I am working on a couple of “what’s next” projects about corporate networks and communities, and this post by Jon Husband (The New Management – Bringing Democracy and Markets Inside the Organization), really struck me as very accurate.
One of the key milestones for widely and successfully deploying collaboration in an organization is the process for choosing a new governance charter. Basically, in my experience, after some pilot communities and networks have helped identify why and how a specific organization should deploy a collaborative way (to innovate further; to increase individual productivity; to bring its internal culture to the level of its employer brand; and so on), people start thinking about some key issues like:
- what name should we choose for this initiative,
- what rules should we have to organize our collaboration,
- how should HR processes change to take into account this new dimension ?
Bringing an answer to those questions is one of the key milestones to bring collaboration within the corporate culture. And, more than the answers themselves, it is how the organization choses to bring an answer to those issues (how it learns to think, design and decide collectively) that matters.
Why did Jon Husband post stricke me ? Well, I think we are at a time when the rules and governing principles of corporations are going to be built by the employees. That is, to my mind, somehow a move that “increases the democratic level” of the corporation.
Most governing principles used to come from power or from history: corporations internal organization codes and rules are mostly based on hierarchical decisions or on culture (the way we do things around here).
What I see now is quite different. Collaboration projects, and even more so if E2.0 tools are chosen and deployed wisely, can result in new rules and charters that have been collaboratively built and adopted. This is new and can be very powerful.
This is hapening. But we should not be too idealistic. I do not think this is about how the corporation will become a democracy (at least, not yet). I think it is about how the responsibility for the organization projects, performance and social role is more widely distributed and accepted than before.
By asking to build the rules, the employees are asking for more responsibility, and by launching these collaborative projects the organization is getting ready to share it. I could not say what will be the outcome of this. What I can say is that most corporations structure and processes will have to change deeply to benefit from this trend (see Martin’s last post on Cisco for an example of change).
Thanks Luis, you and Jon of course are right! This remembers me a paper I wrote few months ago about the same subject for eSangathan: “Enterprise 2.0 and Corporate Governance”. Here it is on my website, it is a good complement of what you say: http://www.kimind.com/2008/05/01/enterprise-20-and-corporate-governance/. And this is the essence of the Enterprise 2.0.
Thanks for your comment Miguel. I agree that the essence of what is called Enterprise 2.0 is much more a higher percentage of talented and involved employees, new usages and new governance than mere technology. Technology is key, but as an enabler. And as you say, it was there before, only now employees are ready “to receive and exploit them”.
My opinion is that generally employee long for increased autonomy and ability to decide, as well as for increased interest of their jobs. The corporate answer (to be build in this new governance) should probably be increased level of responsibility.
Luis, thanks for noticing my post, and Miguel, thanks for the rieinforcing encouragement.
Specific to organisational democracy (they aren’t democracies and won’t be any time soon), it seems clear that they will do well to adopt some of the core aspects of democratic principles .. the pressure to do so has been building for quite a few years, and today’s flows of information and the tools available with which to work with those flows in an increasingly interconnected environment will add to that pressure.
If it may be of interest to you, here is an interview with WorldBlu’s Traci Fenton. Worldblu carries out an annual survey of the world’s most democratic organizations.
Thanks Jon for the link. Helps to better understand Wirearchy, that I had read about a couple of times. I also tend to push the notion that hierarchy as an organizing principle is limited and that the current context gives organizations the opportunity to increase the number of organizing principles they use. With my current clients, we are just discovering how to bring the “collaborative” principle up to a same level with hierarchy.
I am not yet clear if hierarchy will evolve or if it will be complemented by additional organizing principles.
The trend towards a “more democratic organization”, though, is a deep one to my mind.
Hierarchy as an organizing principle for the modern era was exactly appropriate as we moved in to the latter half of the Industrial Era, as organizations and markets grew larger … the combined focus on efficiency and the effective use of knowledge made it such that much of today’s hierarchy is. in concept at least, based on increasing levels of knowledge as you go up the hierarchy.
Today, if :knowledge is power” then the introduction of hyperlinks into a digital infrastructure that caries, displays and archives information and knowledge has begun to change the fundamental assumption of the vertical and linear arrangement of knowledge. Have you perchance read David Weinberger’s Everything Is Miscellaneous – The Power of the New Digital Disorder ?
In my thinking about wirearchy I was inspired early on by these several paragraphs from business visionary and strategist and author Stan Davis:
“”Electronic information systems enable parts of the whole organization to communicate directly with each other, where the hierarchy wouldn’t otherwise permit it.
What the hierarchy proscribes, the network facilitates: each part in simultaneous contact with all other parts and with the company as a whole. The organization can be centralized and decentralized simultaneously: the decentralizing mechanism in the structure, and the coordinating mechanism in the systems.
Networks will not replace or supplement hierarchies; rather the two will be encompassed within a broader conception that embraces both. We are still a long way from figuring out the appropriate and encompassing organization models for the economy we are now in.”
In this “both / and” era, I am a “both / and” kind of guy. I do not think there will be many leaderless or completely non-hierarchical organisations.. (Most) people need and want some vision and structure to guide what they do. That said, I think there is a fair bit of what I would call sclerotic hierarchy, based on position, status, seniority, cronyism, etc, today, as opposed to what I would call healthy, productive or enlightened hierarchy .. to get a better sense of what I mean there I would refer to the concept of servant leadership, etc.
I think traditional hierarchy will and MUST evolve in today’s interconnected world, and I also think that evolution will be complemented by additional organizing principle(s).
Dans Citadelle, qui est un de mes livres de chevet, je tombe là-dessus:
“Moi, le roi, je m’irai soumettre sans gène à l’enseignement du laboureur. Car il en sait plus long qu’un roi sur le labour. Et, lui sachant gré de m’instruire, je l’en remercierai sans croire déchoir. Car il est naturel que la science du labour aille du laboureur vers le roi.Mais, dédaignant toute vanité, je ne solliciterai point qu’il m’admire. Car le jugement va du roi vers le laboureur.”
Dans une entreprise, la connaissance est dans la pratique, pas dans les chiffres, et il est donc normal que les dirigeants s’appuient sur le travail des professionnels au contact des réalités pour prendre leurs décisions, et les faire appliquer via la hiérarchie. Mais quand la hiérarchie fait écran entre les décideurs et les gens “sur le terrain”, c’est-à-dire au contact des réalités que sont les clients et ce qu’on leur vend, alors on perd le sens de ce qu’on fait. Il est alors parfaitement inutile de lancer des programmes d’entreprise sur l’innovation ou l’attitude client. L’Entreprise 2.0, c’est ça au fond: permettre aux laboureurs de parler aux laboureurs sans passer par le roi. Ce n’est pas nécessairement une démocratie, mais c’est toujours au moins un contre-pouvoir. Et les managers qui ne sont pas surs d’eux-mêmes – moi le premier – n’aiment pas beaucoup les contre-pouvoirs.
Martin’s comment based on a passage from Citadelle is very interesting, and speaks directly to the meta-notion that “knowledge is power” (vis ses mots sur le contre-pouvoir) .. which is what is in play these days.
Hierarchical leaders in this modern environment will do well to diminish their reliance on structural / positional power and begin to grow their softer but higher-quality power through the use of listening, dialogue and decision-making that is seen to be intelligent and based on democratic (more or less) input.