In conversations with people, I sometimes find myself tangential from the topic at hand to that of organisational structure. I am not referring to the hierarchical structure that exists in most businesses, but instead something closer to the chaordic structure that Dee Ward Hock had in mind when he formed VISA.
Top-down vs Chaordic/Organic Structure
Most people think that an organisation works best in a top-down system where everyone knows their role and responsibility. However, as Dee Ward Hock mentioned in an interview, this is not how organisms exist, evolve, and, more importantly, survive.
Does maximum output originate from top-down commands instead of organic collaboration? You see, everything in life is about trade-offs, and this is one such event.
In a top-down social structure, we tend to get very predictable and specific, yet limited, results. The problem with this structure is the high death rate of the organism, which companies refer to as employee turnover. The death rate, or turnover, in companies is sometimes higher than it needs to be because people often feel stifled by their inability to effect change within the organisation.
Imagine if you needed to issue a command every time you wanted your heart to beat. Of course, such an organism would not last long, lest it forget or fall asleep and stop breathing. Instead, we look to a more organic collaboration that works much like the autonomic nervous system.
With this system, the body has created a framework for the individual components and organs that make up the body to participate in a much greater process. There is a very small barrier to entry for these organs to participate, and each contributes a small amount, but collectively, they result in the greater gestalt of one's health.
In an organic organisational structure, we get more networked and integrated communication and collaboration. The downside of this is that the output of this group is not as easily measured and not nearly as predictable. The organic structure requires one to stop thinking in terms of processes and start thinking in terms of frameworks.
Process vs Framework
A process is a documented, repeatable series of events. A process is something that can be assigned and completed within a measured amount of time.
On the other hand, a framework serves as an incubator for ideas. It provides the home, resources, and food for ideas to grow and evolve, as well as a space for individuals to collaborate.
A framework has the potential to generate much higher output than any single process, but to achieve this, it requires a change in the way we foster and grow organisations. The needed change is that companies stop thinking about growing organisational charts and start growing individuals.
The shift implies a movement towards embracing the social collaboration ether around us.
What really is a framework?
A framework is a platform that enables content creation and collaboration. Wikipedia and YouTube never made it big because a few people decided to, on their own, write an encyclopedia or create videos. Instead, these websites became popular because they created a framework for a Do-It-Yourself culture to create the content for them.
Traditional companies struggle to adopt the social collaborative framework. The question of who "owns" this new “product” begins to emerge. Does it belong to research and development, marketing, external communications, or the sales department?
The answer is that a framework belongs to the company and should be a tool that each of these departments utilises and leverages to the extent they want.
Unfortunately, many times, chaordic/organic collaboration falls into the hands of only one of these groups, and we see the marketing department creating a social game to promote the brand. At the same time, the research and development team struggles to create a new product that the company can sell. This is the medical equivalent of the digestive system deciding that it controls the autonomic nervous system and hijacking it for a very narrow purpose.
A practical framework should lower the barrier to entry for people to participate, share, and collaborate on information in projects, while keeping the information organised enough to be useful. These are busy times, and we are busy people who don't want to spend our free time writing an encyclopedia, but we are willing to contribute and correct entries that interest us.
How this impacts every area of your business
"What does this mean for my company?" you ask.
The net effect is that companies need to stop thinking about creating white papers, marketing materials, and position statements that result in highly polished, yet unengaging, content that nobody ever reads. Having glossies/slicks in front of your convention booth is par for the course, but an entirely necessary evil. The absence of them implies you have no information. But never have I heard someone say they’ll do anything but throw this material away.
Even if the white-paper you write is highly polished and read by a few people, how much content can you individually create?
Every minute, YouTube members upload over 60 hours of video. Even if the majority of that content is nothing but mental fodder, those videos that go viral empower the marketing that drives value in the site. In addition, YouTube has capitalised on the long-tail approach to market ownership by building a framework that allows all segments of the video creation spectrum to participate.
The next time you decide to create a process, ask yourself if a framework would be a better fit.
Tags
Business