The hidden cause of many organisational tensions
Introduction and purpose
We are no doubt living in a time of change – some tectonic shifts and many small changes. Whichever way you see the world, whether you think there has always been change or whether you believe it is accelerating, the often hidden ideologies behind organisational models are often the invisible root cause for many of the tensions we experience.
Business hierarchy is based on a long-standing pattern of ‘information up and control down’ – often referred to as a ‘command and control’ style of management. This has been a logical management approach based upon the history of human ideas. In today’s world, however, such an approach can limit and even impair organisations and make them less adaptable, less competitive, and ultimately less relevant.
Adaptive human responses to commercial and societal upheavals in the past suggest that maybe there is hope. But on the other hand, our relationship as human beings with power has not changed much for thousands of years. As conscious intelligent people, humans research, design, prototype and use new ‘technical’ technology to respond to our evolving world.
But have we done the same or at the same pace with ‘social’ technologies? Can we replace traditional hierarchical models with ones that are less limiting and more effective?
Some origins of modern hierarchy
The modern hierarchy has an interesting background. Its development can be traced to two different social patterns of conduct in the course of ‘recent’ human history: the ‘Guardian model’ and the ‘Commercial model’.
Human social evolution accelerated when people began to congregate in river valleys and to develop what later became civilisation. As separate population groups grew, they began to outstrip available resources and impinge on each other’s territories. The increasing competition for space and resources led to conflict. These conflicts usually took form of life-threatening warfare.
People (in tribes) initially banded together and utilised weapons defensively to protect their lives. When they were successful in doing so over time, they developed the capability to protect their own territories as well. This permitted societies to develop in wealth and to grow through the development of commerce – the exchange of valued goods.
Eventually, in such cases, a dedicated group of warriors was formed for the purpose of collective self-defence. This specialised group of warriors are a type of ‘guardian’ – which today we would call an ‘army’. These guardians were fed, housed, and clothed by the larger society. The purpose and role of this group of full-time warriors was clear: to defend and protect those who sustained it.
The Guardian model of social conduct.
A specific social structure and pattern of conduct came to be identified with successful armies. Today these are known as the ‘guardian model’ of social organisation. The guardian model had a number of embedded values which are found today in most military organisations. These are:
1. Valuing loyalty (over honesty)
2. Advocating deceit ‘in the name of the task’
3. Valuing obedience
4. Valuing caution
5. Shunning profit
6. Dispensing largesse – awarding honour, status, and shame based on loyalty
7. Antipathy toward outsiders (a win-lose mindset)
The Commercial model of social conduct
Of course, armies that were successful genuinely protected their fellow citizens from widespread loss of property and life. As the larger society was made safe from invasion, wealth was increased and social complexity grew. This occurred through a specific social structure and pattern of conduct known as the ‘commercial model’ of social organisation. The commercial model also had a number of embedded values. These were based on mutual survival and benefit. Its features were:
1. Valuing honesty (over loyalty)
2. Advocating dissent ‘in the name of the task’
3. Valuing trust
4. Valuing innovation
5. Valuing profit
6. Rewarding industriousness and innovation based on pragmatism
7. Searching for synergies with outsiders (a win-win mindset)
Eventually, refining the weapons and tactics of war gave armies the means to invade other people’s land and to seize their resources. (Many civilisations developed according to this pattern. However, there are notable exceptions. For example, the Minoan and Incan societies were formed based on co-operation and lacked any systematically developed capability for waging war.)
The consequences of mixing the two systems
Over the course of human civilisation, various societies have flourished so long as they have kept the guardian and commercial models of social conduct separate. Most societies have developed based on some sharing of mutual benefits among people.
But as complexity has increased through the process described above, greater distance from top-to-bottom developed in the social hierarchy and this has usually created conditions which cause social strains by creating the space for the abuse of power among groups at the top of the socio-economic hierarchy.
In such societies, those at the upper echelons often have used the levers of social power in an attempt to further their positions of wealth and influence. This has sometimes led to imperial economies which progressively mixed the two, incompatible models above into an ‘unholy hybrid’ of social conduct. In doing so, these societies carried within themselves the seeds of their own decline. Widespread win-win co-operation as embodied in the commercial model always have been fatally tainted in such situations. As cases in point, review historical examples such as the Greek, Roman, and British Empires.
As empires expanded due to military successes, a number of other practices developed. Instead of simply murdering their enemies, armies learned to capture the conquered people and to enslave them as labourers for the ‘home’ culture. Slaves were extremely useful for difficult jobs such as constructing buildings and infrastructures. Since slaves did not have the rights of citizens, they could be forced to toil in conditions which would be unacceptable to other members of society.
Indeed, one key feature of this hybrid of the guardian and commercial models can be seen specifically in this area of slavery. Enslaved people usually were controlled by the army because the military had progressively refined the techniques of subjugation from its experience with war and conquest. In particular, the work organisations imposed by armies were based on the guardian model applied to commercial advancement. Some key features were:
1. Hierarchical, authoritarian organization
2. Decision-making by those at upper levels of the hierarchy always supersedes lower-level decisions
3. Authority automatically assumed based on superior rank
4. The ideal of following orders unquestioningly, regardless of personal sacrifice
5. An ‘information-up, control down’ orientation
6. Punishment for deviance or defiance by subordinates (‘insubordination’)
7. Clear direction but slow responses to change and the need for newness
It does not take much of a leap of imagination to see how this top-down operating style applies today. It is typical of many if not most organisations.
Although few businesses in the Western world operate as the ‘sweat shops’ of past years, many managers still hold an implicit mental model of hierarchical authority and control. Although this was formed many centuries ago, the adverse intermingling of ‘guardian’ values with those of the commercial model of social behaviour persists today. Until recently, few people have stopped to question the origins or effects of widespread models of management.
A new 21st century approach
In a 21st Century knowledge-based business, those organisations and managers who rely upon yesterday’s models may find themselves increasingly irrelevant. They will be progressively weakened as their people fail to contribute as creatively, learnedly and energetically as they could in a more enabling environment.
Organisations which solely embrace the traditional hierarchical approach will lose ground to more sophisticated and complex organisations that seek to create an environment that progressively discovers paths for unleashing the collective intelligence of people – the true source of corporate strength.
Some characteristics of enterprises which operate in this new way would include:
1. Process based organisation
2. Leadership, followership, and teamship is widely diffused
3. Authority comes from credibility in the context
4. Open sharing of information – widespread speaking of truth to power - regardless of ‘rank’
5. Work output and responsibilities that make sense and flow from the organisational architecture
6. Productive diversity (‘dissent in the name of the task’)
7. Ongoing formulation and re-formulation of situational aspects of the organisational architecture
Many people are surprised when they first realise how some common business ideas came into being. They sometimes have an emotional reaction and the entire notion of hierarchy seems to deserve rejection. This is unfortunate and counter-productive.
We will always have hierarchies of some kind. They are a useful way of showing how people are grouped and how they communicate and co-operate.
In a competitive environment though, success depends increasingly upon unleashing the collective brilliance of everyone.
The four systems contrasted
| Guardian | Commercial | Mixed system | New approach |
|---|---|---|---|