Chaordic Organizations

The founding CEO of Visa International, Dee Hock, coined the term "chaordic" to challenge people to think differently about the nature of organization, and to think about what else might be possible if we put our minds to it.

Over the years, I have heard the term used and abused in more ways than I care to count. There is no "correct" definition, of course.  That was part of Dee's intent.  He was wanting to coin a term that had no "baggage", and around which a healthy debate could organize itself. I still cringe when I hear someone talk about "chaordics", or anytime anyone capitalizes the "C", as if there is a new body of knowledge that we merely have to "follow" to be on the right track. In my experience, nothing is further from the truth.

Still, I periodically use the term because, for me, it carries a key notion better than any word that I have run across:

The inherent power of systems that embody the harmonization of opposites.

This may sound a little abstract, but I mean it quite precisely and pragmatically.  An organization that embodies both cooperation and competition, without weakening either, for example, has far greater potential than one that emphasizes one over the other.  Visa International was able to avoid antitrust litigation for as long as it did because it enhanced competition among the banks, even as they were cooperating on the development of the infrastructure through which they competed, and even though they commonly owned the service marks.

They are many people who can explain better why this all is true, so I'd like to add here only a few observations that I find useful to keep in mind:

• Harmonization does not mean "blending".  It is important that the opposites remain distinct, and have their own growth dynamic.
• It's ideal if the opposites are both valuable in their own right.  That is, pain and well-being may be opposites, and a system that harmonizes the two may "work", but I'm not sure I'd race to participate in it.  On the other hand, the U.S. Constitution sought to harmonize individual rights and the rights of communities.  Both are undeniably important, and if one is emphasized at the expense of the other, things often go awry.
• It is common that the opposites give rise to each other, or are embedded in each other.  The system are often "fractal", themselves a harmonization of distinct boundaries and permeable boundaries.
• The balance of opposites dynamic, and differs from place to place. Their is not an "optimal" balance. The systems tend to feel more organic than mechanical.