Dave Snowden recently identified the ground for an interesting potential debate between two recognized gurus (himself and Hubert St. Onge) about the impacts of hyperlinks and information sharing in networks.
Specifically, Dave noted differences in opinion about the utility, potential power and general effectiveness of blogging, or using blogs, to create, generate and facilitate the sharing of information and knowledge (presumably mainly in the context of purposeful work in an enterprise or an organizational structure).
He noted that he (Dave) has started blogging, and that Hubert has yet to "capitulate" in terms of the usefulness of blogging in a KM-ish context.
Well …
Hubert has been involved with and in the field of knowledge management and organizational effectiveness for quite some time now (as has Dave). He’s no doubt seen and done it all … collaboration software, communities of practice, knowledge cafes, social and structural and customer and intellectual capital … on and on and on.
Hubert has even blogged … I found three entries from April 2003. I wonder why he stopped (I’ll bet he said "not enough time") ?
I have to say … I very often wonder why more KM theorists and practitioners do not see blog platforms (and the process of blogging) as a fundamental example of KM in action. The platforms and the process of blogging have, in principle, all of the core elements required to make knowledge "management" work in specific settings and contexts.
Don’t believe me ? Read a few score articles on KM, some of the major books … extract from those articles and books the major principles and points about the requirements for KM systems (places and ways to access and archive material, categorization, tagging, etc.) and the social processes involved in peoples’ shuttling back and forth between tacit and explicit knowledge, and the creation and expenditure of social capital enabled by sharing pertinent and/or useful information … and I think you will find that the major blog platforms and how they are used fit well with all or almost all of the key requirements for "managing" knowledge.
Anyway, that’s not the main point of this blog post.
The main point I want to make is to use one of Hubert’s April 2003 blog posts, titled "Hierarchy versus Network" to underscore his point that our futures, inside and outside of organizations, is not "Either / Or" (either hierarchy or network) but "Both / And" (both hierarchy and network).
Here’s Hubert’s take on things, back then …
We now do most of our work through networking technology. This technology and its tools are shaping the way we work and relate to people around us. There is no doubt that the tools in turn are having a huge impact on the way organizations function. Yet, I have come to believe that the hierarchical form of org structure is alive and well, and not about to give way to the "so-called" networked organization.
As I work with executives in different companies, I find that they have a great deal of problems connecting to the perspective that there is a radical shift afoot from the hierarchy to the network. In fact, I have to confess that I personally have problems relating to the reality of a radical shift to the "network". It simply does not correspond to the way the great majority of executives function in their every day work life. They work with management teams that may be more participative that they have been in the past but that are still fundamentally hierarchical in form.
(My note interjected here .. well, yeah .. duh. No kidding they don’t function this way yet, and many / most executives will resist this, as it requires significant change to how they see, maniofest and use power and influence, and so on … why, exactly, WOULD they take to networks like ducks to water ?)
What they might be more ready to accept is the emergence of networks within this hierarchical structure. This is not the withering away of the hierarchy as much as it is a gradual change that modifies how it works.
To be sure, I also see the emergence of networks within hierarchical organizations. It is as though we are now seeing the emergence of a second form of structure within the more traditional form. The key challenge for all of us will be to work in organizations where both types of structure will co-exist for a long time. In fact, hierarchical organizations will soon find that they need to adopt "networked" ways of working, otherwise they will severely limit their ability to generate capability at both the individual and organizational levels.
So, it seems to me that it is a bit misleading to say that we now live in networked organization. It is simply not believable to most people whose day to day experience is so impacted by hierarchical structures and management practices.
Having said that, people do see the emergence of networks. They also recognize the need to learn how to manage this new structural form oas they try to leverage the performance of their organizations. There is certainly a process aspect to his change: networks have greatly transformed how work gets done. The greater degree of required specialization because of the depth of knowledge required, combined with the emergence of issues that cannot be resolved without a cross-disciplinary approach have made it imperative for teams to configure and re-configure fast, independently of the hierarchy.
Yet, the hierarchy has stayed in charge of allocating resources and managing performance. The hierarchy works mostly vertically through the structural silos and the networks work horizontally through the constant teaming across knowledge domains, and geographies. The currency in the vertical axis is managerial mandate (and power), while in the horizontal it is capability and capability development.
The last two paragraphs above echo points made by organizational theorist Stan Davis early on (1987) in his book Future Perfect (the last five or six paragraphs at the end of Chapter Three), that many others have made along the way, that I first started writing about in 1998 or 1999 and that I find I have to keep reinforcing … and to which I will return in an upcoming post about the design (or not) of knowledge work.
Wirearchy (or as others call it, networked structures and dynamics) is not exclusive of hierarchy, nor is hierarchy exclusive of networks. They will necessarily co-exist, and in my opinion, the hope is that people everywhere will learn more about why, when and how each is useful when faced with an issue, a problem, a challenge, objectives. In other words, the right structure and dynamics for a given purpose, the ability to understand and choose which will be most appropriate, and then the ability to function effectively both in a hierarchy and in a wirearchy.
From Hierarchy to Wirearchy (World Future Society essay)
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.Wirearchy suggests a fundamental change in the dynamics of human interaction in – and with – organizations of all sizes, shapes and purposes. It 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 as easily any more, for a range of related reasons. 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. "Organigraphics," 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.
Perhaps the shift to wirearchy is a result of the conflict and dissonance generated by dated structures, mindsets and dynamics clashing with the irrevocable new forces created by the open access to information and knowledge.
Tags: hierarchy, wirearchy, Dave Snowden, Hubert St. Onge, KM, knowledge management
Powered by Qumana
Laisser un commentaire