Author: Esko Kilpi
Posted: April 21, 2013 1137 views

A manager recently voiced his concerns: “Most employees prefer being told what to do. They are willing to accept being treated like children in exchange for reduced stress. They are also willing to obey authority in exchange for job security.” That is the way we have seen it: managers inspire, motivate and control employees who need to be inspired, motivated and controlled. These dynamics create the system of management and justify its continuation.

If we want to meet the challenges of the post-industrial world, this relationship needs to change. The workers changing their role are often seen as a matter of the extent to which the managers are willing to allow it and give up responsibility. In reality it is as much a matter of how much the workers are willing to grow their (management) capacity and take more and wider responsibility.

The dysfunctional relationship between managers and employees creates a self-fulfilling prophecy and a systemic failure in creative, knowledge-based work. What is tragic is that neither side normally understands the predictability of what is going on. The pattern is a mutually reinforcing self-destructive process that manifests itself as a steady decline in the authority of management and productivity of work.

A few researchers have started to dispute the assumption that the present system of management is a fact of life that will always be with us. It may be time for us to question whether the recent problems created by bad management are isolated and should be tolerated. Or, to ask, whether the fault is in the system itself and not in individual managers?

Luckily management theory and practice are slowly starting to catch up with the dramatic changes brought about by the loosely coupled, modular nature of creative work and the ideals of social business.

A social business does not behave in the way our dominant management thinking assumes. What is it then that has changed?

Organizations are always assemblies of interacting people. The reason for an organization to exist is to simplify, support, and enrich interaction.

At present, there are three types of organizational cultures depending on the type of management and the alternative mechanisms of coordination of tasks. The different task interdependencies accordingly place different and increasing burdens on our communication practices .

I call these: the administrative culture, the industrial culture and the creative, social culture.

G18The administrative culture that is found in most governmental organizations is about function specific independent activities. Two functions or tasks are independent if it is believed that they don’t affect each other. The most important communication exists between the employer and the employee, the manager and the worker. The principle is that the execution of two independent tasks does not require communication between the tasks. The architecture consists of black boxes that are not coupled directly, but in an indirect way by higher-level managers, who coordinate the work. Work as interaction is mainly communication between hierarchical levels.

The industrial culture of process-based organizations is about dependent and sequential activities. Manufacturing work is about dependent tasks. Being dependent means that the output of one task is the input of another. The reverse cannot normally take place. In sequential dependence, those performing the following task must comply with the constraints imposed by the execution of the preceding task. Since the process architecture is typically quite clear, management coordination is mostly about measuring and controlling whether the execution conforms to the planned requirements. The architecture consists of tightly coupled tasks and predetermined, repeating activities. Work as interaction is a sequential process with one-way signals.

A creative, social culture is different. It is about loose couplings and modularity, about interdependent people and interdependent tasks. Two people/tasks are interdependent if they affect each another mutually and in parallel. Interdependent tasks call for peer level responsiveness and coordination by mutual adjustments, not coordination by an outside party like a manager.

Most of the information that is relevant will be discovered and created during the execution of the task, not before. As a result it is not always possible for a manager and a worker to agree on a coherent approach in advance. Nor is it normally possible to follow a predetermined process map.

The basic unit of corporate information in creative, social work is not content in the form of documents but interaction in the form of conversations. Knowledge is perpetually constructed in interaction. Work as interaction is complex, situational communication between loosely connected nodes of the network!

The three cultures and corresponding architectures differ in the degree to which their components are loosely or tightly coupled. Coupling is a measure of the degree to which communication between the components is fixed or not. In most creative work, and always in a social business, any node in the network should be able to communicate with any other node on the basis of contextual interdependence and creative participative engagement.

As organizations want to be more creative and social, the focus of management theory should shift towards understanding participative, self-organizing responsibility and equality of peers. It is a systemic change, much more than just kicking out the bad managers and inviting new, better managers in. It is not about hierarchies vs. networks, but about how all people want to be present and how all people want to communicate in a way that was earlier reserved only to the people we called managers.


About the author >

Esko Kilpi

Esko Kilpi is founder and principal in Esko Kilpi Oy, a leading research and consultancy firm working with the challenges of knowledge work and digital work environments. The organization is based in Helsinki, Finland. In addition to his work as an executive adviser Kilpi takes part in academic research and lectures on the topics of organizational learning, knowledge based view of the firm and interaction technologies as key enablers for knowledge based value creation in Nordic countries, Europe, Middle-East, Far-East and USA. He has published various articles on these subjects and is the co-author of a book on teams and process management (1996) and books on management challenges of the information age (2001, 2006). His teaching and research interests are about organizational contexts, where creative learning takes place and organizational dynamics for emergence of coherence and novelty. A large part of his work has concentrated on principles of organizational viability based on what can be learned from complexity sciences and theories of complex adaptive systems. At the moment Kilpi's work has focused on open source principles and social software implementations in organizational contexts. Kilpi has been a member of the advisory board of the World Bank on Knowledge Management. He has also been a member of the expert think tank on Knowledge Management for the European Union.

more information Weblog:

blog comments powered by Disqus