Comparing the process-heavy approach of Fred Emery with the generative approach of Dee Hock reveals two distinct ways of navigating complexity: one through a rigorous structural funnel and the other through a sequence of anchored inquiries.
1. Structural Funnel vs. Generative Stepping Stones
The most visible difference lies in their procedural design.
• Emery’s “Two-Stage Model” is a highly disciplined, funnel-like structure[1]. It moves predictably from an environmental scan (Search Conference) to a specific structural redesign (Participative Design Workshop)[2][3]. It is a “process-heavy” march from the broad “extended social field” to concrete action plans[1].
• Hock’s “Chaordic Stepping Stones” are described as a sequence of generative questions designed to “slow down to speed up”[4][5]. Rather than a funnel leading to a pre-defined type of output (like Emery’s self-managing groups), Hock’s process focuses on anchoring the work in necessity and relationships before any structural solutions are even considered[5].
2. The Role of Structure
While both seek to move away from top-down command and control, they treat the creation of “structure” differently:
• Emery (Restructuring for Redundancy): Emery’s approach is explicitly aimed at a structural outcome. The Participative Design Workshop asks, “How do we restructure for redundancy of functions?” and results in the creation of self-managing groups[6]. For Emery, the structure is the primary tool for active adaptation[3].
• Hock (Structure as a Late Bind): Hock issues a specific warning: do not jump to structure until the groundwork of purpose, principles, and people is complete[7]. In Hock’s model, structure is step 7 of 8, and its role is to channel resources, not to control people[8]. He emphasizes that the “invisible leader” of Purpose must provide the direction, not the organizational chart[9].
3. “What does it do?” vs. “Why is it urgent?”
Their foundational questions reflect different starting points in systems thinking:
• Emery’s Material Universals: Emery focuses on behavior and context, asking “What does the system do?” rather than “What is it?”[10]. His inquiry is rooted in Open Systems Theory, scanning the last 5–7 years of environmental changes to understand the system’s current reality[1].
• Hock’s Necessity: Hock starts with the Need, asking “What time is it for this work?” and “What is at stake if we do nothing?”[9]. His focus is on the compelling, deep-seated reason for the work, which anchors the invitation to participate[5].
4. Behavioral Guardrails
• Emery’s Six Criteria: Emery uses the “Six Criteria” of intrinsic motivation (e.g., elbow room, variety, learning) as a diagnostic tool to evaluate how a structure currently treats its people[6].
• Hock’s Principles: Hock uses Principles as “behavioral guardrails” to guide the group when the plan inevitably breaks down[11]. He asks, “What are the ‘lines in the sand’ we will not cross?” to sustain relationships through difficulty[11].
Summary Comparison
| Feature | Fred Emery (OST[E]) | Dee Hock (Chaordic) |
|---|---|---|
| Logic | Material Universals (Behavior)[10] | Necessity & Purpose (Values)[5][9] |
| Structure | Rigid Funnel (Stage 1 to Stage 2)[1] | Stepping Stones (Phased Inquiry)[4] |
| Objective | Structural Redesign (Self-management)[6] | Chaordic Resilience (Emergence)[5] |
| Human Focus | Redundancy of functions (Capabilities)[6] | Participants as “Holons” (Relationships)[11] |
| View of Change | Active Adaptation to environment[2] | Slow down to speed up[5] |
References
[1] Fred Emery.md [2] Fred Emery.md [3] Fred Emery.md [4] Dee Hock.md [5] Dee Hock.md [6] Fred Emery.md [7] Dee Hock.md [8] Dee Hock.md [9] Dee Hock.md [10] Fred Emery.md [11] Dee Hock.md