Fortune on bureaucracy: It must die.

Simply putting it here for you, snapped from Fortune (no less).
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The organizations that survive in the coming decades will be those that are capable of change as fast as change itself.

Today, few organizations seem to be able to out-run change for more than a few years at a time. To build organizations that are adaptable at their core, we will need to rework every management process so it enables, rather than frustrates, breakthrough thinking and relentless experimentation. Innovation will need to become instinctual and intrinsic. The notion of the economically dependent, easily biddable “employee” will have to be ditched.

The goal: a workplace where initiative, creativity, and passion flourish, and where the line separating vocation and avocation disappear.

For any of this to happen, bureaucracy must die. Why? Because bureaucracy …
•Adds overhead — by creating multi-tiered structures where hundreds of managers spend their time managing other managers.
•Creates friction — by forcing new ideas to run a multi-level gauntlet of approval that creates significant lag time.
•Distorts decisions — by giving too much power to senior executives who often have an investment in older processes.
•Misallocates power — by rewarding those who are the most politically adept rather than those who are the most capable leaders.
•Discourages dissent — by creating asymmetric power relationships that make it difficult for subordinates to speak up.
•Misdirects competition — by encouraging individuals to compete for promotion and political advantage.
•Thwarts innovation — by over-weighting experience and under-weighting unconventional thinking.
•Hobbles initiative — by throwing up barriers to risk-taking.
•Obliterates nuance — by centralizing too many decisions and demanding compliance with uniform rules and procedures.

In all these ways, bureaucracy imposes a “management tax.” Like arterial plaque, it is mostly invisible, but no less dangerous because of that. To avoid the management tax, we need to find ways of acquiring control, coordination, and consistency “duty free.” Thankfully, information technology can help us do that.

Modern bureaucracy emerged at a time when information was mostly paper-based and expensive to move. The traditional hierarchy, with its narrow span of control, was a response to this problem. Ten or so subordinates would channel information up to a manager who would then summarize the data and push it further up the chain of command. In this model of “consolidate and escalate,” those at the top really did know more.

When challenged, they could defend their decisions on the basis of superior knowledge (whether or not their decisions were really based on facts.) And those at the top typically had long tenures and could claim to be more experienced than their subordinates — another justification for top-down decision-making. But today, thanks to IT, information can be easily stored, shared, and customized, and with each new advance in communications and information technology, the rationale for bureaucracy dwindles further.

Yet when it comes to killing bureaucracy, most leaders are still fiddling at the margins. They have flattened the formal hierarchy, but haven’t eliminated it. They have celebrated empowerment, but haven’t surrendered their own prerogatives. They have encouraged employees to speak up, but have balked at the idea of letting them choose their own leaders. They have deployed collaboration tools across the enterprise, but haven’t given staffers the right to hack outdated strategies or sclerotic processes. In other words, many firms have denounced bureaucracy, but they haven’t actually dethroned it.

Why? First, like all of us, they are prisoners of precedent. Most of us grew up in and around organizations that fit a common template, where …
•Big leaders appointed little leaders
•Power was a function of position
•Senior executives set strategy
•Everyone reported to a boss
•Tasks were assigned
•Managers doled out rewards
•Compensation correlated with rank
•Promotion was the measure of achievement
•Autonomy was tightly proscribed.

This is the management model at most schools, religious organizations, government agencies, and businesses. No wonder it’s hard to imagine a company like WL Gore, a leader in advanced materials, where associates choose their own leaders; or Morning Star, the world’s largest tomato processor, where you won’t find a single vestige of formal hierarchy; or Haier, the Chinese home appliance maker that recently divided itself into 2,000 highly autonomous profit centers; or Red Hat, the enterprise software company where everyone gets to shape strategy through an open innovation process.

We’re actively working not only to imagine alternatives to the bureaucratic management model, but to invent them as well. Join the “Busting Bureaucracy Hackathon” over at the MIX and help us eradicate the management tax.

Gary Hamel is the co-founder of the MIX (Management Innovation eXchange) and author of The Future of Management and What Matters Now. He’s a visiting professor at London Business School.

And the picture you expected:
DSCN7535
[Somewhere in a corner, there’s Occupy B]

Seriously, what is @google up to ..?

Just a short note. Or question, rather: What the … is Google up to, these days..?
I mean, Glass has turned into a pilot thing, as yet testing the waters only, but spawning a whole eco(?)system of wearables. One of The Other Ones (fubbuck) swallowing up Oculus might tie in to this (pre-emptive, to keep it out of G’s hands ..!?), or not.
And after Hadoop there’s news on WebScaleSQL; I can understand that (but see how this means reaching out to conglomerate with erstwhile fiercest (attention) competitors).
But then there’s AI. Yeah, that might improve Search. But the potential(s) for game changers of unseen kinds are limitless. Is the Big G trying to outflank Watson, and/or will G morph into the Matrix ..? Blue pills…, blue pills everywhere….
Compared to this, the jump to Gmail Banking is just a little one, (will) disrupting only a couple of major industries.

As it all stands; what is Google’s grand master plan, or if there isn’t one, how could one get a good overview of all (sic) the initiatives in the wings, either public or, of which I guess there’s a lot more to know, internally?
I would sign a stack of NDAs to get an insight – if only to be able to decide on a reinventive career switch… Thanks Google if you could reach out to me!

Oh and now to close it off of course encore the usual picture for your viewing delight [sits on ‘Picasa’ somewhere anyway ;-]
DSCN8589
[Appropriate, if you know what/where I mean]

Pontefract on dreaming

Oh how I do <heart> Dan Pontefract’s post on dreaming.
First, as you expected, a picture:
20140324_131129[1]
[How short do real creative ideas blossom]

Or, maybe go further and strengthen some, most often even virtually absent, actual praxis of rewarding the dreamer. For bringing the ideas that the future your organisation needs. Continuing along the trodden path will, for certain, as you know, bring about your downfall. Your downfall, as progressively, you will be less and less able to run away before the blame buck stops at your desk.

Which leaves the question: How to rate the performance of dreamers? As their dreams have varying, varying future values. What value to attach to ‘avoid extinction’..?

To be continued.

Ni Dieu ni maître …?

On the non-existence of ‘governance’.

Suddenly, I realised the full truth of Mitzberg’s dismissal of ‘governance’, since the traditional management would fit the bill perfectly but it has devolved to nothing more than a numb sort of administrative-clerk role (if you’ve read it and don’t understand, re-read it until you do).

Because, ‘governance’ isn’t anything. That what is assigned the ‘governance’ label, is nothing, literally and figuratively, and in all other ways nothing, more than plain good old management. Those who need models to do that, proof ex ante to will fail at their job.

Some of you may have heard me whisper, say, yell, over the past decades, that ‘governors’ are just a bunch of calcified obese that got stuck in their place and for mortal fear of being found out, they’ll mumblebluff their way through anything, anything, thrown at them. Zero, really zero, control over actual affairs, zero understanding of how shop-floor level work (the horror!) keeps the whole house of cards afloat, zero understanding of the treacherous nature of the false prophets deployed as ‘managers’. A few, a precious few white crows… the masses of them (all), just black. Inert.
If all ‘governors’ would disappear at once, wouldn’t society’s productivity shoot up through the roof ..? Wouldn’t actual managers step in and do the little bit of steering that’s required? Wouldn’t they disregard any of the ‘managers’ that (would) panic around, pushing them back into clerkdom ..?
Sigh.

One can dream, can’t one ..?

DSCN0962
[Which one is it ..?]

Top-down fantasies

And so, the emperor was shown to wear no clothes…
One couldn’t even blame PCI too much; their standards (meaning: as in uniform things, not the flags one can rally behind) actually do include pointers to deeper (and common-sense) actual infosec control implementation. But not throughout…

… nor systematically. As written before, and in many other posts on this site: The Information Security “Management” (quod non) “System” (quod non) was trusted because upward reporting on its efficacy showed ‘satisfactory’ or better – without realising that its was just deafening and wholesale bureaucratia’s babbling.
If you believe in compliance reporting and similar fairy tales, you’ll believe anything. How much misery must be heaped on all that can’t help it, and all that might have, before the fear of independent thought is restored in particular where it’s needed…? We may get philosophical here. And/or practical. Or whatever. It’ll takes a book(s) to describe it clearly enough for the unconvincable to be convinced or at least to get them out of blocking positions. They truly are the Maginot line of organisatia.

And a picture to close off for now:
DSCN2894
[Still somewhat light, though sturdy; Enschedé]

Lowtech innovation

DSCN1043
[Philly mirrored]

Just a link, to demonstrate that lowtech innovation may be more useful straight away than hightech phantoms in bettering our daily lives…: On Wired. Of course [Among a handful of equals]
In the longer term, tables may be turned, though. As per usual.

And, a question on the exit: Was this lowtech innovation, or about the highest one can get? It shouldn’t depend on its deployment, should it ..?

Infosec: outside in / inside out

One of those “When they speak, others listen” has a say on the future of infosec.
Dr. C. Dr.ow at it again.
First, a picture for your viewing delight:
DSCN6592
[Private enjoyment for the general (not.)]

Which points at the other of two major approaches to get better information security throughout society. Not, by expecting Every Man to do His Duty, or by “Ik val aan, volgt mij” (the hero here), getting better security in a piecemeal way by (having to) upgrading each and every foot soldier read Internet user every time again through labourious exercise.
But by instating societal institutions that govern infosec for us. And then I thought that CD wasn’t a fan of governments…

Nevertheless, interesting. In particular, if some form of transparency could create True Democracy in this field. Which I doubt. But again, nevetheless interesting.

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord