For some time now, like a number of other observers, I have
had the view that the structure and function of organisations is deeply flawed.
The same can be said for how we understand management. The main reason for
having this rather controversial and, no doubt, confronting opinion is that the
prevailing model does not take into consideration the psychological,
anthropological and sociological evidence about under what conditions people
function best.
The way in which we run our organisations, at least those
larger than about 30 people, is an artefact of the industrial revolution.
Anthropologists will tell you that when we were living in the swamp and peat
bogs a tribe of about 50 people was about the maximum size and many were less.
While not wishing to return to these ‘good old days’ a small tribe is easy to
manage with a single leader. Any bastardry by a member of the group was hard to
hide and there was less risk of things like factions and power groups.
Leadership was a simple matter of the strongest, smartest, charismatic, or just
all round powerful person being in charge until challenged. I guess a class
system of some sort or other has been around for a long time. For the sake of
this blog I’ll steer clear about whether this was the best model for everyone
concerned. What is true is that it was the way it mostly worked. I’m also not
advocating a return to this state of affairs in the 12st century.
Where things became a bit more complicated was when tribes
became larger. For the sake of this blog let’s skip societies and just talk about
organisations because they are indeed, at least in the eyes of sociologists,
tribes or societies. They use the same lingo to describe them such as culture,
norms, values and so on. The normal, natural system to which humans had become
acclimatised for a very long time didn’t work so well. The route of least
resistance to managing a large organisation was to adapt the model we already
had and which probably resembled common practice in military circles at least
in rudimentary form. The system was to appoint lieutenants and split the
organisation into small groups. This is the typical hierarchical system that we
know so well today.
What we have known since about the 1950s about how humans
function best in workplaces is that this model may not be the best. More
evidence since then is growing exponentially to support this view. I’d like to
predict that organisations in the future will have a very flat structure. They
will function around teams that will be fluid and flexible, and based on
projects. People will engage in projects according to their expertise and one
person will lead that project. After the task or project has been completed the
team will break up and the cycle will repeat. Leadership will be based on
expertise for that particular project or task, not on an assumption that one
person has a special set of abilities. There may be more than one leader on a
team providing different skills. In fact you see model working perfectly well
in sporting and other social clubs across the globe. The key is to have small
tribes (teams) and not allow them to get too large. Managers will not have an exalted
status.
Yes, there will need to be coordination and a new way of
thinking about pay structures. And yes, people will work well without formal
bosses to crack a whip. Cracking whips does not work as a motivator, except in
the short term. People are engaged and motivated when they have a reasonable
level of autonomy, a clear purpose with to which they feel aligned, challenge,
certainty, rewards, the required skills and a chance to improve their abilities,
a safe physical and psychological environment, the capacity to be innovative
and creative, a sense of belonging (tribe membership), and feel valued.
As for leadership. I think that everyone has the capacity to
be a leader given the right context. I am a fair to middling leader when there
is a need to be creative, to think outside the box. I like ideas. Sadly, my
skills are lacking, as is my motivation, when it comes to a maintenance role.
I’m lousy at it. Some people are great leaders when attention to detail is
required, and others when we need a grand design.
I wonder whether or not it is time to make the future come
to us rather than wait. Is it time given the world in which we now live where
uncertainty, rapid change, communication speed and modalities, access to
information and personal empowerment, are increasing exponentially to change
our organisations to suit? There was an attempt to do this through systems
thinking in the 80s and 90s with the propositions of organisational democracy and
self-managing teams, but it ran out of puff.
Perhaps now is the hour.
The most innovation helpful entry! You make feature seem easy. The dynamic higher Standard entry idea of the topic is really meaningful indeed. On the whole look of the site is great, as well as the content! The top qualified post is observed carefully and now is is thought that your sharing idea is surely great and informative. Thanks for giving out the valuable feature. Keep writing.
ReplyDeleteHi Shahinur,
Deletethanks for your feedback. You are very kind
Yes, it is time! As a technology, management (including organisation) is due for a radical overhaul, ideally based on observations and insights like those in your article. Have yo read Steve Denning?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stevedenning.com/site/Default.aspx
He has complementary views on 21st century approaches to improving organisations, and thereby peoples lives.
Denning is good-he stirs the pot. I need to get his book.
ReplyDelete