Dave Pollard of How to Save the World blog fame, writes questioningly of the Organizations of the Future?. Here is the list the group came up with:
-an organization less like an army (hierarchical, focused on winning) and more like a family/community (collaborative, focused on well-being of members) than today's large organizations;
-better able to deal with complexity;
-has a flexible definition of 'work' that is purposeful and meaningful to its people;
-is accessible, inclusive and diverse;
-is responsive to the communities it operates in;
-is self-managed, innovative and entrepreneurial;
-generates deep mutual respect and trust in its people;
-is resilient and agile, and capable of 'acting in the moment';
-attracts people skilled at collaboration and inclined to work collaboratively;
-has a self-determined, shared set of values;
-is committed to "not being evil";
-is amoeba-like (permeable borders, good sensors, able to change shape when necessary, a strong guiding nucleus, and replicable;
-is attuned to and responsive to customer needs (rather than "trying to sell them something they don't really need or want");
-accommodates needs and conflicting demands of its people, using principles of reciprocity;
-motivates and engages its people;
-cross-pollinates people, ideas, knowledge, points of view;
is transparent and authentic;
-is not location-based or location-dependent;
-uses sustainable, cradle-to-cradle practices, and does more with less;
-engages customers and other partners in design, development and decision-making, to tap into the wisdom of crowds;
-has rotating leadership, with leaders who see where the future is going before others do, and inspires others to act on that vision, and who are able to translate the complexity around them into simple truths that have meaning, direction and predictability (rather than encouraging the cult of leadership and the messiah complex of many of today's leaders);
-accommodates and leverages the skills and qualities of women;
-finds and clears away obstacles that prevent its people from doing their best;
-learns from nature;
-teaches people to communicate extraordinarily well, and encourages authentic, powerful conversations;
-recognizes our responsibility to leave a legacy for our children, and pays attention to them and learns from them
The funny thing is that if you asked most companies whether or not they meet this criteria they actually might say yes "we are working on it -- not there yet but we have initiatives in place to get there." Now far be it from me to be sticking up for corporate entitites, but I have to say that there are some well-intentioned executives and corporations who really believe in this stuff and are trying hard to get their organizations to "this place."
But I have to laugh...the list creators seemed to want organizations "less like armies and not focused on winning." Should they be focused on losing?? There is a game to be played in the corporate environment and therefore people play to win. Employees who consider working in corporate entities choose to play in the game and therefore hopefully sign up to play for a winning organization. They could always choose to work in a non-profit or government entity that has more of family and/or community focus.
Anyway, the things that companies are doing that make them think they are moving in this direction are intiatives that sound like this...customer-centric organization designs; managing change and creating a change ready organizations; employee engagement and retention programs; values-based leadership; corporate social responsibility programs; customer experience intiatiatives; collaborative mindsets and technologies such as internal blogging, rss feeds, knowledge management, social network analysis; distributed work; involving customers in the design process; and the list could go on and on.
Probably the one thing I can't name an initiative for is learns from nature - can you?
So where is the disconnect? Is it in the execution? Is it in the speed at which these initiatives take to get embedded into the culture and therefore noticed by others? Is it lipservice and a bunch of lies? Are execs delusional and/or well-intentioned in thinking their organizations might actually meet the criteria/vision outlined above someday?
I am going to say from my point of view and my experience that there are well-intentioned execs and companies who are trying to do the right thing. What I can also attest to is that running a company is hard work. So in addition to creating an environment that does all of the above simultaneously and at the same time gets results (excuse me, yes win!) is really really hard work. I am sure all of who create the list would agree if they run companies of their own.
Dave asks in his post - is this list really the organization of the future, or just a dream of incurable optimists? I think that many organizations are well on their way to this future state but I believe there isn't much time, that the future is now and that the list is already old...
Now you talk...
Hat tip to Gautum. Thank you!
Giovanni Rodriguez
Elizabeth Albrycht
Dave Desforges
Jim McGee
Jim Ware
1. Lee White on September 21, 2005 3:21 PM writes...
You seem to be implying that "winning" and "family/community focus" are contra-indications. I also sense that you are more subtly equating "winning" with money. I would dispute both points. I see winning as sustainability, doing it right for the long term. I think the family/community model is better suited to that end. In a family (or community) you must meet immediate needs in order to survive, but you also do not sacrifice your resources for a short-term "win".
I think the "real managers might dissagree" mindset regarding views on the organization of the future says more about the entrenched mindset of most current "leaders" than the implausibility of the itemized list.
You also wondered as to the disconnect. I think one place to look is to purpose. Every organization I know of has a "Vision Statement", but I believe that very few have a true understanding of their purpose. Peter Senge et.al speak to this much better than I can in their recent book "Presence".
Permalink to Comment2. regina on September 21, 2005 6:54 PM writes...
Yes...you are right. I guess I am equating winning with money. It's my goal orientation - you've got goals and targets even if they are employee satisfaction and the end of the day in biz it comes down to money...but I don't think think it is a contra-indication. I think you can have a great environment to work it and achieve great results. There is something off that even if your environment is great but that you aren't achieving (or winning if you will) it impacts the great environment.
Permalink to Comment3. kris on September 21, 2005 10:38 PM writes...
Gotta admire the good intentions of the group, but I can't believe the naivete. Anyone taking this list as a serious possibility should go back and read 'Lord Of The Flies' or any number of other books that deal with the inevitable human nature that prevails.
The one that really got me was the 'learn from nature' comment. There are 2 forms of life in nature - those with brains and those without. Those without really don't know or care if they are living in a fair setting or not and those with brains know one thing - eat or be eaten.
Sorry for the cynicism, but to ignore those realities is to doom yourself to failure.
To conduct yourself on a personal level to achieve that higher standard can be very effective in influencing small group dynamics. But just take a look at the qualities of companies that were fledglings 20-30 years ago. They all exhibited the qualities espoused by this group when they started out, but today they are the exact opposite. Watch what happens to Yahoo, Google, and all the currently hip, open, fair cultures to be in.
It's inevitable.
Permalink to Comment4. kris on September 21, 2005 10:52 PM writes...
Take 2 - several of the items presented ARE valid and successfully promoted by a growing number of companies. My comment above was a little harsh.
But, really, many of the comments are so 'Kumbaya' they distract from the legitimate ones.
Permalink to Comment5. Lee White on September 22, 2005 11:08 AM writes...
I understand the "reality" of the way things are. My question is: is that true reality or just the fixed mindset of conventional wisdom based on over 100 years of "scientific" management?
If we cannot percieve a new and different future, we are doomed to something far worse than failure, being stuck where we are.
Please accept my apologies for being an optimist.
Permalink to Comment6. kris on September 22, 2005 6:13 PM writes...
Lee - I believe it has less to do with the evolution of management sciences over the last 100 years and more to do with the basic primal nature of people that has evolved over 1000s of years.
Those primal instincts always trump utopian intentions. Not that that is always bad, either. Whether it is hunter/gatherer, leader/follower, passive/aggressive - it doesn't matter. It's the yin/yang that keeps it all in balance and moving forward.
The environment, technology, cultures, etc are in a constant state of change, but the one constant, IMO, is human nature.
The saving grace is that we live in a society that both facilitates our well-intentioned instincts and protects us from the evil ones (well. most of the time.)
Permalink to Comment7. Frank Walsh on September 28, 2005 10:18 AM writes...
At first blush, I might have been inclined to agree with Kris' comments. It is a bit "touchy feely" in tone, but I think the premise of the list is on target and generally solid. I also appreciate that it is intentionally extreme.
Without a doubt, the very first point is the most difficult for any organization of significant size, and therefore the one easiest to write off as "pie in the sky". Still, that would be a mistake. If you are ABLE to create an organization with a shared set of values all the way through and a collaborative, family atmosphere, you will undoubtedly thrive. The question is how much effort, time, and money are you willing to expend to achieve this and what is the value? How many people are you willing to churn through your organization in the quest to build this family? How long can you afford to chase this ideal? Difficult questions, all.
Customer focus, employee focus, and shareholder focus need not (and should not) be in conflict with one another, but they can certainly pull in different directions while trying to get to the same destination.
Permalink to Comment