jon on wierarchy
Wirearchy – Jon Husband at Social Now 2019 | Knowman
notes/quotes from 18 min video:
1 min: job eval methods.. all generic semantic codification of taylorism.. they are the core obstacle.. powerful jaws of system
working 15 yrs to become partner.. then quit right before.. had to decide if i wanted to belong to past or future.. chose future and it blew my life up.. the rest of my life/career has been a catastrophe.. when i started talking about wierarchy people thought i was nuts.. couldn’t find work.. and it still makes people nervous.. we live in a system made up of a lot of rules.. and rules layered on rules.. i wrote an essay a few yrs ago called semantic straight jackets.. layer after layer of the right way to do things.. t
notes/quotes from essay:
Straitjackets are devices worn to restrain agitated or unpredictable people.. t
Today, our semantic straight-jackets are bound by the prescriptive linear logic of cause-and-eﬀect .. t
The models created to codify “how to do things better, faster, cheaper” are almost exclusively derived from yesterday’s and today’s mainstream management ‘science’.
They are so common and widespread that they are used almost without thinking.
We’ve been living through the late stages of an era dominated by assumptions about predictability, eﬃciency, reproducibility, control of quality and an ongoing quest to replace expensive and variable human labour with processes and automation that delivers those characteristics at massive scale.
As the quest for reliable success and continuous improvement has continued and grown, it has come to define our times. During this journey, we have witnessed (via a plethora of semantically defined models) the evolution of the concepts of management science take shape in tools that codify:
– the division of labour,
– functional and service specialization,
– continuous assessment and monitoring,
– the widespread adoption of metrics, and
– the definition of what desirable performance meant.
But, humans are messy and and have individual cognitive, psychological and emotive profiles and capabilities. In eﬀect, each person has their own configuration of cognition, psychology and motivation that aﬀects their reasons for being and doing. They do not yield easily to standardization models. It is my belief that most people have reacted to the onslaught of competency models (for example) as one would react to being asked to try on a straitjacket … livable but constraining and uncomfortable.
Frameworks such as Cynefin provide us with guidance towards new more effective ways of describing exploration and actions, while their open syntax allow us to *stay away from the prescriptions that worked in a predictable environment in order to prototype and apply novel approaches to organizational effectiveness.
again.. any form of m\a\p
we cannot hide our fear of complexity behind them anymore.
To tame this fear, and grow our individual or collective potential, we need first to learn the building blocks of a new semantics, then to play with them according to a new syntax. Learn and play, not prescriptive methodologies, are the fabric of organizational improvement.
back to notes/quote from video:
3 min – on managerial capitalism.. back in time.. 50s.. societal org growth.. school.. business.. everything.. then management science took over.. efficiency optimization.. et al.. then change management.. get everyone involved.. then erp (electronic concrete poured over business processes).. change management meant training everyone on new system.. then internet.. hyperlinks..
5 min – making meaning .. organizing activities..
6 min – 1st 200 yrs after printing press.. knowledge threatened existing power
7 min – hierarchy is not going away any time soon.. i don’t think it should.. it should change.. all the dots.. potential communities of purpose/action
i think we need to let go of it soon.. so to me.. need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature ie: tech as it could be
8 min – see anger/hate but also miraculous stuff in networks
9 min – defn of wierarchy i wrote oct 1999: dynamic 2 way power and authority based on knowledge, trust, credibility, and a focus on generating results, enable by interconnected people and technology
results.. ness.. ? i don’t know.. i think that’s a cancerous distraction
credibility and trust? i think you have one or the other.. ie: if have to have credibility.. then not trust..
there is not longer one way/method that works..
harold jarche calls it perpetual beta
10 min – we’re moving from core assumption that we can analyze and eliminate uncertainty.. this is also reminiscent of dave snowden’s (knevin?) network .. to ongoing sense making and engaging, participating in inclusive ways w uncertainty.. it will keep evolving..
sense making? would we if legit free?
engaging, participating.. et al
11 min – i don’t want wierarchy to become a model.. or an answer.. or a solution.. it’s just a principle.. a word you can use to think about this stuff
wierachy is not a method/approach/framework.. it’s an emergent principle.. networks are everything..
12 min – once i thought wierarchy.. i couldn’t unthink it and my career blew apart
with traditional hierarchy: discrete events, time to adjust/absorb, relatively predictable outcomes, sense future as continuation of present
with emergent wierarchy: continuous process, adjust on the fly, almost impossible to predict outcomes, future is highly complex and uncertain
13 min – people at work need guidance
14 min – we need new core assumptions about how we design work
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people
these structures we have built with these core assumptions are so immune to penetration.. organizational antibodies.. when try to org change.. all the antibodies kill it
that’s why we need to org around something every soul already craves (aka: org around legit needs) so there are not anti body bodies..
15 min – i’m agnostic to platforms.. then rec’s some