Bring on the Egalitarian Workplace

That’s a great analysis of the way foward in management. As ICT takes deeper roots in our organization and workers continue to acquire higher education levels matching those of collegues in management, there is need for a new approach and the line between them becomes creativity and imagination.

I’ve worked with the two models. The team approach, like an old sailing ship with an all-knowing captain, has been the most productive for the company and everyone on the team and is a far superior model. Team members become cross-functional, continuously improving. Unfortunately with all the job hopping and lack of mentoring, true all-knowing captains (team leaders) are very rare. Teams sometimes confuse a flat organization with a democracy. There was responsibility, decision making, and accountability but little democracy on the sailing ships. Hierarchy has a big downside, development of department silos encumbered with micro-managing directors with differing agendas and visions of power that encompass the entire department. Each department becomes a mini-Union, and decision making is hindered. Learning occurs in a monoculture. Job description can be narrow.

Todays work involves information, knowledge, and creativity.

You cannot replace a worker with another like corporations did when making switches or gadgets on the assembly (or almost) lines.

So we need managers who can manage (or leave them alone) creative workers.

Also creative workers do not like to be controlled—which is the favorite modus operandi of old managers. Managers need to be evaluated on their groups’ performance. Like a football coach who just got fired (U of M), managers need to be fired (they are paper pushers mainly).

There is nothing practical or necessary about hierarchy. Societies that flourished the longest have always been societies without hierarchy—no chiefs, no supervisors, no concentration of power. These societies would still be flourishing today were it not for the violent ravaging they experienced at the hands of hierarchically minded, power-hungry outsiders.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Ashkenas’ position. The position to toss out traditional hierarchy and the job description is far too simplistic a view on what it takes to drive meaningful change. This view is further perpetuated by the undeniable success of organizations like Google, but the reality is that they, too, have clear levels of management and leadership who rightfully spread accountability and leadership to all those who are willing to step up to the plate. The book The Starfish and the Spider espouses similar ideals, but the divide between ideals and the ability to bring about transformative change is simply what differentiates academia from the real world of business.

There will be no one golden solution to apply across the board. As with many approaches, the extremes often do not universally apply.

The lack of job descriptions, flatter organizations, and flexible approach would likely fit better for organizational environments that are new, immature, or very rapidly evolving. With a lightning fast pace of change, constraining job descriptions may hold individuals back from taking action. Leadership is vital as mentioned here in driving forward principles that can be acted upon. With visionary approaches that allow for empowered action, many great things can be achieved.

On the other hand, hierarchies have their place. There are many, many companies that have long shown success through their structure. In market environments that need strict adherence to standards, requirements, policies, etc., hierarchies can help ensure top quality is always present. This does lead to longer time to market of course. Additionally, utilizing specialists or experts inside an organization or network, is natural. Not everyone can do everything. Along with that, it may not be cost, time or quality abiding to let everyone roam free, so to speak.

The right blend and balance for any one particular organization will depend on the pace of change in the industry, the capabilities of the employees, and the resources available to take action.
http://bit.ly/hfWoBK

In 1991 or so, Eliott Jacques wrote a piece in the Harvard Business Review titled “In Place of Hierarchy.” It is an excellent business-centric discussion of why hierarchies are necessary as an enterprise business increases.

I think this argument is really about the difference between an employee and a partner. Partners are creative, self-directed types who have a stake in the company. In the olden days, they were part-owners, but nowadays they can buy shares of the company in order to have skin in the game. Employees have always been hired hands who do what they’re told in exchange for a paycheck. They need managers (preferably partner types) and to be told what to do. The trick is to put the partners in charge and not put too many layers of management in the partners’ way.

Google is listed as a company that has done away with hierarchy, but that’s patently false. As an ex-employee of the firm, I was there when scores of managers were eliminated and we were supposed to report to a single boss. This led to chaos and a boss facing a tsunami of demands. Google thankfully went back to its hierarchical model.

How is this a “Pro” vs “Con”? When the Pro just spouts nothing but catch phrases? But it would make sense for the Pro side—about as much sense as thinking a brainless 50-year-old clerk has the drive and imagination to drive a company.