First, I want to clarify something for context.
I do not believe that what I call "wirearchy" will replace hierarchy holus-bolus as an organizing principle (I have said and written this many times). Rather, I subscribe to Stan Davis’ perspective, outlined in the book Future Perfect (1987).
.
Networks will not replace or supplement hierarchies; rather the two will be encompassed within a broader conception that embraces both. We are still a long way from figuring out the appropriate and encompassing organization models for the economy we are now in."
.
So … today in my inbox I found David Gurteen’s 100th newsletter, a folksy and informative ramble through David’s latest peregrinations. David is a speaker, consultant and human networking "hub" who travels the world animating Knowledge Cafes.
David was recently interviewed by The Economist Intelligence Unit for a report titled "The Digital Company 2013 – The freedom to collaborate".
David outlines the key themes explored by the report, which sound (to me) very similar to several of the key elements of wirearchy I have discussed here and there over the past several years.
I wonder what Bertrand Duperrin or Luis Suarez (just to pick on a couple of energetic thinkers about the organization of the future) might have to say about the digital company of the year 2013 ?
.
The digital company 2013: Freedom to collaborate
I was recently interviewed for a report The digital company 2013: Freedom to collaborate. being written by Kim Thomas for the Economist Intelligence Unit.
Key findings:
- Technology knowledge will permeate the enterprise.
- Social networks will be common in the workplace, like it or not.
- Beware information paralysis.
- Digital tools will democratise access to information.
- Digital tools provide employees with greater control over the information they can access.
- IT will also need to loosen the reins.
- Ceding technology control will be good medicine.
Powered by Qumana
Hi Jon,
I think the chaos of the past few weeks will accelerate the shift to networked economies. I spent 5 years in NZ and was frustrated much of the time because Kiwis hate large corporations.
About 2/3 of the students intended to start entrepreneurial business and a surprising number had already bought and sold their first venture.
My Kiwi colleagues attributed this distaste to the radical reforms of the 1980’s when a lot of people had been roughly ejected from life-time employment.
It is possible other countries will follow the same trajectory.
Are you familiar with Zephoria’s work? I am taking a break from reading one of her papers. She talks of every person being the centre of their own community. As a work psychologist, I see that as the key concept.
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/01/18/lets_define_our.html
And so around that I am looking at the skills (on and off line) and ways of organizing work that allow us all to be masters of our own destiny.
Have good Sunday!
Hi, Jo.
I suspect you are right, and I did not know that interesting information aboput new Zealanders.
Yes, I am familiar with Danah’s work. I know this sounds cheesy (to claim some parallel thinking), but with respect to work and one’s “life” / livelihood activities, I have for quite some time been writing and talking the “mass customisation of work and life” which perforce places the individual at the centre of one’s group(s). I even have diagrams that depict this on slides from 2001 😉 Don’t know why I’m defensive about this other than my jealousy over other people getting cited often for ideas similar to those I have been writing about for some time … yes, I know that often on the wild woolly web it depends upon with whom and how one first came into recognition. I consider this jealousy one of my main character flaws (seriously). At least I own it.
I also think we often have more than one “community” when it comes to work or purposeful activities, and I suspect that we will see that process evolve in the sense of serial monogamy … primary focus on one at a time, but not for the length of time we used to call a career.
I appreciate the concept and the impulse (and think I know what you mean) but I do not think any of us will ever completely be masters of our own destinies.
Oh no, to be master of our destiny means others are not masters of theirs. This was one of the essential points we tried to get over in MGMT101. We make the future but we cannot predict it. It is the essential difference between the action-orientation of management and the positivist thinking in psychology and OB.
Could you send me the links? I am now 95% Full Speed Ahead on services to help people read the communities that are emerging around them and supporting those communities with a rapidly developed social media platform. I think understanding the essential sociology of the process is critical though (my bias).
I dropped in to ask you to have a look at my poll about scenario planning for surviving the credit crunch. I have interesting results so far. The poll results (could be geeks) are surprisingly upbeat but passive.
The back channel results have ranged from a document on a full scenario plan, do nothing-I am not in charge, to a massive sulk (largely connected I think to the wrong candidate being ahead).
If the response continues this way over the weekend, I might build the poll up to a bigger exercise looking at three issues:
a) which companies/sectors are including people in scenario planning
b) who feels they have the competence to understand the issues
c) the views
Any thoughts? And links please. Devoted reader here.
Jo
People’s Capitalism: A Business Model for the 21st Century
There’s a new business model emerging for the 21st century based on sound collaboration between proven entrepreneurs. Think rhizome networks of business all plugged together via cross-ownership, cross-marketing, and preferential pricing.
Entrepreneurs from all over the world are discovering the benefits of the Japanese keiretsu business model built on collaboration and cross-ownership.
Under the keiretsu model, which helped fuel Japan’s “Economic Miracle” after WW2, a group of large publicly traded industrials band together with a bank to prosper together.
Under the new “Industry Aggregation” model small to medium sized companies band together in similar fashion to prosper together.
Yes.
Actually, in my opinion the examples you cite are but part of the constellation of re-configurations … of value creation, of value-adding and of value-received … leading to the emergence of new points of friction, leading to new business models.
The hope, or intention, I believe, is to uncover / illuminate the creation and transfer of value so that we operate and live in a fairer world, wherein human collaboration becomes the foundation for value. I think anything else is going to lead to behaviour(s) that do not cope well with the complexity that people are now facing.