Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior

Written by

Sergio Caredda

Posted on

September 15, 2024

Edited on

September 15, 2024

Key Components of Larman’s Laws

Here are Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior in the words of the author. For each a short explanation and an analysis of the key implications. Although born in the context of Agile implementations, a lot of the observations of Larman can be traced down in many organizational experiences.

Fig.1: Larman’s Law of Organization Behavior

1. Organizations are optimized to avoid change

Organizations are implicitly optimized to avoid changing the status quo middle- and first-level manager and “specialist” positions & power structures. — Craig Larman (2012)

This law suggests that organizations, by their very nature, are resistant to changes that might disrupt existing power structures or cultural norms. Even when adopting new methodologies or structures (like agile), the underlying power dynamics and culture often remain unchanged, leading to superficial rather than deep transformation.

Implications: When trying to implement significant changes, such as transitioning to agile, leaders need to recognize that these changes may be resisted, not necessarily because the new methods are flawed, but because they threaten the existing power structures and cultural norms.

This concept is central to discussions in organizational change management, where the success of new initiatives often hinges on addressing deeper cultural and power-related issues.

2. Corollary: change initiatives reinforce status quo.

As a corollary to (1), any change initiative will be reduced to redefining or overloading the new terminology to mean basically the same as status quo. — Craig Larman (2012)

This law builds on the first, emphasizing that change initiatives often face resistance that is directly related to the extent to which they challenge or shift power within the organization. The greater the perceived threat to the existing power structure, the stronger the resistance.

Implications: Leaders and change agents need to be aware that significant organizational changes (such as adopting agile practices) may require deliberate efforts to manage resistance. This can involve engaging with those who hold power and addressing their concerns or finding ways to demonstrate how the changes can benefit them as well. Else the result is that change activities only become “superficial”, modifying terminology elements for example, but not addressing deep change.

3. Corollary: Imposed Change will lead to Decline in Morale

As a corollary to (1), any change initiative will be derided as “purist”, “theoretical”, “revolutionary”, "religion", and “needing pragmatic customization for local concerns” — which deflects from addressing weaknesses and manager/specialist status quo. — Craig Larman (2012)

When change initiatives are imposed, people perceive a loss of power and status, which leads to resistance and a decline in morale.

This law highlights that imposed changes, particularly those that are top-down, can lead to a perceived loss of power and status among employees, resulting in resistance and lowered morale. This resistance is often a response to the fear of losing control or influence.

Implications: To mitigate resistance, it is crucial to involve employees in the change process, ensuring that they understand the reasons for the change and how it benefits them. Creating a sense of ownership and participation can help reduce feelings of power loss and enhance morale.

4. Corollary: Change Agents don’t work (aka as Change is defined by the Most Powerful People)

As a corollary to (1), if after changing the change some managers and single-specialists are still displaced, they become “coaches/trainers” for the change, frequently reinforcing (2) and (3), and creating the false impression ‘the change has been done’, deluding senior management and future change attempts, after which they become industry consultants. — Craig Larman (2012)

The culture of an organization is defined by the most powerful people, which is why change initiatives often fail.

According to this law, the culture of an organization is shaped primarily by its most powerful individuals or groups. Since these people are typically the most invested in maintaining the status quo, their influence can prevent meaningful cultural change, even when new practices or systems are introduced.

Implications: Successful change initiatives require the buy-in and active participation of these powerful individuals. Without their support, efforts to change the culture or adopt new ways of working are likely to falter. This also means that associating change initiatives solely to change agents that are outside the true organizational power structures, will probably defeat the primary change goals. Involving managers and making them accountable is probably the best solution.

5. Culture follows structure. But not always.

(in large established orgs) Culture follows structure. And in tiny young orgs, structure follows culture. — Craig Larman (2012)

This is the core of Larman’s law, and synthesizes his overall observation, and is often the part that many refer to as “Larman’s Law”.

Fig. 2: Larman’s 5th Law: Culture Follows Structure.

The author provides a further explanation on this law:

A longer form is, In big established groups, culture/behavior/mindset follows and is influenced by changes in the organizational system and design. That is, in large established organizations, if you want to really change culture, you have to start with changing the organizational system (groups, teams, roles and responsibilities, hierarchies, career paths, policies, measurement and reward mechanisms, etc), because culture does not really change otherwise. Said another way, the organizational system is strongly influential on mindset and behavior. The systems-thinking advocate John Seddon also observed this: "Attempting to change an organization’s culture is a folly, it always fails. Peoples’ behavior (the culture) is a product of the system; when you change the system peoples’ behavior changes." This is an observation in big established organizations; in contrast, in small start ups, it's the reverse: structure follows culture. That is, the (probably simple and informal) organizational design reflects the mindset and culture of the small number of members in the start up. As the organization grows, at some point it usually reverses to culture follows structure. And "culture follows structure" (in large groups) is why purely “mindset” approaches such as organizational learning are not very sticky or impactful by themselves in large groups, and why frameworks such as Scrum (that have a strong focus on structural change at the start) tend to more quickly impact culture — if the structural change implications of Scrum are actually realized. — Craig Larman (2012)

The entiire observation matches a lot of similar theories and observations (Sunny, 2020), and the entire relationship between Culture and other components of Organisation Design.

Its main consequence is that complex and deep organizational change requires understanding of systems thinking and the patience to evolve over time.

This law underscores the importance of systems thinking and patience in driving deep and lasting organizational change. Systems thinking involves understanding the organization as an interconnected whole, where changes in one part can have wide-reaching effects, even starting from the design of individual roles (Pugliese, 2014). Additionally, deep change is often slow and requires sustained effort over time.

Implications: Leaders should approach organizational change with a long-term perspective, recognizing that quick fixes are unlikely to lead to lasting transformation. Systems thinking can help in identifying the root causes of issues and designing changes that address these at a fundamental level. Culture Change programs that are focused solely on behaviors would fail, if congruence is not sought in terms of other organisation components.

Impacts on Organization Design

Although born in the context of the implementation of Large Scale Agile, Larman’s observations have var reaching effects on Organization Design. Most OD initiatives are de facto change initiatives, and if these are not approached with the necessary systemic approach, are often destined to fail exactly because of the organization behaviors described by Larman.

The mitigation actions are similar to what is suggested in general for change programs, and include elements such as:

Executive Sponsorship: it is important that the change initiative is actively sponsored by the organisational leadership.
Clear Accountabilities: creating structures of change agents that are parallel to the real power and authority routings in the organization can lead to failure. So it is important to associate change accountabilities to current power structures.
Understanding of the “real” organization: one of the major consequences of Larman’s laws is that we need to embed in any OD project a clear understanding of both the formal and informal power structures of the organization. Else we will not be able to prevent resistance.
Start with the Organization: in an alignment with the Congruence vs. Consistency dialogue, we need to ensure we plan the changes of behaviors and habits starting from the organizational attributes.

The “Laws of Organisation Design” Collection. This article belongs to a series focused on the different principles and laws that govern organizational behaviours, decision-making and group work, and that should be taken into account in organization design projects.

The Laws of Organisation Design

Metcalfe’s Law
The Law of Constraints
Law of Requisite Variety
Law of Alignment

Conclusion

Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior provide a valuable lens through which to view the challenges of implementing change within organizations, particularly in the context of agile transformations. They emphasize the deep-rooted nature of resistance to change, the role of power structures and culture in shaping organizational behavior, and the need for patience and systems thinking in driving meaningful transformation.

These laws are particularly relevant for leaders and change agents looking to implement agile at scale or drive other significant organizational changes. Understanding and addressing the dynamics highlighted by these laws can increase the likelihood of successful and sustainable change.