Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2009-09-13 04:22 pm
l33tminion) wrote2009-09-13 04:22 pm
Entry tags:
Megatrends: Network World
Trend #8 of Naisbitt's work is Hierarchies to Networking. This one seems quite obvious. Businesses at least have embraced non-hierarchical structures in terms of work structure (if not long-term decision making). If all interdepartmental coordination requires management involvement, that adds a lot of unnecessary overhead. There's now a whole consulting industry based on helping businesses measure and foster such lateral connections.
There are a few problems with this, though. First and foremost, networks and hierarchies are not exclusive. Replacing a tree with a DAG does not make it less hierarchical. Sure, removing management oversight from interdepartmental coordination does mean delegating some decision-making ability, but that doesn't necessarily mean delegating a significant amount of power. Looking at the income share of the rich and the changing ratio between CEO and floor-worker pay does not indicate a society that has become less hierarchal since the late 80s, even if such floor-workers are more likely to be organized into "Quality Teams".
Naisbitt also mentions network communications as a way of managing information overload, but fails to predict that the same tools that allow us to manage information overload often become sources of information overload. I wonder if a sort of Jevons Paradox applies, where improvements in a communication technology ultimately increase the amount of irrelevant information delivered.
There are a few problems with this, though. First and foremost, networks and hierarchies are not exclusive. Replacing a tree with a DAG does not make it less hierarchical. Sure, removing management oversight from interdepartmental coordination does mean delegating some decision-making ability, but that doesn't necessarily mean delegating a significant amount of power. Looking at the income share of the rich and the changing ratio between CEO and floor-worker pay does not indicate a society that has become less hierarchal since the late 80s, even if such floor-workers are more likely to be organized into "Quality Teams".
Naisbitt also mentions network communications as a way of managing information overload, but fails to predict that the same tools that allow us to manage information overload often become sources of information overload. I wonder if a sort of Jevons Paradox applies, where improvements in a communication technology ultimately increase the amount of irrelevant information delivered.
no subject
In a group smaller than 7 a mutual sense of ownership and control is possible, but in anything greater, as most corporate structures are today, involve huge numbers of people located over various places and operating at various times.
Removing mid-level management and allowing individual workers to work and direct each other towards a central goal helps manage both bureaucracy and resources in an efficient manner for people who are in control. Reduction can fail, as it was seen in the case of Microsoft's development of Vista, where a lack of managerial direction made individual computer coders responsible for a mess of incompatible code that proved to be a killing blow for Vista's early image. In a sense, the notion of removing corporate structure and allowing equally weighted power from the bottom up would be only capable through personalized agreements, and would thus fail if there is a lack of oriented communication to channel work to be done towards a central goal.
Jevons' Paradox certainly does apply however, and that is why a proper model of organizational communication requires a hierarchy. The head must create a direction to orient the group and pass down the necessary tasks to subordinates. Feedback and communication between departments can flow with more ease given that a set hierarchy is followed. Information crossing over departments and across hierarchies must be controlled in a massive organization, as any system of communication with more that 5 or 7 senders and receivers will become overly complex and suffer an overload.
Of course, this presents problems of its own in communication between lower departments in the chain. However, irrelevant information would, ideally be dealt with by managers who must communicate concerns with another manager or superior.
The most ideal way to solve this question is, restructuring a business to work on the least number of people as possible. Of course, people complain that this makes jobs harder to find and unions gripe about their livelihood.
no subject
O RLY?
Of course, I agree that getting rid of hierarchy entirely as a decision-making structure is untenable. But hierarchy as a decision-making structure and hierarchy as a power structure are loosely-coupled. Worker-owned companies generally have management, too, it's just that the authority to make high-level business decisions is delegated up, as opposed to some low-level coordination authority being delegated down, and the compensation tends to be much more equitable. Being a CEO takes skills that a floor-worker doesn't have, and it's harder than your average desk-job... but probably not 400 times harder.
The most ideal way to solve this question is, restructuring a business to work on the least number of people as possible.
That may be the ideal way to solve the coordination problem, but (certainly under the current system of investment) businesses generally want to grow, which means adding employees. Yes, I know business-school types are forever searching for the holy grail of increasing productivity while decreasing employment, but so far (as far as I can tell), that hasn't happened.*
Now, investors tend to be skeptical about the ability of employer-owned firms to value long-term growth over short term benefit (keeping their jobs). But where's the conflict? One of the greatest resources a company has, crucial to their long-term growth, is experienced employees. The key is that when Wall Street says "long-term growth", they don't mean "long-term growth", they mean increasingly large short-term profit schemes every year, with investors bailing out just before the whole thing goes plowing into the ground.
(The above is an over-generalization (there may be a legitimate need to cut production or R+D in a recession that exceeds the cost of losing experienced workers), but a lot of the recent layoffs follow this pattern. Layoffs boost shareholders' short-term profits, hence shareholders are quick to flee (especially in a down market) from a company that seems reluctant to do layoffs. CEOs of publicly-traded companies have a lot of stock-options and are hired by the board appointed by the shareholders, so they tend to be quite trigger-happy when it comes to layoffs. My company has yet to do significant layoffs in the current recession, but if they were publicly traded, I'd probably be out of a job.)
* There's some thought that new technologies are changing this (i.e. the much-vaunted "information economy"). That's not a good thing, though, unless you like the idea of a world where fewer and fewer people have (increasingly-high) incomes while the rest are pushed into permanent poverty.
no subject
Between two people, there is only 2 directions of conversation, and as the number grows, the possible methods to address and converse become overly complicated.
2-2, 3-9, 4-32, 5-75, 6-132, 7-308
As the numbers increase, communication becomes increasingly hard to manage, and at around seven people, in-groups naturally tend to form into 3 and 4 person groups.
That's my main concern and why I believe a hierarchy will retain the control it is needed. Even if employees "own" the company, they are still working under their bosses. They can simply fire them if they believe that management is doing poorly.
Whether more hiring is the sign of growth or not, I still believe that a business place should adapt communication technology and theory to increase its productivity to the max, as well as aim to increase the size of the company in the long run.
no subject
To be fair to Naisbitt, I should be clear that he wasn't predicting the demise of hierarchy, just a move away from the "bosses make all decisions and do all communication" model.
no subject