Reprinted from

ORGANIZATIONALDYNAMICS

Organizations asPhrog farmsJerry B. Harvey

6571

Organization development can best be viewed as the process of drainingthe organizational swamp. In a witty, caustic attack, Harvey describesmanagement as it is customarily practiced—and OD as it is seldom seen.

Organizations asPkrog Jams

Jerry B. Harvey

short time ago I received a telephone callfrom a friend of mine who was employed asan OD specialist in a large corporation.

"Jerry, I've just been fired," he said."Fired? You mean you are out of a

job completely?""Well, not completely," he replied.

"I'm just no longer an OD specialist. In fact,the whole function has been wiped out.They have given me a make-work job insalary administration. It's a nothing job,though. I hate it. I was really interested indoing OD. All I'm doing now is scutt workand drawing a paycheck."

"Why were you fired, Hank?""I'm not really sure. I've never

heard the reason directly. My boss's boss wasthe one who really did the firing. He told myboss to do it."

"Why did he tell your boss hewanted you fired?"

"My boss was vague about it. Hejust said his boss had said I wasn't powerfulenough to do the job."

"What did your boss's boss say toyou when you asked him about it?"

"I haven't talked with him.""Why not?""That would be violating the chain

of command. You don't do that aroundhere."

"Why not?""You can get fired for that.""But Hank," I said, "You have been

fired.""Oh!"And then, perhaps because I had

recently read my children the fable of The

Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1911. © 1911, AMACOM, a division ofAmerican Management Associations. All rights reserved.

Princess and the Frog, I said, "Hank, yourboss's boss is correct. You aren't powerfulenough to do the job. In fact, for all intentsand purposes, he has turned you into aphrog. I can almost see you in a big phrogpond with your boss's boss sitting on awillow stump saying to himself, 'I think I'llturn ol' Hank into a phrog.' "And then hewaves a magic wand, mutters some mystical-sounding incantation and concludes with,'Hank, you are a phrog,' and suddenly youhave web feet. "Hank, you are now aphrog."

The silence at the other end of theline was seemingly interminable.

Finally, out came the poignant,one-word reply that echoed down the line,"Ribbit."

ORGANIZATIONS AS PHROG FARMS

After talking with Hank at some lengthabout his life in the phrog pond, I got tothinking that most formal organizations are,metaphorically speaking, phrog farms. Byphrog farms I mean that they turn a lot ofgood people into phrogs. In addition, if weaccept the metaphor of organizations asphrog farms, we might conceptualize orga-nization development as the process ofdraining the swamp. Therefore, buildingupon that metaphor, I would like to suggesta number of hypotheses, to make some gen-eralizations, and to conceptualize some is-sues of organization, management, and orga-nization development within the frameworkof life in the swamp. These various state-ments are provided, in no particular orderof importance and in no conscious linear se-quence, as follows:

1. All organizations have two es-sential purposes. One is to produce widgets,glops, and fillips. The other is to turn peo-

ple into phrogs. In many organizations, thelatter purpose takes precedence over theformer. For example, in many organizations,it is more important to follow the chain ofcommand than to behave sensibly.

2. Phrog is spelled with a ph be-cause phrogs don't like to be known as frogs,and they try to hide their phroginess fromthemselves and others by transparent means.In short, once one has been transformed intoa phrog, one likes to attempt to hide thatfact. For one who has been a person, it's agreat come-down to be a phrog.

3. Phrogs tend to live a solitary lifein the swamp, or as one phrog said, "It's alonely life on the lily pad." Phrogs competewith one another for insects, vie for the rightto head the flicking order of the swamp, andare ultimatey evaluated for what they do intheir own mud flats. Furthermore, phrogsdon't really get rewarded for how well theysing in the chorus. Given that, is it anywonder that a common phrog maxim is,"You can't get involved with other phrogsin the swamp; someday you may have to ap-propriate their lily pads"?

4. Phrogs speak the Language ofRibbit. The language is simple because itcontains only one word, but it doesn't com-municate very well. When all the phrogs inthe swamp croak "Ribbit," the swamp isnoisy as hell, but not a lot of real informa-tion is ever exchanged. You see, accuracy ofinformation is not very important in theswamp. In fact, any time a person enters theswamp, he or she is generally told why theLanguage of Ribbit is the only possible lan-guage of the swamp, despite the fact thatphrogs don't learn much from one anotherwhen they use it. For that reason, peoplehave a difficult time talking with phrogs. Infact, they seldom talk with phrogs at all.

5. Most phrogs spend more timeflicking flies in the fog than in draining the

swamp. As best I can tell, their behavior iscircular. If they were to spend time drainingthe swamp, there would be no flies to flickand no phrogs. For that reason, it's very im-portant to phrogs to maintain the swampas it is rather than to drain it.

6. In phrog farms, bullphrogs gen-erally get to be fresident. Stated differently,the better a phrog can tolerate the lonelinessof his lily pad, the more competent he be-comes at speaking the Language of Ribbit,the more facile he becomes in flicking flies,the more skillful he becomes at appropriat-ing others lily pads, and the more adroit hebecomes at maintaining the swamp, the morelikely he is to become fresident.

7. Bullphrogs are greatly revered inthe swamp. In fact, other phrogs assumebullphrogs have magical powers because oftheir unusual abilities to turn people intophrogs. In one sense, such reverence maynot be misplaced. They are apparently in-strumental in the process of phrog produc-tion. It is strange to me, though, that wehave devoted so little effort to understandingthe role that humans play in permittingphrogs to attack them in the swamp.

8. The magic exercised by bull-phrogs comes from humans' belief in it. Thetyranny of bullphrogs stems not from thereality of the bullphrogs' power, but fromthe belief of humans in the Myth of Bull-phrog Power.

9. Belief in the Myth of BullphrogPower prevents one from having to take re-sponsibility for the fog and mud and mossthat make up the atmosphere of the swamp.

10. Bullphrogs—particularly fresi-dents—frequently feel very trapped in theswamp. Many of them are destroyed by it.

They feel trapped because they aretrapped.

Mr. Nixon was not an aberration.18 11. One of the peculiarities of the

swamp is that the masses of swamp phrog;both worship and destroy bullphrogs foithe very qualities of phroginess that resultedin their becoming fresident.

12. Darwinians say only the strong-est go to the top of the phylogenetic scale.

Phrogologists say only the weakestgo to the top of the same scale.

Both say only the fittest survive.One is incorrect.13. Another peculiarity of the

swamp is that cowphrogs seldom becomefresident. Cowphrogs apparently don't havethe capacity for loneliness, the Language ofRibbit, fly flicking, and swamp maintenancethat bullphrogs have. If, by chance, they dodevelop that revered capacity, they becomecowphrogs in bullphrog's clothing, and theircroaks deepen.

14. The process of producingphrogs is not sexual—it's magical.

15. OD generally consists of phrogkissing, which is magical, harmless, and pla-tonic.

16. Any activity designed to facili-tate phrog kissing is an example of ODD be-havior—cosmetic organization developmentor organization development by deception—or OD as practiced by phrogs. Activitiessuch as phrog chorus-building, interlily-padconflict resolution, phrog sensing, phrog-style assessment, marsh groups, tadpole de-velopment, and phrog coaching in the ab-sence of swamp drainage and area reclama-tion are examples of phrog kissing by ODD-ITIES.

17. Phrog kissing is a seductive ac-tivity. Frederick Herzberg claims that beingseduced is ultimately less satisfying than be-ing raped, because when we are seduced, weare, in fact, part of our own downfall. Stateddifferently, and in our context, ODD spe-cialists are frequently seduced into phrogkissing, an activity that seldom leads to love-

Jerry B. Harvey, a professor of managementat George Washington University, is aprofessional associate of the EuropeanInstitute for Trans-National Studies ingroup and organization development, amember of the American PsychologicalAssociation, a charter member of theInternational Association of Applied SocialScientists, and a diplomate of theAmerican Board of Professional Psychology.Dr. Harvey received a bachelor's degree inbusiness administration and a Ph.D. insocial psychology from the University ofTexas, where he served on the faculty ofthe department of psychology. He has beena consultant to a wide variety of industrial,governmental, service, and religiousorganizations, and has written a numberof articles in the field of management andorganizational development.

making but frequently adds to the warts onthe kisser's face.

18. Many organization membersbelong to Phrognarian Networks, andSwamp Maintenance Associations. The pur-pose of such networks and associations is tomeet and exchange information regarding thenature of the fog in each member's respectiveswamp. Since the Language of Ribbit is em-ployed, such exchanges seldom allow oneto differentiate one swamp from another.Phrogs seem to get reassurance from notingthe similarity among their swamps. Or, asone bullphrog put it, "Misery loves com-

pany and miserable phrogs love miserablecompanies."

19. Occasionally, during meetingsof Phrognarians, a phrog pharts in the fog.When that happens, that phrog loses someof his or her phroginess and therefore repre-sents a great threat to the balance of theswamp. Phrog pharts are seldom sanctionedby Phrognarians. They are too real. Theyput holes in the fog and ultimately threatenthe atmosphere of magic required to main-tain the swamp.

20. There is a myth on the part ofphrogs that kissing another phrog turns thatphrog into a prince. I think it should benoted that, in general, kissing a phrog onlyproduces skin irritations. For those who de-cide to kiss anyway, I think they should alsorealize that, in all that fog, it is very difficultto determine which way a phrog is facing.

21. Phrogs frequently try to settraps for one another. Phrog traps have apeculiar quality because they catch only thephrogs who set them. Stated differently, ifyou have to set a phrog trap, there is noneed to do so. You are already in it.

22. So that the technology of set-ting phrog traps is not lost to future gener-ations, phrogfessors of marsh managementare hired by Schools of Swamp Maintenanceto research and teach. (Phrogfessors ofmarsh management are not limited to SwampMaintenance Schools. In fact, they are onthe faculties of all kinds of teaching organi-zations, defined not by what they teach butby the attitude and approach with whichthey teach it.) The work of such phrogfes-sors is governed by the underlying credothat is frequently displayed on their respec-tive lily pads. It goes something like this: "Ifthe tadpole hasn't learned, the phrogfessorhasn't taught."

The underlying rationale of thatcredo is rather peculiar if subiected to

close scrutiny. To explain, it clearly impliesthat the basic responsibility for the tadpole'slearning belongs to the phrogfessor. Conse-quently, if the tadpole does a lousy job, thephrogfessor is at fault. Likewise, followingthe same logic rigorously, if the tadpole doescompetent work, the phrogfessor must alsoget the credit. For all intents and purposes,then, the tadpole doesn't exist, except assome sort of inanimate, passive receptaclefor the phrogfessor's competence or incom-petence.

23. Given that such a teaching at-titude implies that students have no animateexistence, is it any wonder that studentsseem to fit so well into the lonely parallelismof the swamp? Is it also any wonder thatwhen someone accepts responsibility for an-other's learning, that person ceases to be aneducator and becomes a phrogfessor, whoseprimary job is to prepare tadpoles for life inthe swamp?

24. People frequently becomephrogs in other kinds of organizations bythe same process. After all, a commonswamp saying is, "You can delegate author-ity but you can't delegate responsibility."

Translation: "You are responsiblefor your subordinates' performances. If your

subordinates perform competently, it is be-cause of you. If they perform incompetent-ly, it is because of you, too. Like studentsthey don't even exist, except as extension;of you. They are objects you must manipu-late in the best interests of the swamp."

If phrogs don't feel they are re-sponsible for the performance of their sub-ordinates, then why do so many of them goto training programs designed to help themalter their styles of phrogging. As I see it,they do it because they believe they are re-sponsible for their subordinates' perfor-mances and that their style (as opposed totheir essence) has something to do with howeffectively their subordinates perform.

25. All of us are phrogs at one timeor another. All have the potential to developwebbing between their toes. All have expe-rienced the terror of the trap, and acceptingresponsibility for others actions is the baitwith which phrog traps are set.

26. Many bullphrogs can't laugh atthe absurdity of their lives in the swamp.Such phrogs tend to become steerphrogs andare very poignant creatures. Bullphrogs fre-quently die laughing, but I have never seena steerphrog laugh. They just croak.

27. The seat of our government is

"The Job of most swamp managers is to maintain

and enhance the swamp, not to dram it.... The

purpose of swamp consultants—in the eyes of

swamp managers—is to help the swamp operate

:o effectively x

located in Washington, D.C., in a swampyarea of the city known affectionately tosome as "Foggy Bottom." For many, it isalso the locus of the "bureaucratic mess."Perhaps it should be renamed, "PhroggyBottom."

28. Making Waves in Foggy Bot-tom, by Alfred Marrow, is a book about anOD effort to clean up the bureaucraticmess in the U.S. Department of State. In itsessence, the book is about the failure of thateffort. Should you decide to read it, youmight come to realize that making waves—in any organization—is a very different pro-cess from draining the swamp.

29. The size of the swamp isgrowing; the world may ultimately be in-habited by phrogs. Air pollution is not reallyas great a threat to future generations asphrog pollution.

30. The swamp is ultimately evil.Hannah Arendt described how phrog farms,despite their benign appearance, tend to de-velop bullphrogs with an enormous capacityfor evil. Adolph Eichmann was not an aber-ration either.

31. The job of most swamp man-agers is to maintain and enhance the swamp,not to drain it. For example, Winston Phrog-hill said, "I was not made marsh minister topreside over the draining of the swamp."

32. The purpose of swamp consul-tants—in the eyes of swamp managers—is tohelp the swamp operate effectively, not todrain it.

33. Most OD literature is designedto facilitate swamp management, not areareclamation. Most managers are phrog farm-ers. Most OD specialists and phrogfessors ofmarsh management are phrog farmers' help-ers. The relationship is symbiotic.

34. Most phrog farmers and theirhelpers are aware of their lots in the swamp.Most have about all the consciousness they

can bear. May God have mercy on theirsouls.

35. God does have mercy on theirsouls. Otherwise, God would be the greatestphrog farmer of them all.

ALTERNATIVES TO LIFE ON THE PHROG FARM

With all those objects around, it is indeed alonely life on the lily pad.

"What is the alternative to life inthe swamp?" you ask. My pen is poised toframe a reply. After all, isn't that my job as aresponsible phrogfessor, to provide some an-swers to the problems of the dismal swamp?

The temptation is great.Suddenly, though, I see that sign on

my lily pad and realize that another featureof phrogs is that they are frequently afraidto think. It's not that the thoughts are notthere. In fact, in the swamp, there are plentyof thoughts to be thought. But who is tothink them? Certainly not phrogs becausethinking is as dangerous to the ecology of theswamp as passing gas in the fog.

Not thinking, or getting someoneelse to be responsible for thinking one'sthoughts, is not without its advantages. Aslong as a phrog can get someone else to takeresponsibility for changing the climate ofthe swamp.

I do know, though, that noncos-metic organization development involvesswamp drainage and area reclamation andis done by humans, not phrogs. Ultimately,that process of drainage and reclamation de-stroys the swamp and includes such modifi-cations in the swamp's environment as build-ing habitats that allow people to cooperate—rather than compete. Such habitats allowpeople to:

• Get paid as pairs, teams, and or-ganizations rather than as individuals. If two 21

individuals get paid for working as a pair, itis amazing how much interest they take inhelping one another succeed.

• Work in nonzero-sum climateswhen it comes to promotion, layoffs, salary,performance appraisal, and grades. For ex-ample, during bad times, phrogs lay othersoff in terms of seniority. People don't layone another off at all. They all take propor-tionate pay cuts and therefore learn thatthey can rely on one another during bothgood and bad times.

People with zero-sum attitudes be-lieve that the outcome of any interpersonalencounter is zero, that is, "If you get a pay-off of plus one, I must get a payoff of minusone, and the outcome is zero." Stated in day-to-day language, people with that attitudesay, "If you win, I must lose." People withnonzero-sum attitudes believe that the out-come of any human encounter can be otherthan zero, that is, we can both win and, if wedo, under certain conditions, it is not oneplus one equals two but rather, with syner-gism, three.

• Leave the environment whenthey lose interest in it. For example, whenit comes to vesting (of rights), people don'twear vests, phrogs do.

• Accept personal responsibilityfor their own activities in the habitat.Phrogs, for instance, demand that bullphrogstake responsibility for the swamp. Peoplewill not permit others to take over theirresponsibilities for the habitat and its opera-tion.

• Trust one another in a wide va-riety of situations. Phrogs distrust 'mosteverybody. Given their distrust, they putin time clocks which say, "We don't trustyou to do an honest day's work, so provethat you did." They demand doctors' certifi-cates when someone calls in ill. They have

12 private offices so that others access to them

is limited and so that their conversations andwork with other phrogs can't be observedand overheard. They demand close verifi-cation of expense accounts because "Every-one knows those slick swamp salesmenwould rob the marsh blind if a bullphrogdoesn't keep tabs on them." They keep just-in-case (JIC) files to protect themselvesfrom other phrogs' poisons.

People have, by contrast, very fewrules and procedures that question the hon-esty of others. In fact, they assume otherpeople can be trusted and live with the real-ity that in a few cases such trust will beviolated.

• Be treated as subjects—not ob-jects. R. D. Laing has pointed out that oneway to make others mentally ill is to treatthem as depersonalized objects or things,(that is, objectively) rather than as "person-alized" subjects (that is, subjectively). Bull-phrogs try to treat others objectively. Theytry to gauge the performance of others ob-jectively, and they try to "keep their feel-ings out of the situation." However, whenyou treat another objectively (that is, as anobject), you should know that the price ofbeing objective—eliminating one's feelingsfrom the situation—is that you become anobject yourself, since you have denied thevery essence of your own humanness. Thusare bullphrogs born.

Humans don't treat one anotheras objects. They try instead to build a workenvironment in which human subjectivity isaccepted as an integral part of the habitat'sproblem-solving process.

"You still haven't answered thequestion of "What do we do to save our-selves from the swamp?" you may say. Youare too vague, too idealistic, and too imprac-tical. You certainly have not fulfilled yourresponsibilities as an article writer."

I hone vou don't feel that wav. hut

it you do about all I say is: "You're right. Ihaven't. I tried."

"Ribbit."

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

For a penetrating discussion of the manner inwhich groups and organizations pursue coursesof action that subvert their essential purposes,see Wilfred Bion's Experiences hi Groups (Basic-Books, 1961).

In his article, "One More Time: HowDo You Motivate Employees?", (Harvard Busi-ness Review. Vol. 46, January-February 1968,pp. 53-62), Frederick Herzberg makes a gen-eric differentiation between rape and seductionas it applies to motivation in an organizationalsetting.

Anatol Rapoport's and Albert Cham-mah's Prisoner's Dilemma (Ann Arbor Paper-backs, 1970) provides an excellent discussion ofzero-sum and nonzero-sum attitudes.

R. D. Laing describes the impact of de-personalization in his book, The Divided Self(Pelican Books, 1965).

If you want to be terrified by the po-tential evil of swamp-bound organizations, readHannah Arendt's Eichmann on Jerusalem (Vik-ing Press, 1965).

Finally, after skimming Bartlett's Fa-miliar Quotations, I am intrigued by the wayin which frogs have long played an importantpart in literature and mythology. Authors fromGoethe to Mark Twain have made noteworthyreferences to frogs in their works, and in thosereferences frogs have ultimately served someserious purpose. Perhaps one ancient poet(Bion) spoke for all Phrogologists when he said,"... though boys throw stones at frogs in sport,the frogs do not die in sport but in earnest."