Hacking HR to Build an Adaptability Advantage
The last few days interaction and study has brought some ideas to my mind, I need to write down. If the ideal way to organize according to our nature, is very flat, and with leaders elected for the given task a given team is doing, and not given leadership for eternity - aren´t we getting very close to project organizations? Now - if we use the model proposed by Mark van Vugt and limit the size of our organization to 150-100 people, and (self)organize them in teams, gathered around necessary tasks (producing value to the customers), and let the teams elect their own project manager - given the nature of the task that the project team is about to run. Sounds a bit like Scrum, and yet not 100%, but the paradigm underneath must be the same, to prosper from the nature of Scrum. Now - how do we find out which projects to gather around? The answer must be: in the same way as our ancestors did 10.000 years ago. They gathered about the necessary tasks to make the tribe prosper. The necessary tasks was something like finding food, creating safety etc. If we take this picture to an organization the picture gets a bit more complex, and yet - it does not have to be that difficult, if we make sure that we keep inside the size of 150-200 empoyees (e.g. like they do at W.L. Gore). We have to choose a leader that make sure we reflect on the necessary topics during the day - I will call him the conductor. He has to make sure that all the different instruments have their say. He would probably make sure that all necessary managementinformation is at hand for every employee, to make sure we develop and choose the right projects. And within those projects we choose the leader that we believe would be the best to solve the leadership tasks at hand, knowing that tommorow we might choose another leader because the tasks at hand are different, and need different skills. In this stone age inspired organization we would focus on proximity, equality and an informal culture, where every employee know exactly why he has to do what he has to, and why it is so damn important. Furthermore his ability to choose by himself will support his motivation. Am I forgetting anything?
Thanks for this great post and the wonderful additions. Johnny, I really appreciate your sailboat metaphor. It seems so obvious and sailing 101, but in terms of organizations this simple understanding is often missed, neglected, or pushed so far back down the line that it never gets addressed.
What if an organization's strategy, structure, support systems, continuous learning, hiring practices, etc. focused on the human first instead of short-term goals? Where the size, basic human needs, total well-being, etc. were woven throughout and connected to the organization's purpose. I believe if the people who make up the organization are provided an environment in which they can thrive, they will do so and then the goals will be met, growth will occur, costs will be minimalized, a culturel of adaptability will thrive all as outcomes derived from this human centric support system.
Hi Stephanie, and thx for the comments.
The expansion of my thoughts are that when the discrepancy between natural leadership/the natural ways of organizing and the actual organization grows, the energy needed to get work done, do also increase. We simply waist enormous amounts of energy trying to sustain unhealthy organizations - working against our nature. If we reorganized and used the synergy we are able to build, when we just use the natural way of organizing everything I believe we could save enormous amounts of energy and resources. It is like sailing a sailboat: If You understand the nature of wind and waves, You will be able to sail smooth and fast - whereas You will get blown backwards if You don´t understand the basic principles.
Agree with the support here Johnny! Thank you for your thinking and for sharing it in this forum! What resonated with me in your post is the unstated but implied inclusion of total well-being: the spiritual, the community, the individual, the financial, the health, and the social that comes from many of these. This can all be achieved and more meaningful because of the sense of community that is created by such a flat, small organized group. While we hadn't yet considered size and self-organizing aspects that you have outlined, we do envision a 'whole human' approach to organizations in which the promise is to you as a person, not you as a filler of a role that the organization defined without knowing you. I think that could also work in your 'organization' of the future! Thank you again for sharing!
Hi Johnny, thanks for your contribution--full of great ideas for our next phase of the hackathon, when we'll focus on developing radical yet practical ideas for making our organizations more adaptable. Look forward to your contributions then!
Best,
Michele
Hi Ulrich - I ordered Manfred Max-Reefs compendium right away :-)
And until it arrives I will enjoy some of the articles he has authored :-)
And Keith - thx for Your summarizing efforts, I will reflect on those :-)
Do You have any living examples from Your organization?
I think there are some excellent design principles of an adaptive organisation here Johnny. I've summarised some of the key points that caught my eye below:
>> project based organizations ==> TRANSIENT
>> limit the size of our organisations ==> FLAT
>> self-organised teams ==> TRUST, EMPOWERED
>> choose the best leader on the basis of skills and the task (I love the idea of a conductor!) ==> SKILLS BASED
>> everyone has access to Management Information ==> OPEN, COLLABORATIVE
>> everyone knows their role ==> CLARITY
>> proximity
>> informality
>> equality
Thanks for sharing, excellent!
KeithG
Johnny, you are on to something that resonates with my and I think with Gary Hamel as well. Human inspired organizations reflect the human needs of the people that live in the organization. You have named one lens of looking at a structural element (natural size of group) that is a part of that. You might be interested to read a work by a Chilean Developmental Economist, Manfred Max-Neef who posited that there are 10 to 12 universal human needs that define our species Homo Sapiens. In the compendium called Real Life Economics, MMN outlines what I read as the operating system of human nature. Looking through that lens at what organizing principles you would want to work with vs. against those fundamental building blocks of human nature one can derive many important principles, practices and structures. Thanks for your thoughts! Ulrich
You need to register in order to submit a comment.