Over the last 5 weeks, I’ve writtem about Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior, and we’ve covered a good deal of ground. I’d like to close this series of articles by pointing to some controversial implications of these laws. Some of these are uncomfortable. I’ve kept this post short so as not to muddle the message with too many words.
Here are some of the more unexpected or controversial implications of Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior:
1. Culture Is Subordinate to Structure
- Controversial Implication: One of the most controversial implications of Larman’s Laws is that culture does not lead organizational change—structure does. According to the fourth law (“Culture follows structure”), attempts to change culture without addressing structural issues are futile. This contradicts the common management view that “culture eats strategy for breakfast” and that building a strong culture leads to long-term organizational success. Larman argues that cultural change can only follow structural changes, a view that challenges many leadership strategies that focus on changing attitudes and behaviors first.
2. Middle Management Often Resists Progress
- Unexpected Insight: Larman’s Laws imply that middle management tends to preserve the status quo because they are embedded in power structures that give them control. This suggests that middle managers are often the greatest barriers to innovation, even if the organization’s leadership and workforce are willing to change. This is controversial because it casts middle managers—often seen as vital to organizational operations—in a somewhat negative light, as agents of inertia rather than enablers of progress.
3. Superficial Agile Adoptions Are the Norm
- Controversial Implication: Larman’s first law (“Organizations are implicitly optimized to avoid changing the status quo”) suggests that most Agile transformations are superficial by design. Many organizations adopt Agile practices on the surface—holding standups, using Kanban boards—but fail to implement the deeper structural changes necessary for Agile to succeed. This suggests that most “Agile” companies are not truly Agile but are instead engaging in a form of organizational theater to appear adaptive and innovative.
4. Change Initiatives Are Often Doomed
- Unexpected Conclusion: Because any structural change threatens the existing power dynamics, as stated in Larman’s second law (“Any change initiative draws criticism from those whose power or status is threatened”), most change initiatives are likely to face resistance from powerful stakeholders. This suggests that even well-intentioned and well-planned change initiatives have a high likelihood of failure unless they are accompanied by efforts to reconfigure the power structure.
5. Agile May Not Be Possible in Large, Bureaucratic Organizations
- Controversial Insight: Larman’s Laws suggest that true Agile transformations may be incompatible with large, hierarchical organizations. Bureaucratic structures are optimized for stability, control, and predictability, which are antithetical to the principles of Agile. Thus, Larman’s Laws imply that Agile will only ever thrive in smaller, flatter, and more adaptable organizations, and that large corporations adopting Agile may struggle indefinitely without significant structural overhauls.
6. Leadership’s Role in Change Is Limited
- Unexpected Perspective: Larman’s Laws imply that even the best leadership may not be enough to bring about true change. Leaders often push for Agile or other transformative practices, but if the organization’s structure is optimized for the status quo, leadership efforts may not have the impact they desire. This challenges the view that transformational leadership alone can drive significant organizational change.
7. Agile May Lead to Disempowerment
- Controversial Outcome: Another controversial outcome is that Agile transformations, especially when poorly implemented, may lead to the disempowerment of both managers and employees. While Agile is supposed to promote team autonomy and empowerment, the resistance from middle management and the failure to change underlying structures can create confusion and dissatisfaction, resulting in employees feeling more disempowered than before.
Larman’s Laws highlight the difficulties inherent in organizational change, especially in environments with entrenched power dynamics and rigid structures. These laws challenge many traditional views on leadership, culture, and change management, making them a source of debate within the organizational theory and Agile communities.
Postscript: I thought that I had finished with Larmans laws, but was was haunted by older ideas that lurked in the background like ghostly figures on the periphery. I decided to continue exploring these ideas by pulling my ghosts into the light of day. So, next week I'll continue with Conways Law.