cells are
in the next section. But first, there is even
highly plastic. They are able to differentiate, more to appreciate about stem cells. Not
or turn into, these other specialized cell
only are stem cells an unspecialized pool
types. This is what is meant when stem
of potential able to become other types of
cells are referred to as potent (all terms in
cells, but they are capable of dividing and
italics appear in Table 2). Stem cells begin
renewing themselves for far longer periods
as potential, not yet serving a specialized
of time than specialized cells. Stem cells
function as do all the other types of cells
have a remarkable capacity to self-renew and
surrounding them. Stem cells can remain
increase their number. They get used, but
in a quiescent, meaning non-dividing,
they do not get used up. When a stem cell
unspecialized state for many years. When
divides, it either divides into a couple of
stimulated, or induced, they can proliferate,
new stem cells, or, when a specialized cell
increasing their number by creating other
type is needed, it divides into one stem cell
stem cells. Or they can be induced to speand another cell. This other cell, as Dr. Taycialize into cells needed for maintenance
lor put it, “commits,” meaning it starts off
or repair.
down the path of specialization. Through
this process, we get specialized cells on an
as-needed basis, and stores of stem cells
are replenished and remain available for
future needs.
Stem Cells in an Organization
What is the equivalent of stem cells for an
organization? What in any organization
serves as a pool of readily available potential that can be stimulated to specialize in
order to maintain, repair, regenerate and
even reanimate an organization?
Commitment and structure. To
describe how stem cells go from being
potential to something specialized, Dr. Taylor explained how stem cells are induced
to “commit.” The specializing, repairing,
and regenerating come later; commitment comes first. Commitment requires
something specific and concrete to commit
to. In the case of the reanimated rodent
heart, stem cells committed to the heart
structure that had been drained of cells.
What they specialized into was entirely
dictated by the heart structure. What is
akin to stem cells for an organization is,
like stem cells, something that is unspecified and unspecialized, mere potential until
it is committed to a particular structure—a
particular organization structure. The organization structure determines the course
of commitment.
Stem cells at work in organizations:
potential value becomes created value.
All organizations are constituted and
sustained in order to create value. This
is true however value is construed in any
particular instance. Without the intent to
create something of value, an organization has no purpose to exist. And without
actually creating sufficient value—value
greater than the opportunity cost of all the
tangible and intangible resources used—an
organization will cease to exist (Khurana &
Nohria, 2008). An organization may get off
the ground through sheer moxie and ample
funding, but it will inevitably fail unless
it actually turns intent to create value into
real created value.
Value as used here assumes two
distinct states. First, it is an intention; it
is potential. As potential value, value is in
a pre-formed state. Potential value is the
Stem Cells as Metaphor: Implications for Organizations and Organization Development
31
Table 2: Unique Properties of Stem Cells and Implications for Organizations and OD
Unique
Properties
of Stem Cells
Unspecialized
Implications/Relevance
For Stem Cells
For Organizations
For OD
Stem cells are potential; not
(yet) having turned into a
specialized cell type.
Value exists in potential form before it
specializes to become particular forms
of created value.
Look beyond current forms of created value
and current structure to consider value
and structure afresh. Things can always be
different than as they are currently.
Each structural element of the
organization accesses potential value.
And each structural element plays a
fundamental role in determining the
created forms of value.
Potential value can be tapped and value
creation channeled along a different path by
changes to the structure of the organization.
However, unquestioned or unquestionable
values and assumptions - hidden or explicit can severely limit options for real change.
What are these values and assumptions? Do
they need to be made explicit? Can they be
“reprogrammed” or modified to serve needed
change?
Potent: able to
turn into other
cell types
The specialized form they
eventually take is not
predetermined. They can
become whatever type of cell is
required.
Value creation can be other than it
currently is.
The possible forms potential value
may take are not predetermined. The
structure of the organization is the
determining factor.
Take an honest look at the value created and
the structure of the organization. They are
tightly coupled.
How is the particular structure of the
organization determining the kind of value
created?
Organizational structure is also not
predetermined.
Is more or less of a certain kind of created
value what is required? Completely new kinds
of value? What structural changes would this
require?
Able to
differentiate:
able to specialize
A stem cell undergoes a multistage process to turn into a
particular specialized cell type
Organizational structure determines
the path potential value takes to
become particular forms of created
value. Value only takes on the form
that the structure allows.
When it is decided that change to the
organizational structure is required, the
interrelationships among structural elements
must be considered. It must not be forgotten
that change to any structural element affects
the whole system’s pattern of relationships.
Beware unintended consequences of
structural changes to one element affecting
value created by other elements.
Able to commit
When called to action,
they set off on a particular
developmental trajectory,
eventually becoming a
specialized cell type.
Organizational structure is determined
by making committed choices deliberate and conscious, or otherwise.
The organizational structure, in turn, is
what potential value commits to.
Determine the various kinds of value created
by the organization. How are various types of
value ranked in terms of more and less valued
forms? Who benefits from the created value?
Which stakeholders do not?
Can be induced
to specialize
Incoming signals stimulate
them to start to specialize,
and signals continue to prod
them to keep the process of
specialization going.
Signals sent by and determined by
the organizational structure cause
potential value to specialize into
particular forms.
What are the action inducing signals sent by
the organizational structure? What different
signals need to be sent if more or less of
certain kinds of value or different kinds of
value need to be created?
continued next page
32
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 44 No. 2 2012
Table 2 continued
Unique
Properties
of Stem Cells
Proliferate
Able to be
derived from
adult cells-to
become induced
pluripotent stem
cells
Implications/Relevance
For Stem Cells
For Organizations
For OD
They increase their number by
dividing into more stem cells
that remain unspecialized.
Stress can inhibit the process,
and some comforting and
awareness increasing practices
can stimulate it.
For whatever need, potential value
can remain ever available - potential
begets more potential.
Is creation of the kind of value desired by the
organization being inhibited by the active
and collaborative construction of value killing
practices, attitudes, and beliefs?
Non-stem cells can be induced
to mimic the unique properties
of stem cells. They can then
serve to heal, cure, and
regenerate tissues and organs
just like stem cells.
By suspending existing assumptions,
and ties to particular policies,
practices, and other structural
elements, new forms of value creation
can be considered and made possible.
Potential value will replicate and
remain available unless stress crosses
a critical threshold and constrains or
kills replication.
Has the amount of stress due to uncertainty,
conflict, or the inability to adapt to changing
circumstances - inside and outside the
organization - crossed a critical threshold to
become damaging?
Transformational change is always a
possibility.
How can leadership be assisted to assume a
fresh perspective? Asses the degree to which
experience can be set aside by leadership and
others in the organization to consider and
effect fundamental change.
Is the organization ready and willing to make
an honest analysis and consider alternatives
and deep structural change if required?
Able to
self-renew
indefinitely
They remain perpetually fresh
and available by dividing into
genetically identical copies
when they are needed.
Once value specializes into particular
forms, it is no longer plastic and
available as potential, but a pool of
potential value is still readily available.
If the organization is unable to set aside
commitments to current forms of created
value and current structural constraints, it
cuts off any signals that lead potential value
to take on any other forms than it already
does. The pool of potential value will be
refreshed, but if change is needed, potential
value will still commit to the outmoded
structure. The pool of potential value could
be available to take on whole other forms of
created value if allowed.
Able to repair and
heal and stave
off debilitating
effects of aging
Stem cells keep supplying fresh
healthy cells to maintain the
body in a healthy state or to
repair damage to restore the
body to a healthy state.
Capabilities can be built into the
organizational architecture to help the
organization remain resilient, nimble,
and adaptable.
Does the organization have mechanisms
in place to facilitate critical self-analysis?
Does the organization scan the internal and
external environment to spot opportunity and
trouble? Are strategies adaptable to changing
circumstances?
Does the organization encourage and practice
real participation, transparency, innovation?
Is critical information readily available to
people throughout the organization? All help
an organization to maintain viability, repair
and renew.
Able to
regenerate tissue
They specialize to repopulate
damaged tissue with healthy
cells, and even to regenerate
entire organs.
Deep structural change is the route to
transformational change. The value
that is created changes when the
structure changes, not vice-versa.
Dramatic change, even whole system
change, is always possible, but it requires
strong leadership. Alignment throughout
the organization for transformational
change is greatly facilitated when everyone
understands how value is created and
circulated. Everyone contributes to the
creation and circulation of value.
Running Foot
33
equivalent of stem cells in an organization.
There is also created value: actualized value
that started as potential value. In terms of
the stem cell metaphor, created value is
differentiated value. For potential value to
become created value, it undergoes a process akin to specialization by stem cells.
Created value is specialized value
derived from potential value. Just as the
introduction of stem cells to the rodent’s
heart structure led the stem cells to specialize in quite specific ways, the structure
of an organization causes unspecialized
potential value to differentiate into specialized value. Signals sent by the organization’s dynamic pattern of holistic relations
induce potential value to specialize into
specific forms of created value. Once
induced, the organization’s dynamic pattern of holistic relations channels the path
of value creation. Ideally, organization
structure leads potential value to differentiate into forms the organization needs to
survive and thrive.
The particular forms of value created
by an organization are those allowed by
the structure of the organization. Value
creation is not necessarily about wealth
creation, although that is certainly possible.
Value can be defined in innumerable terms
referring to both tangible and intangible
benefits. It can be measured in concrete
terms such as profit, revenue generation,
zero defects, return on investment, cure of
illness, or authoring legislation that gets
passed. Value can also be described in less
concrete terms that refer to things that
are not as easy to quantify, but every bit
as real, such as satisfaction, public order,
growth and learning, happiness, feeling
valued, a sense of accomplishment, or
justice. In all cases, whatever the intended
value may be, the intent to create value
meets an organization structure. Potential
value is channeled by the structure into the
particular forms of created value allowed by
the structure.
The Effect of Structure on Value
To quickly illustrate the fundamental effect
of structure on value creation, consider
the different structures of the local small
town church and large publicly held
34
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 44 No. 2 2012
multinational corporation presented in
Table 1. The environmental, cultural, technological, social, and physical elements all
come together in each case as completely
different dynamic patterns of relationships. The structures of both organizations
come into contact with potential value,
our metaphorical stem cells, and leads
potential value to specialize into quite different forms of created value. The actual
value created is vastly different in each
case because the structures are so vastly
different.
To provide but one example of the specialized value the different structures lead
to, consider profit. The church is dedicated
to the spiritual well-being of parishioners
and mainly engaged in the provision of
spiritual guidance, religious instruction
and services, and various charitable efforts
that serve the local community. The structure of the multinational financial services
firm, however, as it was designed to do,
induces value to specialize into dollars payable as dividends to holders of its publicly
traded shares and generous salaries and
bonuses paid to the CEO and other top
leaders. The church could no more choose
to hand out dividend checks to shareholders than the multinational could decide to
please its stakeholders by simply sending
them home feeling spiritually uplifted.
Value takes on different form in each as
structure allows for each.
specialized forms that value will take. If
this is our intention, it is important to
pursue change at the level of deep structure
that forces the overall pattern of holistic
relationships to change. The actions we
take to effect major change may prove fruitless, however, if unquestioned or unquestionable values and assumptions limit our
options. Actions then may actually conspire
to keep the current structure essentially
intact. This would amount to rearranging
the furniture but sticking to the same floor
plan. It is still the same structure; it just
looks substantially different on the surface.
Consider the case of the multinational
corporation, where a decision has been
made to shift from a short-term focus on
maximizing shareholder returns to a longterm focus on sustainability through the
delivery of customer-focused value. This is
a substantial shift in strategy that requires
deep and profound changes to structure,
particularly the cultural component. Simply
announcing the shift, no matter by whom,
how loud, and how often, will be ineffective unless accompanied by direct action to
change the overall pattern of relationships
that are determining the course that value
creation takes. Transforming culture entails
changes to incentives, policies and procedures, evaluations, the kinds of information that get stored and tracked, and the
information technology used and how it
is used. Stories also have to change along
with organizational language, and the
Organization Change and Transformation: physical environment altered to reflect and
Implications for OD
facilitate changes.
As an alternative to reconfiguring
The stem cell metaphor leads us to constakeholder relationships, a firm may
sider why and how value creation could
choose to retain its current definition of
be other than it is for any organization. In
stakeholders while substantially changing
our bodies, a reserve of unspecialized stem core technological, cultural, physical, and
cells is always present. If we bear in mind
other social elements. This would cause
there is an ever present reserve of potential the value that accrues to stakeholders to
(not yet created) value available to an orgatake different forms. In either case, changnization, and that the structure of the orga- ing stakeholder relationships or keeping
nization determines how value specializes, the same stakeholders but making other
we quickly realize that we have choices. We structural changes, the stem cell metaphor
can choose to keep the current structure
encourages us to plan for deep structural
essentially intact, or channel value creation change, tap potential value, and commit.
along a different path, resulting in different
The stem cell metaphor leads us
forms of value being created.
to consider the strong force that links
We can change the structure of the
structure and value creation—the kind of
organization and thereby change the
value created, and for whose benefit value
is created. But what course of action does
the metaphor suggest when a structure is
solidly in place and values and assumptions have long gone subterranean or are
stubbornly clung to, sabotaging options for
substantial change?
Dr. Taylor suggested that one of the
possibilities for generating a healthy
human heart is to start with a pig heart,
which is about the same size as a human
heart, and repopulate it with human stem
cells. Because specialized cells always
steadily replace the structure, we would
eventually end up with a fully human heart.
pursuit of technological efficiency, it has
lost its focus on maximizing value for
customers. In this case, a deliberate effort
can be made to reprogram the organizational culture, highlighting customers as
the primary stakeholders and focusing
attention on the organization’s renewed
commitment to creating and delivering
customer value.
Dr. Taylor says, “Aging is a failure of
stem cells.” This simple statement says
powerful things about the way stem cells
work, and by implication, important things
for organizations to consider. Stem cells
The stem cell metaphor, particularly when combined with
Hatch’s model of organizations, focuses our gaze on areas
neglected in research and literature that merit further
exploration. These are the collective creation of value; the
inseparability of critical human, social, and cultural factors
from value creation; and how structure, culture, and the
agency of people integrate to create value in an organization.
It is a new metaphor for new times, which accommodates a
complex dynamic view of organizations.
In organization transformation, we need to
completely redefine the kind of value created, and totally reorient the organization
to do so.
We need to reprogram a mature
(already fully specialized) state to return to
a pre-specialized state. This is the equivalent of inducing pluripotent stem cells.
To achieve a pre-specialized stem cell-like
state, deep ties to the current structure and
current forms of specialized value must be
bracketed, or suspended, as far as possible.
Only then can we reconsider value from
its potential state. The metaphor can play
an important role in making structure
and created value explicit so they may be
considered afresh.
This may result in a decision to
“reboot” (or boot) a leader, a core process
or technology, a common perspective, or a
cultural value or assumption that no longer
serves. Perhaps one of the structural elements can be pressed into more valuable
service. This is helpful, for example, when
an organization realizes that in headlong
are incorporated right into the architecture
of our bodies. They can remain quiescent
for long periods of time, until they are
needed to assist with building, maintaining, or repairing. They are also capable
of proliferating and renewing themselves
over extremely long periods of time. These
unique properties of stem cells ensure that
their valuable capabilities remain available
wherever and whenever. Is it possible to
build readily available capabilities into the
structure of an organization that allow it to
continue to thrive through maintenance,
repair, and renewal as the natural course—
rather than through drastic episodic
reactions to crises? Such properties in an
organization make it resilient, nimble, and
adaptable over the long-term—conferring
unique competitive advantages.
Helping organizations to achieve such
a state is clearly a valuable service that
organization development practitioners
can strive to provide. Organizations can
develop capacities for ongoing self- analysis (Abbott, 1990; Barrett, 2006; Porter,
1980), the ability to spot trouble and take
corrective action (Landrum & Gardner,
2005; Teece, 2007), and develop responsive
adaptable strategies (Bate, 1996; Hamel &
Prahalad, 1994; Kaplan & Norton, 2008).
Structural elements can be changed to
stimulate greater levels of participation
and innovation (Dutta & Lawson, 2009;
Michelle & Christina, 2008; Van de Ven &
Poole, 1990), and to increase transparency
and information flow (Kontoghiorghes,
Awbre, & Feurig, 2005; Miniace & Falter,
1996). Such capacities, if made a part of
the organizational architecture, help an
organization to remain viable and prosper
through self-reflection and analysis, repair
and renewal.
Strengths of the Stem Cell Metaphor
The stem cell metaphor, particularly when
combined with Hatch’s model of organizations, focuses our gaze on areas neglected
in research and literature that merit further
exploration. These are the collective creation of value; the inseparability of critical
human, social, and cultural factors from
value creation; and how structure, culture,
and the agency of people integrate to create
value in an organization. It is a new metaphor for new times, which accommodates
a complex dynamic view of organizations.
It highlights the fundamental role that
structure plays in value creation, turning
potential value into actual value.
An organization is a dynamic pattern
of holistic relationships established to create value. Hatch’s model helps us to understand that a specific pattern emerges as a
function of the interplay of the structural
elements of the organization. The important developmental action is in this pattern
of holistic relationships. The dynamic
pattern of relationships along with the
structural elements from which it emerges
defines an organization’s structure. The
stem cell metaphor helps us to understand
why and how structure determines the particular forms of value created and to whom
value flows.
An organizational identity based on
the creation and circulation of value provides a common language that fosters an
integrated organizational identity. The stem
Stem Cells as Metaphor: Implications for Organizations and Organization Development
35
cell metaphor prompts a common understanding of what unites us as a coherent
complex organization, across diverse
individuals, teams, departments, dispersed
geographic locations, other organizations
in the environment, and society. At the
deepest level that unites us in an organization, we do not make widgets, or deliver a
particular service, or provide or enhance
an experience. We create and particularize
value, and spread it around.
The stem cell metaphor makes a
particularly optimistic case for the ability
of organizations to meet the challenges
of staying adaptable and thriving. There
are always options and there are always
choices that can be made when things are
not working out as planned and maintaining the status quo will no longer suffice.
The stem cell metaphor provokes us to
consider changing organization structure if
we desire to create different kinds of value
than we are currently accomplishing.
References
Abbott, A. (1990). A primer on sequence
methods. Organization Science, 1(4),
375-392.
Barrett, R. (2006). Building a values-driven
organization: A whole system approach
to cultural transformation. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bate, S. P. (1996). Towards a strategic
framework for changing corporate culture. Strategic Change, 5(1), 27-42.
Bridoux, F., Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R.
(2011). Heterogenous motives and the
collective creation of value. Academy of
Management Review, 36(4), 711-730.
Dutta, S. K., & Lawson, R. A. (2009).
Aligning performance evaluation and
reward systems with corporate sustainability goals. Cost Management, 23(6),
15-23.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A.
C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010).
Stakeholder theory: The state of the art.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Greenfieldboyce, N. (Producer). (2008).
Researchers grow a beating heart.
All Things Considered. [Radio interview] Retrieved from http://www.
36
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 44 No. 2 2012
npr.org/templates/story/story.
php?storyId=18023493
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994).
Competing for the future. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory:
modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The
relationship between environmental
commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 42(1),
87-99.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). The
execution premium: Linking strategy to
operations for competitive advantage.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time
to make management a true profession.
Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 70-77.
Kianfar, M., Milana, C., & Smith, H. L.
(2010). Assessing the real value of the
firm: an overview. Strategic Change,
19(3-4), 97-102. doi: 10.1002/jsc.861
Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbre, S. M., &
Feurig, P. L. (2005). Examining the
relationship between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational
performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 185-212.
Landrum, N. E., & Gardner, C. L. (2005).
Using integral theory to effect strategic change. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 18(3), 247-258.
doi: 10.1108/09534810510599407
Lane, D. C. (2001). Rerum cognoscere
causas: Part II—Opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate
and suggestions for clarifying the social
theoretic position of system dynamics.
System Dynamics Review, 17(4), 293-309.
doi: 10.1002/sdr.221
Michelle, B., & Christina, C. (2008).
Organizational change cynicism: The
role of employee involvement. Human
Resource Management, 47(4), 667-686.
Miniace, J. N., & Falter, E. (1996). Communication: A key factor in strategy
implementation. Strategy & Leadership,
24(1), 26-30. doi: 10.1108/eb054540
Steven Page has been involved in
international consulting, training, and management for over
20 years. He has a masters degree
in Organization and Management
Development, and has completed
work for a masters degree in
Human Development. He is currently in the dissertation phase
of a PhD in Human and Organization Systems at Fielding Graduate
University. He can be reached at
[email protected].
Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The
environment as stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business
Ethics, 23(2), 185-197.
Polonsky, M. J. (1999). The incorporation
of an interactive external environment:
an extended model of marketing relationships. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
7(1), 41-55.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competition: with a new introduction/Michael
E. Porter. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sachs, S., Groth, H., & Schmitt, R. (2010).
The stakeholder view approach: an
untapped opportunity to manage corporate performance and wealth. Strategic
Change, 19(3-4), 147-162. doi: 10.1002/
jsc.865
Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model
of organizational leadership. Organization Science, 13(2), 209-220.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic
capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise
performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 28, 1319-1350. doi: 10.1002/
smj.640
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1990).
Methods for studying innovation
development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program. Organization
Science, 1(3), 313-335.