‹ Here Comes (eventually) Wirearchy ? •
(cross-posted a couple of days ago at Intuit’s TheAppGap blog)
.
Much of what the average knowledge worker of today sees as "work" is through the daily communion with the computer screen on her or his desk. They access the software with which they work and communicate with other employees through portals, on the company’s infrastructure of applications, or (increasingly) via the Web.
As we have learned more about how to integrate all growing software-based capability into our daily work lives, we have seen various forms of employee portals, partnership portals, project management portals and, more recently, comprehensive real-time enterprise computing applications take root and grow in many organizations. Organizations’ IT infrastructures, coupled with ongoing growth in the scope and use of smart software, will create a type of integrated nervous system, providing top management and workers with an improvement-and-learning focused feedback loop.
When software connects customers directly to business processes, and employees have "line-of-sight" responsibility for making a clear contribution or directly impacting business results – when most of an organization’s strategy and value proposition is directly coded into its CRM, ERM and B2B applications, will the types of supervision and management we learned in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s continue to be effective? There’s a very real issue here that is helping to create the emerging dynamics – the more that work activities are encoded and embedded into integrated systems, the more the human will and spirit needs to surface, assert itself. This polarity is, I think, here to stay and is behind much of the ongoing discussion of conversation, collaboration and social computing.
The proliferation of information technology, business process re-engineering and wrenching changes to established business models created by the rapid development of the Internet are exerting significant pressure on long-standing business hierarchies. Top-down, command-and-control management structures and dynamics struggle to maintain effectiveness in the face of free-flowing streams of content-rich information, coming from all directions. The dynamics of how people relate – to work, to markets, to bosses and to each other – are changing. A new organizing principle posited on network dynamics - "wirearchy" - a dynamic flow of power and authority based on connections and conversations, may be emerging as a social dynamic for organized activities in both business and society.
Wirearchy is an informal but pervasive emerging structure of governance, strategy, decision-making and control based on knowledge, trust, meaning and credibility. Things get done and results are achieved through the interplay of vision, values, connections and conversation. Wirearchy is generated by an open architecture of information, knowledge and focus, enabled by connected and converging technologies. It suggests a fundamental change in the dynamics of human interaction in – and with – organizations of all sizes, shapes and purposes, and represents an evolution of hierarchy as an organizing principle and dynamic. Wirearchy will not render hierarchy obsolete, nor the need for direction and control; rather, it will render them more necessary. However, it will change the meaning of those terms and how they are used and experienced.
People won’t accept authority easily any more. While old-guard keepers-of-the- keys still cling to authority and power, the older models of how to lead and follow are unravelling. Organization charts are still useful, but only as they become more fluid. Certainly, they appear in a much wider range of shapes than before, and often convey new messages about power, status and control. "Organigraphs," or pictures of the ways organizations flow and operate, are clearly more pertinent, accurate and useful, according to strategy and organizational structure guru Henry Mintzberg.
How do today’s leaders and senior managers respond to these forces? Clues are evident in initiatives emerging in the fields of customer and employee relationship management, organizational development, human resources management and organizational change: The use of techniques such as scenario planning, dialogue, open space, 360 degree feedback, emotional intelligence, coaching and mentoring have all grown significantly over the past several years. Together, these soften the rigidity of outmoded structures, and help people respond and adapt.
Most organizations carry out ongoing initiatives to create, clarify and improve capabilities in each of these emerging areas. Indeed, a large percentage of the global consulting industry is focused on diagnosing, developing and implementing strategies for these goals. Wirearchy is significantly different in that it focuses on the structural and psychosocial dynamics generated by interconnectivity and access to knowledge. It begins not only with what’s happening at the top, but also what’s happening in the roots and branches of an organization. Where hierarchy created focus and meaning through the control of knowledge, wirearchy implies that the control and use of knowledge acknowledges and involves a much wider range of stakeholders..
Yesterday’s success factors involved secrecy and control, size, role clarity, functional specialization and power. Today’s emerging factors are openness, speed, flexibility, integration and innovation. The concept of wirearchy allows readers to develop a strategy for creating, implementing these factors in ways that respond with value to continuously changing conditions. Its core components are:
* a crystal clear vision and values
* a strategically designed and integrated technology infrastructure
* comprehensive, clear and completely open communications
* pertinent objectives and focused measurement
* characteristics of culture that create, support and enable responsiveness, adaptability and fluidity
* leadership that is clear, focused, open, authentic and shared
It will take time and experience in this new era to know what "success" and "effectiveness" mean and look like. In such an era, where there is literal meaning in the phrase, "everything is connected to everything else," we will have to watch, learn and imagine how to lead and manage in ways that foster continuous developments in the effectiveness of individual workers, small working groups, the organizations with which they work and the societies in which we all live.
Clay Shirky is a well-know Internet / Web expert who has just published a new book titled "Here Comes Everybody". While it does not focus exclusively on the workplace, it’s a decent bet that the concepts and dynamics Shirky addresses will have major impact on the future of work. As the forces he describes continue to spread throughout society and grow in impact, this organizing principle – Wirearchy — is likely to impact the design of collaborative software and the architecture of workplaces, business, governments and societies in ways that we have never before encountered in human history.
Powered by Qumana

3 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://blog.wirearchy.com/2008/03/02/the-average-knowledge-worker-today-faces-lots-more-change/trackback/
March 3, 2008 at 3:56 am
Anonymous
While I agree with you, I find many of the discussions about management going on around the blogosphere somewhat tendentious. They talk about massive change to frighten rather than inform.
Command and control is a generic term for the choices we make about organizing information. Where are the feedback loops, in other words. Where are the decision points. And how will we sustain the system with technology and pre-training.
I have watched managers who have had military officer training and they are far more consultative than managers who have not. Why would an officer not listen to information from a person on the front line? Rather dangerous not to??
A classical Weberian prescription is that the person on the front line must have the authority and resources to make the decision that needs to be made. Failure in design is called ‘red tape’. Funny how that term has vanished!
What is noteworthy though is how unpleasant working life has become. Somehow we are silent on that and we vote with our feet into our blogs!
Glad to have found you! Glad to have put you on my Pageflakes.
March 3, 2008 at 8:37 am
Anonymous
Those are very good points, Jo.
Yes, there are a lot of blog posts and screeds that talk about massive change to “frighten” .. in my opinion, that’s an outcome (and perhaps not such a conscious one) of two decades of using metaphors like “burning platforms” and warnings about constant change in order to make clear the need to design for flexibility and responsiveness and learn how to incorporate ongoing learning into work design and operations.
Consultants everywhere (and dissatisfied and often smart workers lower down on organizational rungs) will use complaining and FUD because absent any real stimulus or catalyst for change, nothing much will happen.
To date the major “design for flexibility” has been to erode work stability and workers’ rights, enabling flexibility by redundancy and firing .. there’s a really interesting Gordian knot of industrial-era work design assumptions, employment legislation, executive and management status and compensation, performance management lifted from the bureaucratic “report card” mindset of industrial era “education”. And so on.
Yes it seems (paradoxically to many people) that in some ways the arrangements of the military can work better … the structure is similar to hierarchical corporate organizations, but the context, operations and “management” training are different.
Yes to your point about the person on the front line needing the authority and resopurces to make the necessary decisions.
However, I think it would be a mistake to assert that using the military model and circumstances you are alluding to is THE prescription for avoiding the descent into blathering about untested new forms of hive mind, and so on.
Clearly, information needs to be organized (in some form or other) to be put to use, to be constructed or assembled (socially or otherwise) into actionable knowledge. And clearly, arranging it in classical hierarchical organization-chart mode and insisting on “reporting relationships” being the relay switches for transmitting, transferring and exchanging information is too cumbersome .. layered over with status and power, it becomes downright unwildy in an age of essentiallly instantaneous connection where the bottlenecks are context, speed of cognition and ability or willingness to attend (pay attention).
I don’t know that there is one right answer, but I do believe that it would be useful to train mangers and knowledge workers more in the principles and methods of socio-technical systems and self-directed, self-managed teams, and I think an useful response to today’s (and tomorrow’s) conditions is to help people understand that work design should probably be an ongoing exercise in combining and configuring bioth centralization (where necessary) and decentralization (as necessary).
Jo, I deleted and blocked one of your earlier comments, as your commenting style (short and relatively anonymous) made me suspect that you were a spam-bot. This most recent comment would seem to have made me look as if I was acting too hastily. Apologies.
March 6, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Anonymous
Interesting pov. I’m managing editor of Inside Knoweldge magazine. Let’s “talk.”