Introduction
As part of a school assignment, my daughter was asked to interview someone older than 75 about rural life and agriculture in their youth. Luckily my father who is 77, grew up in a small village in rural France. Tractors had not replaced horses at the plow at that time. And even though the wheat harvest was aided by the first automated harvesters and threshers, the machine was still pulled by a horse and shared by all the farmers around. Throughout the harvest season, the whole village would go from one field to the next. Not only would they join forces to reap, gather and bale but the harvest season was a very social event. Young men would compete to show off their strength and skill, youngsters would learn and fool around in hay stacks, and they would all gather to share meals under the sun on long trestle tables. Nowadays, the same task can be performed by a lone farmer on a tractor in a fraction of the time. This provides immense productivity gain but by removing the necessity to collaborate a great deal of social value has been lost.
Organisations and metaphors
Classical mechanistic representation
Machines are powerful, reliable, predictable, and productive. Their advent has revolutionized our means of production and multiplied our capacity and strength. But they have inevitably impacted our societies, our psyche and our outlook. They have become the gold standard for efficiency, predictability and control. In comparison, our human limitations and irrationalities sometimes feel like flaws. As mechanisation invaded the workplace it became dominant. Over time, we have shaped our organisations to map its purpose and it’s timing, whether it is the beat of the automated hammer or the influx of workflow notifications. Mechanisation, automation, digitisation and now AI follow a similar pattern and only differ in scope and sophistication. Our language and outlook on organisation has been greatly influenced by the advent of mechanisation. Hence, we sometimes wish that our teams could work like machines plowing through deliverables at a predictive and productive rate. We say of a particularly productive team member that he/she works like a machine. More importantly, we have structured our organisations along mechanistic principles. If we choose to view organisations as machines then we build them to look like one. Complicated activities are broken down into simple tasks. Everything is measured, calibrated, benchmarked with the aim to control the outcome. The organisational structure itself is hierarchical and whoever is at the helm expects each team member to act in a predictable and efficient manner.
Yet we are humans; natural, earthly beings. Perhaps Imperfect but more importantly sentient, capable of ingenuity, compassion and courage. Such core values are essential to leadership and to organisations. They bring well being, resilience and the ability to innovate and evolve. They could hardly be mechanized. On the other hand, treating humans like they are parts of a machine breeds boredom, stifles innovation, and creates discontent. Who wants to be just another cog? The paradigm and the metaphor of organisations as machines seems no longer adequate. Not only does it not appeal to our humanity but it also fails to respond adequately to some of our more pressing challenges. A mechanistic approach is limited when dealing with complex situations characterized by non linearity, subjectivity and partial information. In these cases, a holistic perspective is more adaptive. It makes sense, mechanisation, automation, digitisation are great tools but nothing more. They are not useful in providing vision or purpose.
The question we are trying to answer is how can we build organisations that would capitalize on our specifically human qualities?
Purpose and Meaning
Purpose is a guiding principle for forward thinking organisations. It has also become clear that beyond financial rewards, working conditions and recognition, a key driver for workers is meaning. As we reach the top of Maslow’s pyramid we seek to fulfill more complex and elevated needs and tend towards self-esteem and self actualisation. In parallel with this personal growth, how can organisations evolve to provide a meaningful work experience?
Meaning is a highly subjective and complex notion. Yet we recognise it when we meet it. Meaning can have many layers. For corporations it is expressed in the “raison d’être”, manifesto, charters and other guiding principles that are adopted and proclaimed to guide the work of the organisation. But the actual meaning is best found in what is produced by the organisation, the assets that are built, the outcome of projects and maybe more importantly the daily experience of the people involved. The overall results of all the combined actions of a company is the actual embodiment of its purpose. When aligned with people’s aspirations and values a successful business outcome can also be a great source of satisfaction and provide a sense of fulfillment which is richer than just attaining performance targets. One could continue this train of thought and consider the meaningfulness of the end result of the actions of entire industries or even society as a whole. There is no doubt that this too impacts our outlook and feelings but let’s not digress. Day to day, this is not what matters most. The most important on a daily basis are the people we are interacting with, both amicably and professionally. We need each other to be successful, we rely on each other and we enjoy when we are able to contribute and get things done collaboratively. We value team members and we have a reputation to maintain and we hold pride in our work, we don’t want to leave our team-mates in a lurch. Therefore, before corporate loyalty and other incentives we will do what it takes to reach certain milestones, and go the extra mile, so that we can continue being a valued member of the team.
Other organisational metaphors
This is how organisations really work. It is people interacting with each other. What an organisation does, how it occupies space time, is the result of all the transactions between its members. When one looks at an organisation from this perspective, the metaphor becomes organisations as conversation or dialog. In this context, an organisation seems barely tangible, fleeting and without a definite centre. Yet nothing is more real than people connecting, discussing and acting upon the world, day after day. This metaphor recognizes that organisational identity, knowledge and culture are being created continuously here-and-now in the process of human interaction. It derives from complexity dynamics a form of self organisation or emergent design. It is a model which allows us to reconcile with the unpredictable nature of organisational life while leaving space for adaptation and creativity.
Metaphors have often been used in order to try to make sense of what an organisation actually is. Another way to look at an organisation is to consider it as a living being. Indeed, when considering it from the outside an organisation is an entity. It has its own identity, its own culture, its own language. It behaves sometimes with a life of its own. We can then look at organisations as organisms. Similar to an organism organisations are made of interdependent parts called departments or business units who themselves make up a whole. Within the metaphor, they are akin to organs which provide specific functions. The advantage of this metaphor is that it gives life to the organisation in a way which we, as humans, can more readily identify with than we would with a machine.
Not all organisations are alike and certain metaphors are more relevant than others given the circumstances. When an organisation is made of more independent parts it can be useful to view it as an ecosystem. It is a perspective that is commonly used when considering a corporation within its economic and societal environment. It is also useful when considering heterogeneous groupings of companies and other stakeholders. This metaphor focuses on the interactions between the different parts. Take for example an EPCM (Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management) project. EPCM projects include a prime contractor (often a joint venture built for the occasion), subcontractors, vendors, communities and of course the client. Beyond the contractual framework, those stakeholders are engaged on day to day activities, interacting within mutually beneficial relationships. Similarly, in an ecosystem all species bring complementary traits and activities and are also co-dependant. In the best case their relationship is symbiotic but one way or another they are all interdependent while autonomous.
What is common between these natural world metaphors is a certain fluidity. They relate to us at a different level. Even without trying to delineate why, looking at an organisation as a living thing just feels different. Also, they evoke the idea of a whole containing interdependent wholes while also being part of a greater whole. The technical word for such a thing is a holon. Life is full of holons, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, beings. And, continuing the chain, group of beings. All natural entities are complex systems and therefore somewhat chaotic and non linear. The same can be said of organisations. Those metaphors also suggest an entity that is self organized, self regulated and self adaptive. While this may not always be the case for traditionally structured organisations, these are desirable traits which can help improve the efficiency, resilience, creativity and agility of the organisation.
Metaphors and ways of thinking
One of the attributes of management is to design and build teams. It is what could be called organisational engineering. We have reporting structures, organisation charts, procedures, workflows but also charters and team building events. All organisations have governance processes whether they are explicit or more opaque. Some companies have chosen a very transparent approach to governance and have adopted a constitution in a way similar to political systems. All these elements make up the structure of the organisation. People have roles and responsibilities, they execute tasks, utilize management systems and tools. All this needs to be organized in such a way as to best achieve its goal. How we view the world and the way we think about organisations has a direct impact on how we choose to structure organisations.
In a way, each of the metaphors cited above hold true but shed a different light on defining what is the organisation. They each highlight a different facet of what is a complex reality. As such they help us gain a more holistic viewpoint on organisations. Metaphors and various ways of thinking are important; they frame our field of action. If we apprehend the organisation incorrectly it may induce us in error. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” and so we need an organisational paradigm and the accompanying structure to align with the organisation’s culture. More often than not, organisational structure is a one size fits all. Most of us are more concerned with the day to day than we are with the importance of metaphors. Yet anyone can feel the difference between an organism and a machine. If our intent is to enable organisations, it is worth spending some time to examine some of the characteristics of human groups.
Each of these metaphors provide an interesting insight and we can borrow some of its characteristics in order to improve organisations. We know for instance that diversity and redundancy provides resilience to ecosystems. This is directly applicable for instance to supply chains where a diversity of suppliers can help improve resilience. We understand from natural complexity science that unpredictable patterns emerge as a result of large numbers of simple processes. What then, if the processes are themselves complex? We know that for an organism to thrive it needs the right environment. It is also true for organisations and for individuals within them. All this is helpful to shape any organisation, whether a company or a project team. By expanding our perspective, we open the possibility to tap into aspects of the organisation that were not visible or were suppressed by a more narrow and simplistic organisational model.
While analogies and metaphors are useful to trigger thoughts and provide insights, human organisations have their own unique identity. One of the characteristics of human organisations is that we may choose how they are structured and built and for which purpose. Natural systems cannot choose the environment within which they exist. Contrary to natural systems human organisations can define the rules, the framework within which a self organized emergent design may flourish (or not). There is therefore a tension between a controlled design of the organisation and the activities happening within the organisation that may be more spontaneous. As we engage in designing organisation we are driven by certain intentions. It seems fair to say that we want human organisations to reflect human values and provide an environment where humans can flourish.
Historical Evolutionary View
Stages of development
As so often in human history, our view of the world and within it, our view on organisations has reached its limits. People, especially the younger generations are looking towards a future of work which is aligned with their values and aspirations. Numerous corporations have taunted changes in the workplace and the organisation of work as a way to attract talent and remain relevant in a fast-changing environment. In parallel, humans seem confronted with an existential or identity crisis which has been further exacerbated by the covid pandemic and its impacts. Society as a whole appears to be in the grip of a significant transformation. This is symptomatic of humanity reaching a new stage of development.
When studying the evolution of human consciousness, scholars have demonstrated that both humans individually and humanity as a whole evolves in stages. These stages of development are well known in developmental psychology but they also mirror the evolution of human consciousness through the ages. What is striking is that every transition to a new stage of consciousness is accompanied by radical changes in every aspect of human life. In his book “reinventing organisations”, Frederic Laloux mentions the following markers of social evolution: “society (going from family bands to tribes to empires to nation states); the economy (from foraging to horticulture, agriculture, and industrialisation); the power structures; the role of religion.” He adds that these historical transformations also included a significant change of organisational model. If we indeed find ourselves at a historical juncture, what does it mean for the future of organisations?
This co-evolution of individuals, organisations and societies has been modelled by spiral dynamics. In this model each new stage is added to the next rather than replacing it creating a spectrum of organisational structures. To capture this notion, spiral dynamics often assign colours to organisational models. For instance, power driven, impulsive organisations such as feudal lordships or organized crime is red. Blue may be used for order driven authoritative hierarchies such as religions or armies. Orange is used to represent performance driven organisations such as capitalist democracies and companies. More people driven, socially conscious organisations are represented with green. The next of development for organisations which is currently appearing is centered around self management, wholeness and an evolutionary purpose and have been categorized as teal.
Societal development stages are mirrored with psychological stages. Hence authoritarian groups behaviours are likened to authoritarian toddlers. Our own psychological limits evolve with the structure of organisations and vice versa. It was not until our mind expanded beyond the confines of our tribes that we were able to build nations. It was not until science and philosophy widened our understanding of the world around us that hereditary and status based hierarchy was replaced by hierarchies of competence. Lately, sharing and exchanges across cultures are giving rise to the emergence of a multi-polar world and the valorisation of diversity and inclusion. Overall the trend points to organisations that are more decentralized and democratic, enabling synergies and seeking to harness the collective power and intelligence of the group while enabling individuals to flourish. While this trend may be true, older forms of organisations still exist at the same time as others evolve towards what seems to be the next stage. These organisational structures are not mutually exclusive, and an evolving organisation would seek to consciously incorporate various modes of organisations depending on the circumstances. For instance, purely authoritarian decision making is not the norm nowadays in most corporations but there may be certain sectors of the organisation or certain points in time (e.g. emergencies) where a fully top down approach remains the most adequate.
The importance of communication
Interestingly, a similar historical pattern in the evolution of organisations can be observed through the lens of information technology. Information is power and throughout history, each time the cost of sharing information was dramatically reduced (starting with the invention of the printing press), the sociological implications were to be felt for centuries. Thanks to the printing press, ideas could be shared and communicated more and more easily eventually accompanying the philosophical and scientific revolutions of the renaissance. This trend continued with increased literacy and the advent of telecommunications. It appears that a correlation can be drawn between the cost of communication and the democratisation of society. This still holds true today and if access to information leads to more democratic and participatory societies, we have yet to fully grasp the impact of the development of worldwide digital communication and the internet.
Design Intent
Dynamic Management
In the book “Strategic Management and organisational Dynamics”, the author contrasts the traditional conception of strategic management as a science with organisational dynamics. When considering management as a science it derives an approach which is based on macro planning and macro design. It is rooted in rational, formal and orderly structures which follow a top down transfer of information. It aims to provide control and predictability and tries to represent what organisations should be like. According to the plan, of course. Organisational dynamics on the other hand draws from complexity science. It views the organisation as the result of numerous micro interactions. These are essentially self organizing and through bottom up processes leads to emergent patterns of design. Complex and therefore unpredictable, organisational dynamics aims to represent what organisations actually are.
In practice those viewpoints are not mutually exclusive and both actually exist. The organisation has multiple layers, multiple dimensions which interact with one another. Part of it is the tension between those macro and micro forces. Micro interactions do not exist in a vacuum and macro decision making provide a frame, a structure and environment where all the stakeholders can interact according to explicit and implicit rules. If the structure is too rigid it might stifle the organisation. But constraints are also a source of creativity and without structure and direction the organisation lacks focus. Leadership and management decisions have impact on the organisation but because the latter is a complex and somewhat unpredictable entity, it is not necessarily the intended effects which occur. The art of management is therefore to find the right balance between guidance and letting be.
Emerging Structures
A growing number of organisations recognize the importance of redefining work and it is supported by a large body of academic research, organisational innovators and entrepreneurs. Surprisingly many organisations have developed independently new ways of working which turn out to have a lot in common. Very often, self management is a core element together with a focus on the human element as well as the purpose; the “why” of the organisation.
Flat organisations, sociocracies and holacracy are some examples of organisational models which recognize the value of harnessing the aspirations and authenticity of individuals for the benefit of the group. They seek to find alternatives to command and control hierarchies. This evolution is tangible and even in traditional organisations more and more managers act as facilitators and exert influence and persuasion rather than giving orders. Their legitimacy is rooted in their expertise, competence and ability to rally the team rather than the authority attached to their position in the organisational chart. However, what is the structure of a flat organisation? Most of us are used to a static but clear hierarchical organisation. We can feel lost when this structure disappears. More importantly, if we are to re-design organisations, what are the features which we expect to manifest and what should be our guiding principles?
Functional Requirements
The overall trend of organisations described previously provide some good insight into the desirable characteristics for an organisation.
One overarching idea is to capitalize on human qualities. Technology in the form of machines, computers, databases, systems, various applications and now AI (Artificial Intelligence) are elements of the organisational map. They are the medium which allows us to effectively perform complex interactions. They are tools that should be used for what they are best at: predictability, speed, power, reproductibility and information storage capacity. Humans on the other hand excel in ingenuity, adaptation, courage, feeling, intuition, complex analysis, empathy and dialogue.
Other aspects of future organisations is to tend toward decentralisation and self management. It stresses the importance of diversity of thought which can best be expressed through participation and collaboration rather than competition. Engagement and involvement go hand in hand and require transparency as well as clear rules which apply equally to all. It is important for people to be heard and to have a say in decisions that affect them and to feel that they are part of a team. Finally, being at work must feel natural and all should feel safe to bring the whole of themselves to the workplace. All of this aims to create an organisation that is not only agile, effective and resilient but also creative, pleasant and meaningful.
Conclusion
Mechanisation allows for the deployment of stored energy into innumerable work applications with power, precision and repeatability. Prior to the industrial revolution and the availability of new forms of Energy, we had to rely mostly on human and animal power. In order to be harnessed, these forms of distributed energy required a great deal of coordination. This inevitably created strong social bonds. In the past, these were driven by necessity and encoded by tradition. This goes very deep as there were times when the necessity to work as a community was a question of survival. However, strong social bonds and traditions can also be oppressive and stifling leaving little space for individual expression. Societal changes during industrialisation have removed the necessity of local communal cooperation and displaced it to the national and now the supranational level. In the process, traditions and social norms have been shattered.
Similarly, in the past, social interactions were the most common available option to gain new information, expand knowledge or simply pass the time. Nowadays, each of us are overwhelmed with information and ways to stay entertained, amused and engaged without having to leave our homes. This is convenient but individualisation comes into conflict with human beings as social animals. Social Interactions have inherent benefits for the self. Hence, the same social value that we took for granted and which has been lost for the group may also be lost for the individual. Social Interactions have inherent benefits for the self.
In a worldview, where we try to model organisations after machines it derives that humans may also be turned into biological machines. This is also a paradigm which is reaching its limits. In order to flourish in an organisational garden, it is the organic natural and spiritual side of humans which must be encouraged to express itself. It is also this yearning which often fails to be answered in current organisations. At a deeper level, this is probably one the main driver behind the need for organisational transformation.
The human society that my daughter has inherited is fraught with deep and fundamental existential challenges. Only a collective response will be able to tackle such complexity and it starts with organisations. Improving collective intelligence is an arduous task. Just as human intelligence is not limited to IQ but also includes emotional, social and creative components, collective intelligence is a complex concept where social interactions have a value that could be compared to the interactions of neurons. One of the keys is to reclaim the social values that our elders took for granted and use it to regenerate the fertility of our organisational soil.
