In addition to sourcePOV (great questions), I would suggest the following for the podcast (when will it take place?):

Referring to my questions in my blog post:
- How do we reach the tipping point of organizing in a different way?
- What is needed (apart from the infrastructure, which is there), and who is needed?
- Which organizations will set the trend, if needed at all?
- How can organizations change to a more decentralized structure, like a wirearchy?

Other questions that might be interesting:
- In what is wirearchy fundamentally different from hierarchy?
- How can we make these kind of organizing structures more a reality?
- What are the greatest challenges and pitfalls regarding wirearchies?
- Do we have to consider property (copyleft/copyright) issues?
- How is governance different in a wirearchy?

Thanks.

Scope Boundaries & Applications:

1 – Does ‘wirearchy’ have application in the large scale (corporate enterprise, government) org context, or is it more likely to emerge and thrive among self-organizing (grass-roots) groups in public domains?

2 – Is the ‘matrix organization’ an example of a hybrid org (due to vertical and horizontal elements) or simply a blending of two hierarchies?

3 – Since large scale organizations are not self-organizing by definition; can their point-in-time sub-groups (eg. task forces, skunk works, tiger teams) self-organize, and still be considered a component of the parent org, and thus, qualify as ‘hybrid’? It’s somewhat a question of semantics, but perhaps important to bound our research.

4 – For practical purposes, can we view ‘wirearchy’ as the networked portion of K.Stephenson’s ‘heterarchy’ model? (again, some semantics, but I’m seeking to understand where these models stop and start; also useful to know if Stephenson’s ideas of gatekeeper, traffic cop, etc. can be inherited .. ).

Cultural Implications:

5 – What can be learned from the positive/negative effects of culture in design of hybrid orgs?

6 – Can org culture be harnessed or guided through the use of more effective org solutions like wirearchy, or do the dynamics of human behavior that drive culture in orgs fundamentally resist any structural controls?

7 – What aspects of silos in hierarchies survive when hybrid solutions are introduced? Would elements of ‘command and control’ cultures still exist, or are such modes of interaction fundamentally at odds with the hybrid/networked design?

Prior to the podcast, would be great to further fine tune our questions via more comments from the group (Jon, Bas, others). If we can collectively enhance or reshape questions beforehand, by all means, let’s invest the cycles -

Thanks for the energy on this -

Will Enterprise 2.0 Drive Management Innovation ?

If any of you care to offer feedback, it will be warmly accepted and appreciated (and not to worry, after 25 years of consulting, I have a decently thick skin

Yes.

Consistent with this view of organizational dynamics, I see organizational ‘culture’ as the ongoing process of shared meaning making. The more that people make sense of issues, events, managers’ words and actions, etc in a particular way (through their local interactions with others) the more likely they are to continue making sense of these and related experiences in similar ways in the future. That is, the ‘patterns’ of past sensemaking tend to ‘channel’ ongoing sensemaking, imperceptibly, down familiar ‘pathways’. The possibility of change is always present; but the tendency is for established patterns to be sustained, as a result of the reflexive nature of this conversational process. Also, since these conversations are always ‘local’, the patterning process is fragmentary rather than identical throughout the organization. It is likely that there will be some overlap, of course, as people interact with different people; and some consistent themes may come to dominate many of the local exchanges. But the idea of a unitary ‘culture’, which is often reflected in management texts, consultants’ offerings and organizations’ own literature, makes no sense at all from this perspective.

Yes.

I am a Cognitive Edge practitioner, and am working with Dave Snowden on a project or two. I am also busy planning (intro, context setting, questions) a podcast with Dave Snowden in which I will ask him to interpret and explore with me what ‘wirearchy’ means as an emerging organizational principle in the networked era. Or, even if there is a new emerging organizaing principle. He knows his stuff, so I expect it to be fairly interesting.

If any of you want to contribute to my planning: what questions do you feel I should ask him ?

I thought I’d respond to Sourcepov’s, Jon’s and your own remarks in relation to my earlier comment. Thanks for further stimulating my ‘little grey cells’!

First, I want to stress that my original comment attempts to describe my view of the underlying, “complex social process” dynamics of organizations. From this perspective, outcomes emerge from the widespread interplay of the everyday, ‘local’ conversations and interactions, through which people make sense of the world and decide how they are going to act. This is going on simultaneously in all organizations, of course; whether these are commercial, public-sector, voluntary, domestic, or whatever. And many of those conversations will ‘cross-pollinate’.

Crucially, the above description of organizational dynamics is ‘value-neutral’. By that I mean that these same dynamics apply whether the management philosophy is one of top-down ‘command and control’ or widespread empowerment and collaboration; whether the organization is structured along rigid hierarchical lines or as a much more fluid ‘network’; and whether individual managers are highly respected or held in contempt! Actual outcomes still emerge from local conversational interaction. The content, meaning and outcomes will be different in each case but the underlying process will be the same. And so, irrespective of organizational structure, it is here – in the ongoing interactions that comprise everyday organizational life – where I feel that managers need to focus their attention.

In contrast to the above, my comment appears to have been interpreted as a call for a ‘better’ organizational form; one that is characterized by a range of positive attributes, such as openness, collaboration, innovation, self-management, ‘balance’ between the formal and informal, and so on. That is not what I’m saying. I’m arguing instead that a manager’s primary focus should be on the everyday sensemaking process (in all of its ‘messiness’), through which outcomes actually emerge. This also recognizes that ‘real’ (as opposed to idealized) organizations will always be characterized by conflict as well as collaboration; covert behaviour and self-interest as well as openness and shared interest; conformity as well as innovation; and so on – all expressed through local interaction.

The challenge of change similarly becomes one of seeking to shift the patterns and content of local conversations, rather than focusing primarily on changing the formal strategies, structures and procedures. The ‘paradigm shift’ I am arguing for, therefore, is towards one that views organizations from a (complex social) “process” perspective rather than a “systems” one. Ralph Stacey is the most well-known proponent of this general position, as reflected in his view of organizations as complex responsive processes.

Finally, Sourcepov, you ask about “culture” and its link to what I called the “shadow side” of the organization. From an informal coalitions perspective, it’s important not to think of culture as a ‘thing’ that an organization ‘possesses’. The same applies to the notion of the “shadow side” of an organization; so Ralph Stacey’s reference to “shadow themes” emerging in conversation is probably more congruent with what I meant to convey. Such themes will relate to any of those issues that affect the dynamics of an organization but which are not spoken about in its formal arenas or written about in its official documents. These will reflect such dynamics as power relations, political agendas and interactions, social relationships, personal idiosyncrasies, covert working arrangements, ‘mixed messages’, taken-for-granted (cultural) assumptions, and so on. Informal coalitions, which I see as the origin of all change in organizations, themselves originate through people’s covert support for particular shadow themes,. These surface as formal propositions only when a sufficiently powerful coalition of support has been built around them. So, as in the main discussion above, it’s what happens in the give-and-take of everyday conversational interaction that will determine how these shadow themes fare and whether or not they eventually enter the formal, ‘legitimate’ arenas of the organization.

Consistent with this view of organizational dynamics, I see organizational ‘culture’ as the ongoing process of shared meaning making. The more that people make sense of issues, events, managers’ words and actions, etc in a particular way (through their local interactions with others) the more likely they are to continue making sense of these and related experiences in similar ways in the future. That is, the ‘patterns’ of past sensemaking tend to ‘channel’ ongoing sensemaking, imperceptibly, down familiar ‘pathways’. The possibility of change is always present; but the tendency is for established patterns to be sustained, as a result of the reflexive nature of this conversational process. Also, since these conversations are always ‘local’, the patterning process is fragmentary rather than identical throughout the organization. It is likely that there will be some overlap, of course, as people interact with different people; and some consistent themes may come to dominate many of the local exchanges. But the idea of a unitary ‘culture’, which is often reflected in management texts, consultants’ offerings and organizations’ own literature, makes no sense at all from this perspective.

Finally, it follows from the above description of ‘organizational culture’ that ‘it’ can’t be designed and built by management in the ways that Schein, Kotter and even Handy would argue that ‘it’ can.

Cheers, Chris

The practices already exist in organizations … because it is a natural consequence of the complex social dynamics of human interaction.

I couldn’t agree more. Do you also think that in many organizations that natural human behavior is being controlled too much? That the freedom to act more like you preferred to do is under-valuated, or sometimes even dis-encouraged? That that ‘culture’ prohibits collaboration and innovation? And employee happiness? I mean, when employees get more freedom to do things they are not primarily hired for, that it will strengthen the informal decentralized connections and the organization will benefit from that?

I know this can sound way to naive…. but I am curious to your opinions about it.

Interestingly, though, the dynamics that are at the core of the “wirearchy” (and other network-based designs) occur through local interaction, not at the macro, network-wide level. That is, they take place through one-to-one and small-group exchanges (however extensive the network overall). And this practice already exists in organizations (including rigidly hierarchical ones). It has done so since time immemorial. It’s just that the activity has always taken place informally, in the ‘shadow side’ of the organization. This will always be the case, whatever the formal structure, because it is a natural consequence of the complex social dynamics of human interaction. Most significantly, perhaps, besides informality, these local interactions are also characterized by such things as shifting power relations, inherent political dynamics, issues of identity, and so on – aspects that tend to be ‘designed out’ of all of the models of organizational design.

This is spot on, IMHO.

Karen Stephenson’s idea of heterarchy (per a prior Bas post, I believe) talked of the hybrid aspect, as Bas does above. I think the hybrid notion is important.

In terms of moving forward, I’d prefer a model that takes culture and structural paradigms head-on, and recognizes the informal information flows and relationships as vital. You’d still need to address the context issues I raised (when work is local and 1:1, what constituencies, functions, scope, etc. are being invoked in the transaction?), but it seems our modern tools and desires to collaborate call for just such a dynamic working model.

So is this.

A key ‘feature’ of this concept and my thinking of / in it over the years is that is not a recipe, embedded into rules and methodologies (such as exist for organizational hierarchies, what with job evaluation, remuneration philosophies, objectives-setting processes, etc. These are sold as solutions and state-of-the-art methods by the big consulting firms).

That fundamental, paradigmatic change is necessary (and perhaps inevitable) is signaled by all the big–name high profile thinkers (Hamel, Mintzberg, Ackoff, Drucker, Handy, Lawler, Bennis, Block, Weisbord, Senge, etc., etc.) calling for innovation, usually in the direction of people–purpose-and-knowledge centric structures and processes that are much more effective under various degrees of self-direction and self-management by work groups, teams, and the individuals who are members of these groups and teams.

As an aside, and for what it’s worth, I think ‘wirearchy’ is somewhat more accessible and practical as a concept (based on the working definition) than is heterarchy, which I think is somewhat more academic when thinking about and working with the “archy” of working and living in a ‘wired’ world.

But I would think that, wouldn’t I Probably just professional jealousy on my part, though ;-(

If I may, let me attempt to connect the dots -

The informal ‘shadow-side’ of an organization – resulting from the complex social dynamics of human interaction – is in fact “organizational culture”, is it not? It serves as an overlay to the formal org design, and the two co-exist.

The idea of ‘designing-out’ (excluding) issues of politics and identity in org design is important to recognize, because as you’ve said Chris, the formal structure – the organization’s operating paradigm, if you will – only tells part of the story, the command and control part, as in who must take direction from whom, leaves the whole fabric of relationships to function (or dys-function) in its own shadowy dimension.

My current preferred sources on org culture: Schein, Handy, Kotter. Are there others I should note?

Karen Stephenson’s idea of heterarchy (per a prior Bas post, I believe) talked of the hybrid aspect, as Bas does above. I think the hybrid notion is important.

In terms of moving forward, I’d prefer a model that takes culture and structural paradigms head-on, and recognizes the informal information flows and relationships as vital. You’d still need to address the context issues I raised (when work is local and 1:1, what constituencies, functions, scope, etc. are being invoked in the transaction?), but it seems our modern tools and desires to collaborate call for just such a dynamic working model.

I argue the factory-model of organization is a paradigm that needs to shift. As long as there is a ‘wirearchy-like’ hybrid component in the new model, I think we’d be making progress.