Ways to make money

“Another good idea is to reinvent current management practices not by replacing existing hierarchical routines with emergent ones, but rather by using emergent systems, communities, and processes to lead the way”

As a millennial, this idea really speaks to me. Everyone says that millennials want free reign, to call all the shots. I disagree. Actually, I think most want and need a hierarchical structure, but it must be coupled with management “getting” us. That means, understanding, respecting and implementing some of our preferred modes of communication and individual processes. We don't need to do everything our way — just some things.

We want to take instruction and learn from those who have more experience, but we want to contribute as well. We also need leadership that walks the walk — that means not just giving us an “atta boy!” when we bring something unique to the table. Instead, find a way to incorporate our new ideas, experience and advice and then (when appropriate) integrate it with their own processes.

In my opinion, a hierarchical structure is a must — but it must also be mutually beneficial for all involved. More communication in more innovative ways.

There's an issue with respect to the false dichotomy of “hierarchy versus flat” that has to do with the common method of job design, directly related to the arcane (and boring and dry) practice of job evaluation (job size and weight, not the evaluation of performance on the job). Job evaluation determines the positioning of the jobs in the boxes on the (hierarchical, in almost all instances) org chart. HR typically carries responsibility for this 'service”, with the core 'design' inputs coming from the C-level, with input from the the line or staff managers they 'own'.

All the major JE methods (Hay Method, Aiken Plan, Towers Perrin, Elliott Jacques) were invented anywhere from 55 to 40 years ago, and they all rely on a basic framework of inputs (knowledge), throughputs (problem solving) and out puts (accountability). In almost all instances the dominant factor is knowledge, which is arranged in hierarchical semantic scales, as in your boss knows more than you, and her boss knows more than her, and so on .. and knowledge is either domain-specific or gained through experience (and as you go up the hierarchic chain of command, the knowledge is dimensionally broadened through what is called “breadth and complexity of management”).

This is essentially livable-with in a networked environment, but lacking in sophistication.

The next two factors become more problematic.

Problem solving is sub-defined into Thinking Challlenge and Thinking Complexity .. and these are again hierarchically arranged such that the higher-ups define the problem and to what degree past practices, policies and procedures and protocol are brought to bear on a given problem if one thinks about how issues are defined, addressed and come to terms with in a networked environment, the ineffectiveness begins to become apparent.

Accountability is dominated by two sub-factors; Freedom to Act and Magnitude (typically measured in budget terms or the closest tangible proxy to budget … could be revenue targets or marketing spend or some such). However, the weight of the Freedom to Act factor is typically about twice that of magnitude, and is derived directly from the reporting relationships arranged on the org chart. This factor too bears less and less relevance to the way work is happening / carried out in networked environments (but of course its useful to understand when and how to act, but the factor implies “getting permission” from one's boss.

Job evaluation effectively forms the skeleton of the organization, and increasingly is (in my opinion) causing dissonance with / amongst networked knowledge workers who have to think on their feet, define problems clearly and quickly, respond effectively, and have accountability for carrying out key aspects in a chain or web of activities that are unfolding in parallel if not simultaneously.

It's an area almost no one writes about, or thinks about much, mainly because it is so deadly boring and basically taken for granted. this issue is exacerbated because much of the process, in many organizations, has been either encioded into Job Evaluation applications driven by algorithms (I know, I built some of the early algorithms in the mid-90's) or carried out by a wet-thumb-in-the-air benchmarking exercise.

Basically, the fundamental assumptions of job size and weight in these methods, and their pertinence / usefulness / applicability for increasingly networked environments wherein hand-offs and effective horizontal knowledge-based collaboration is more and more necessary, have not been (and are not being) deeply examined, and revised in ways that account for the complexity and dynamics of knowledge work in networked workplaces.