Mervyn Dinnen  0:09  
The HR Happy Hour Network is proudly sponsored by Workhuman. The workplace is changing fast—and the leaders who understand what's coming will have the advantage. Workhuman's annual Trends Webinar returns January 29th with research-backed insights on the hottest trends shaping 2026. Discover how top organizations are navigating AI, psychological safety, performance, and equity to outperform their competition—plus exclusive findings from McKinsey's Women in the Workplace 2026 report. Featuring an expert panel from McKinsey and Workhuman, you'll get the intelligence you need to lead with confidence this year. Join the Trends Webinar live January 29th at noon Eastern, or catch the replay on demand. Register for free @Workhuman.com. 

Mervyn Dinnen  1:09  
Welcome to the HR Means Business podcast, which is part of the HR Happy Hour Network. I'm your host, Mervyn Dinnen. In today's episode, I am joined by one of hr's most influential thinkers, Perry Tims, who I have had the pleasure of interviewing on this podcast once or twice before, and I've known for many years, he's a deep thinker about the future of HR and, more importantly, the future of business and the future of organizations. And he's written a series of essays about polymorphic organizations as which she sees very much as a future state for many of our businesses. Perry, welcome to the HR Means Business podcast. Would you like to introduce yourself?

Perry Timms  1:51  
Thank you, mervyn, great to be back again. So thank you for that. Yeah, sure. Perry Tim so people, practitioner of 23 years standing based right in the heart of England, in Northamptonshire. And yes, the whole kind of polymorphic concept is something I've been working on for about the past six months, and I'm very happy to unpack it with you. But yeah, you're right. There is something about what's next for us that's often taxed both you and me, so it's great to kick it round. 

Mervyn Dinnen  2:17  
Yes. Okay, so I suppose the first question has to be, what is polymorphism? Yeah. So what is a polymorphic organization? 

Perry Timms  2:27  
Yeah. So polymorphism in itself is a term that comes from Greek language, and it poly means many and Morphe means form. So it's many forms, and it happens in nature and biology, where things can take on many forms, I suppose, when we think about things like the chameleon and how that can change its shape and color configuration, and the octopus and all that kind of thing. So there are sort of nature things, but really where it comes from in the essence that I'm talking about is technology, and a concept called object oriented programming. In it, there are seven elements to an object in a technology, kind of platform and polymorphism is that that object will do different things depending on the data it receives. So it's almost like a multi functional part of it. And in organizations, it is literally how the organization can kind of change its shape, its form, its flow and even its logic again, according to the data it receives, the demands it has and the needs. So I guess we could call it sort of like a constant metamorphosis and change. And I think it came from my sense that change management as a program or a project, it feels like such a defunct thing these days when literally everything has changed. So I was trying to find a sort of metaphorical frame for it, and I stumbled across that and dived in and thought, well, this is it. So polymorphic organization is one who has that agility adaptability, and can make sense of itself in a much more flowing sense, rather than programmatic, convulsive change.

Mervyn Dinnen  3:58  
And it's a platform. It's not a structure like, I suppose, an organizational structure that we're used to.

Perry Timms  4:07  
Yeah, because I think we've seen lots of iterations that haven't been like matrix working and all that sort of thing. And where my sense of it came from, MERV, was that I was looking at how organizations really are not running themselves as one organization now anyway, whatever diversified portfolio of products they've got, they're always running a future and a legacy version at the same time. There is no kind of legacy, legacy, Legacy future built along the side. Then it drops in and that becomes future version. We're kind of moving between those two modalities like all the time, whether it's a pioneer in new product experiment, whether it's technology advancing and changing the way you do it, and of course, AI and automation is causing a lot of that. And we're close to the talent acquisition community, of course, and they're doing loads of work experimenting with future forms of how you find and select and hire people using tech and so on. So that's kind of changing the game. So it really. Sense that the future legacy kind of, and I call it oscillation, because it kind of oscillates between them. 

Mervyn Dinnen  5:07  
I mean, listening to you talk there, it kind of brings home the fact that within most organizations and businesses, it's like we're almost still wedded to 19th and 20th century working models. And so it's kind of, I suppose, within the age we are now time for, not so much a different approach, but a whole different way of thinking about these things. 

Perry Timms  5:38  
Yeah, you're absolutely right and I think the thinking thing is crucial, because, you know, we've seen lots of metaphors used for organizations. There's a guy called Gareth Morgan who's done lots of that in in org design, and he kind of talks about it as, is it a machine organization or a political organization? Is it an organism? And there's even what he's got called a psychological prism, which I kind of love And loathe in equal measure. And the answer is, it's all of them. So I think there's something about how we try and tag it as a metaphor, but, but, yeah, you're right. I think what is clear is that industrial, hierarchical, divisional linearity, that's not cutting it anymore. And that's why I think organizations are under extreme pressures, because they're trying to apply that sort of 20th century logic into a 20th century, 21st century world that just kind of goes that's not going to cut it, so we're scrambling around trying to find how to do it. And there's this kind of phrase I like, which is where we're all idiots, really, because, like, nobody's been here before, so we have to admit the idiocy. But part of the idiocy, I think, is then admitting you don't know it and try new things out.

Mervyn Dinnen  6:35  
And so now's the time I've seen in one of your essays. Obviously, now, now's the time you say, for new adaptive organizations that shift shapes. So yeah, what I suppose, making that jump from a very structured model of working to something more adaptive? What are the key, I suppose, beginnings, almost the early stages of being able to a first identify that and be begin to put it into practice?

Perry Timms  7:06  
When I've researched companies, I think there are some that are already a bit polymorphic, but they just kind of don't call it that, because I haven't got the name for it. So I'll give you an example. In pharma, actually, there are lots of pharmaceutical organizations who recognize that things like cycles of R and D are quite long, but they're intense. And so what they've created is, instead of divisions that look at R and D, they've created a capability pool of people who can be deployed very flexibly depending on the flow of work, the demand, the speed and so on. So when you look at that, you kind of think, wow, they have created a space there where it's not formalized and rigid, but it's got some containment, and it's got some sense of what it's there to do, and then it's very adaptive in how it deploys resource to do that. So I think there are examples out there. Unilever have tried various different experiments. So I see inside some organizations, they've got, they've got the pattern of some of this. What I'm saying is, Why leave it at that? Why not make that much more the predominant force? And then people go, Yeah, but doesn't it create instability? It's like, No, it doesn't, actually, because if you want to keep your governance and legal really tight and form of hierarchical, keep it that way, you know you and I both know that I've been very into abandoning hierarchy and self managed organizations, and I've been kind of willing them into existence, and they haven't. And I thought, why is that? And it's like it's too big a leap of faith, and actually, perhaps it's too messy for the world that we're in. So I'm saying, well, respect, both, honor both and have different energies, but that can interlink and interconnect and support each other. So I sense it's a less frightening departure to think about the areas that you could flex more strongly into, and then just create that as almost like your norm, with respect for those things that still need to be formalized. So there is a sort of trajectory for it, and there's a sensible approach to it, but I think the key is know where you're already flexing and double down on that and see where else you could apply that successfully.

Mervyn Dinnen  8:59  
So how do you know? Or how does an organization leaders, managers decide which structure is going to work for them and which contexts you know that they'll be operating with it? 

Perry Timms  9:16  
I think that's where the value thing comes in, right? So I think it is almost that we take a much richer form of value. So we don't just say, How much money does that, like cost us or make? That's part of it. But I think we say, well, what value is derived from human capital, creativity, ingenuity? What value is created from good deployment of technology? What value is created using sort of recognizable material approaches, whatever it is. So I think if we take a value approach, we can sort of work back and go, are we actually limiting the value we can create here by keeping it too tight, or actually, if we go too loose, are we then endangering the nature of value that we could create there? But again, I don't think we ask those questions intimately enough about like. You know, lower level functions and different parts of an organization. So it's a good sense check really. I'm like, What's it there to do? I think a lot of organizations are really riddled with far too much bureaucracy. So one of the first things people could do is, where have we got, like, bloat or lag or unnecessary weight? How could that be a little bit more adaptive, but still honoring governance, let's say, and I'm work, I've done some work with an academic institution that's doing exactly that. They're saying, We've got so many committees. Do we really need them all? Let's just sense check what value does it create? And if it doesn't, we'll abandon it. And they're quite literally taking a kind of a purge approach to that. And it's clearing capacity, and it's creating more clarity. So that, I think is a good way to do you kind of self audit a bit.

Mervyn Dinnen  10:46  
There's probably, you know, the conversation internally around, kind of the the legacy models that everybody is wedded to with the structures. And this, almost, I see you write about oscillation. You call this, this kind of, which is something that's constantly changing, and kind of, you know, tune...

Perry Timms  11:07  
And I think, you know, having a long footprint in OD, MERV, I've seen a lot of really good things done in od that are about almost episodic change. So it's like, let's change from version one to version two. It's like, oh, great, okay. But within it, there are lots of version one point ones, 1.2 1.3 and the thing I think we think about changes, it's always, like expansive, it always kind of grows or diversified, but actually it could be consolidating, strengthening, tightening, even. And I'm suggesting this oscillating approach is, if you have a version 1.2 that might seem like you're consolidating, and that doesn't feel like it's change and growth, but actually, that is probably a necessary part of strengthening you for the next bit of growth or diversification that you want to I don't think we think about it enough like that. So yeah, you're right. It is a constant form of change, but not chaos. It's still managed kind of through gates. And of course, we know software does this all the time. 

Mervyn Dinnen  11:33  
So, if the organization is shifting and changing and is is polymorphizing, if that's a worse, yeah, what? What does it mean, I suppose. What does it mean for leadership? I mean, we are, yeah, one of, one of the structures we are wedded to is, you know, directors, managers, senior managers, assistant managers, leaders. And how does that now impact? 

Perry Timms  12:33  
Yeah, and I've looked at it, and in fact, I did some work with the technology company, which sort of informed my thinking here, that leaders are kind of doing two things a lot, and they need to probably recognize these and I think that helps them not quite limit how many leaders, but almost like put a tighter frame around what leaders are there to do. The first one is that they incubate they incubate a sense of the future. They incubate innovation and optimization. They incubate a sense of culture and belonging. So they're not doing it all, but they're sort of backed in, like venture capital investors. They're sort of incubating ideas and potential and so on. And I don't think they see themselves doing as much of that. I think they see themselves as super administrative tenderers of what they recognize and know, and so they kind of play that safe game. But I think they are really there to incubate the organization, and that can happen at all levels, but more at the top, you see that, but there's a real sense that a lot of leaders are there for activation, which is activating the strategy into operation, activating ideas and potential back up into the strategy. So I think you just have those two energies, incubation and activation, and you sort of deploy your managers and leaders around that. And of course, within it, there'll be specialisms and so on. So I'm not denying that. But rather than trying to sort of flatten the management hierarchy completely like I used to, I'm thinking maybe if they're actually more fluid themselves in those energies and in those activities, that probably gives them a stronger sense of connection to the work, but also the strategic thinking, handling all those kind of conflicting arguments and making decisions very rapidly now. So I think they need a new frame to work in. So incubation and activation is where I'm going with this.

Mervyn Dinnen  14:13  
Okay, I suppose for some organizations, you know, they might be listening to this and say, Well, hold on. You know, our job is to get food on the shelves, yeah, for people to buy. Or airlines will be saying, Look, our job is to get people safely from here to America. Yeah, we haven't got time for polymorphizing. What? How does it impact? I suppose those kind of businesses that have a very strict, almost a straightforward purpose, is what we do?

Perry Timms  14:47  
And that's such a good example, actually, those ones who've got such a strong and very clear value proposition to the world, it's almost like, well, you don't need to be so adaptive to play into that, do you? But you do because there are lots of. Ones to solve. There are different competitive in the market. There are adjacent possibilities you're not tapping into. So if anything, for those people who are saying, I've got a very clear, straight line proposition, I don't need it. It's almost like there are lots of things around the edge, underneath it, over it, and you haven't even thought of where you could apply some polymorphism to get that breakthrough, thinking otherwise you're asleep at the wheel, because if you're not careful what that straight line proposition gets disrupted by somebody else, and you don't exist anymore. We know some of the stories of those. So there is a sense of like future proofing, but also future readying that I think polymorphism would help you do. So great example where an organization like that might be only sort of 16-20% polymorphic. But it's that added value that could make that work really well. The rest of it continues in a legacy format, but then might have to dip its toe in some future thinking, right? So there's definitely something about that. I mean, you only have to look in the high streets in the UK, Mervyn, to realize just how difficult brick and mortar stores are but some people are thriving in creating creating social havens now, and they didn't before. So polymorphism would help them do that, whilst keeping their legacy stuff on straight back supply, let's say no problem at all. So yeah. So I think it is the very sensible question to ask, how much of my organization needs to be like this, but don't dismiss it at hand, because you've always got problems to solve. You've always got things that you haven't really tackled in the way you want to. And polymorphism, I think, is a way of trying to help you do that more creatively.

Mervyn Dinnen  16:31  
And is this, you know, thinking about what it means to leadership? Is this now about thinking about the business and the value it creates in a completely different way?

Perry Timms  16:42  
I think so and I think what it certainly gives them a chance to do is unhook themselves from things like orthodox change and transformation, very predictable things like that, that just seem to really, really struggle to get the right kind of traction. But I think they're all feeling pressures on things like Gen Z expectations, which I know you spend lots of time looking at and thinking about, and they're all kind of scratching their heads, going, how do I meet that? It's almost like it's almost like, well, you don't meet it. How you did it 20 years ago? That's for sure, you know. So there are things like that. There are problems and dilemmas and areas where I think they can start thinking, I don't know what to do that. Ha, because I don't know. Maybe this is a chance for me to kind of incubate a little bit more polymorphism in trying to find solutions and value. As you said, we can see that things like Agile has got a lot to offer, and even things like Lean and Six Sigma have come back into play. And literally, in the construct of polymorphic I'm using stuff that's lying around organizational effectiveness, flywheels. They've been around for ages. People just don't use them, but they're a brilliant way of getting momentum and process integrity, and looking at all the almost nebulous things that affect straight line productivity. So I'm trying to give people a sense actually, not much of this is new. It's just kind of reconstituted for an era that we're in now. So I don't think I've really made up much at all in this. I've I've borrowed from other people.

Mervyn Dinnen  18:01  
It's all the best thins that you've borrowed.

Perry Timms  18:04  
I suppose they are.

Mervyn Dinnen  18:06  
I suppose, also for leadership. It's one of the things is it with? Again, leadership is accountable for the balance sheet, for the profitability, as well as, obviously, for the their people, their well being, for the services they provide for the goods they provide. Yeah. But this is presumably, if more and more organizations become polymorphic. What does that mean to balance sheets, KPIs? What does it mean to the stock market? What does it mean to Yeah, the way we, I suppose, business is organized? 

Perry Timms  18:42  
Great point. You know, how is business evaluated as successful? And as you say, then sort of organized in order to do that and optimize that. I've been looking at the economics field for a few years, and it is a bit more crude than we think it is, right? So I think things like GDP is quite a crude measure. It's not as sophisticated as we think. So I think we're getting to a point now where potentially automatable and AI technologies are going to be able to help us understand more about where value gets lost and where it could be channeled, because we can sort of interrogate things a little bit more. We had to work really hard at things like MPs and turning that into a business deliverable that upticks it a bit. So I think technology will probably help us out a bit more, because we could create simulators and scenarios, test them out, then get some real data, get a feedback loop in, and then go replicate big and quick on things that work. So I think we'll be talking about shorter cycles of experiment, learn and apply. That I think will help us stop wasting time and value and start to really consolidate and compound on that. But you've got to be really clever. I think about where you spot those value leakages and where you spot those value opportunities. At the minute, we're a bit blindsided, because there's just too much distraction and interference polymorphic. Gives you a chance to go. I'm going to adapt part of the business to do that, and it needs to be very flexible, but it has a very clear mandate. That's a brilliant example where people could prove how this stuff can can really help you. So again, it's not a let's shift from one to another, because that's what I'm actually trying to rebel against. It's almost like now it's just this constant pattern of iterative test and learn and adapt tight chains, I think we need to get used to.

Mervyn Dinnen  20:26  
So what does it mean for kind of share shareholders, for example? And yeah, kind of, you know, people with with equity stakes in the business?

Perry Timms  20:35  
I think, I mean, let's put it this way. They they want to kind of bet on things that have got good returns. So they've often used things like history, and then they've used stuff like market calculations. But again, they're not as science led as people might think they are. They're a little bit on the vague side, but I think there is something about how a polymorphic approach could start to show where it itself is creating different forms of value, and therefore that gives shareholders a richer sense of confidence that it isn't just what's on the balance sheet. It's strength of human capital, brand capital, social capital, environmental capital, even. And they might go, oh, look, there's a richer set of numbers to tabulate here. So that makes me feel more confident if I put my money there, it's got so many different forms of value, it's likely to survive turbulence and head on, sort of change competition. So I think in the long winded, long rounded way, this could add more depth to what people know they're investing in, and that can only be a good thing, but clearly it's got to get there and prove it first. So I'm kind of speculating a bit, but I see the opportunity to do that. See the opportunity to create a richer sense of what people are invested in.

Mervyn Dinnen  21:48  
And will business need a very different style? Presumably, it will of management and leadership.

Perry Timms  21:56  
And I think so. I think it will be the sort of thing where we can sort of really bring out the there for the people type thing, right? So the human side of things, the social the duty of care, the well being. Because, I mean, that's a challenge we all know right now, we've kind of stacked up managers to have loads and loads of product and task related work, and, by the way, look after people. So there may be a splitting in the atom here, really, where there are sort of, you know, proper coach type leaders of teams, and then specialists, experts and whatever, who are running those task related things. And then some people might be able to tabulate both and crack on with it. But I do think we need to revisit that, because it's got a bit perverted and overloaded, and there's lots of people Gen Z, particularly, again, you'll probably pick up on this. Who say, What the hell do I want to do that for? There's probably a supply shortage on the horizon. I think Maslow box said that. And with automation and AI and stuff and entry level jobs, I think we're asking more of people when they come into the workplace anyway, now they can't kind of do their little route up from Office admin through so they're going to need more coaching and mentoring from people. So why not get more managers to do that? So I think we'll see a bit more rehumanizing of that as a result of it, which might bring it back into being that people want to do it, because at the minute, it feels like it's a bit of a distressed purchase, shall we say?

Mervyn Dinnen  23:18  
Okay, so what's the timeline? You know, if, if there is, if there is a CEO listening to this podcast saying going on, we need to be a polymorphic organization, you'll probably say that that CEO hasn't understood the conversation. But anyway, no, I'd like it actually, but I know what you mean, yeah, what's the timeline? I mean, what? What stages will an organization say an SME? Who says, You know what? Yeah, this is, I like the sound of this. We could be, we could really stand out in our field by doing things a different way. What's the timeline? How long does it take? What's the first steps? Yeah.

Perry Timms  23:59  
I mean, an SME is a great example, actually, because it should be small enough to be able to sort of look at all the moving parts and start thinking about it in a much more sort of adaptive way. But they're under pressure because they probably haven't got the capitalization or the resource. So there is a kind of countermeasure to it. I did a bit of estimation on this, and I kind of thought, if I'm an SME, and I've got, you know, sort of 150 people, or 50 people, or whatever it is, it isn't just as simple as saying right tomorrow, we're going to be more we're going to be polymorphic again. You'd find out where you're already adaptive and strengthen the sort of capability in there you'd want to take people on a journey. So I've kind of estimated about sort of six or seven, eight or nine quarters. You could sort of see how you could shift from very legacy to much more adaptive. And then, you know, you could say at the end of that, wow, we're totally polymorphic because we don't need anything fixed. It's like, Well, great. If it works, it works. There may still be, there's some fixed stuff here that looks a bit legacy like. It's like, Well, nobody's going to shoot you for that. But if it works, it works. If you're a bigger organization, I mean, you're talking probably about a five year cycle to get to be. Fully flexed. So again, you'd want to increment this. It's not an excuse to say, let's have a five year program and charge a fortune for administering it, because the more you do it, the more you learn that perhaps the quicker you get. So five years could be collapsed into two and a half because you get better at it, but it will feel like a big uphill climb for a big organization, because there's so many moving parts, which is why I say we'll find out where you're already adaptive strength and that see where that could be more deployed. And I think companies like Bayer are trying to do stuff like this, and they're already in like, year two and a bit cycle, but it's proven it's worth so I'd say give yourself a nice five year runway, if you're a business, before you could feel like you're really on top of this. And an SME probably about six or seven quarters, and you should be all right.

Mervyn Dinnen  25:44  
And what's the starting point? What would be your advice be to somebody listening to this, what's the first thing to do once you've made the decision? 

Perry Timms  25:52  
I think that what people who work with you would need is probably the first thing to do. So I think you've got to try and look at the mental model. At the mental models and and the needs of people, because we've got quite hooked on the job, old divisional thing, because it feels quite safe. And as we're talking the Edelman trust barometers come out, and again, said, look like work is the only thing that seems to make sense to people. So we don't want that to become something where people feel really traumatized by the potential disruption to it. So we're like, this is what it this is what it will mean for us. This is what it will mean for you. But you know, we'll need you to help us be this way. Because if you're all regimented job people, and we've only got a certain degree of legacy, then actually you wouldn't have a role anyway. So I think people feel a bit insecure. So this is a way that you could say the only way to actually find yourself being secure is to decouple yourself a bit and be much more adaptive. So I think we do that. We talk to the people, we'd sort of say, this is the intent. We're going to experiment. We need you. You'll have a chance to shape it so it feels like you got skin in the game. Then I think, start looking for those things where there's untapped value or leakage, that you could immediately turn around and see where it goes. So if that is in your marketing, then go for your marketing. If that's in your production, go for your production. So I don't really see that it has a kind of lead edge, except somewhere where, you know, there's gains and pain to solve, and I think then deploy the techniques there and then see where else they could go. So it's the kind of thing you'd learn as you go and you build your confidence in it. But start with people. Get people really clear about what it means and what it can do.

Mervyn Dinnen  27:31  
And what are the roadblocks? 

Perry Timms  27:38  
I think you'd find things like, you know, legislation wouldn't recognize it at all what you talk about, and there would necessarily be something about your legal Yeah. I mean, I'd say, No, it's not, but it would have things that people would question then about, Yeah, but how do you make that employment law friendly? So there will be things you can do. I think that you need to find the bandwidth that you can be creative with versus still be compliant. So so that's a bit of a thing to think about. I think customers and your stakeholders and your partners are all probably people who could get a bit harrumphy or confused or lost or reject the principles. So again, you'd need to say something like, look, you're not going to have a single account manager now, because you don't need that. We've got this brilliant way that we can access your information from anywhere. And so they're like, oh, okay, so I've got a bit used to a different relationship. It's like, Yeah, but what you can guarantee is we can get you a better service because of that. So we've got to make those promises, otherwise people will go, Well, I'm not coming to you then, because I like the way it is. Now. It's like not being funny, but we can't, I can't sustain that anymore. And actually, we recognize there's more value to give you if we do it in a different way. So you got to be quite persuasive with those people who you service, I suppose. And then I think, yeah, there's no evidence to prove this is right. So there'll be academics who will go, well, there's no science, or I'm trying to plug in science wherever I can, and actually, I'm finding quite a lot that validates a lot of this. So I think there'll be some persuasion from the people who think they've already got it sussed. But yeah, stakeholders certainly, and the legal side of things, just make sure you're not treading all over them.

Mervyn Dinnen  29:21  
Okay, Perry, it's been a fascinating conversation. Thank you. I'm sure, I'm sure it will pique the interest of many listeners. Now you've been writing a series of, I was about to say articles, it's not really, it's kind of, it's more than that. Chronicles online. I think I Yeah, okay. And I think, I think on LinkedIn and stuff. So if people are interested in exploring more, where's the best place to go and read?

Perry Timms  29:49  
So if you go to pthr, dot sub stack.com, they're all there. You're right. I'm sort of serializing them and sharing them on LinkedIn as well. And I'm starting. Keynote a little bit on some of this too, because people are getting interested in some of the elements to it. So I tend to take a topical way and then sort of play back into the polymorphic thing, but it's sparking people's attention. So you might see me on stage in certain conferences now talking about this, so you might catch it live as well. But thanks for prompting that, Merv.

Mervyn Dinnen  30:20  
That's okay. I look forward to seeing you on stage discussing it as well.

Perry Timms  30:23  
Thanks. Yeah, brilliant, good stuff. 

Mervyn Dinnen  30:25  
Okay Perry, it's been, it's been a pleasure. Thank you really enjoyed it. Good luck with spreading the word. 

Perry Timms  30:34  
Thank you, man, and appreciate the time on this. Cheers. 

Transcribed by https://otter.ai