The alternative to hierarchy or anarchy: dynamic linking

A pervasive idea in management theology today is that there are only two alternatives: hierarchy or anarchy. We don’t want anarchy. So we are stuck with hierarchy. It’s not pleasant. It’s not fun. But that’s the only way to run an efficient organization.

See for example, a recent post at the Leadership Lab. “A healthy and flexible hierarchy that helps the mission of the organization is better than an unhealthy ‘boundaryless’ organization. No one wants to work in an organization where no decisions get made.”

In effect: “Shut up and go back to your cubicle!”

This kind of anachronistic thinking leads to very bad results in the modern workplace. First, hierarchy is good for making decisions but it is inflexible and unresponsive. And in today’s rapidly changing marketplace, agility is critical. Secondly, in knowledge work, a hierarchical mode of making decisions leads to decisions made by people who often don’t understand the implications of what they are deciding, and is inherently demotivating. And in knowledge work, motivation is the key to productivity. Thirdly, hierarchies are not good at innovating because there is a preoccupation with preserving the hierarchy ahead of all else. Finally, hierarchy isn’t good at innovating in a world in which innovation is critical.

Saying that hierarchies are needed is like arguing for smoking cigarettes. Hierarchies are a harmful habit that we need to break. We may be addicted to them, so that breaking the habit is hard, but the way forward is clear.

The reality is that there is another way. One can mesh the efforts of autonomous teams of knowledge workers who have the agility to innovate and meet the shifting needs of clients while also achieving disciplined execution. It requires a set of measures that might be called “dynamic linking”. The method began in automotive design in Japan and has been developed most fully in software development with approaches known as “Agile” or “Scrum”. 

“Dynamic linking” means that (a) the work is done in short cycles; (b) the management sets the goals of work in the cycle, based on what is known about what might delight the client; (c) decisions about how the work should be carried out to achieve those goals are largely the responsibility of those doing the work; (d) progress is measured (to the extent possible) by direct client feedback. The most complete articulation of the practices of dynamic linkage in software development are set out in Mike Cohn’s Succeeding with Agile: Software Development Using Scrum , and as applied to general management in The Leader's Guide to Radical Management

As The Power of Pull points out, one proceeds “by setting things up in short, consecutive waves of effort, iterations that foster deep, trust-based relationships among the participants… Knowledge begins to flow and team begins to learn, innovate and perform better and faster.… Rather than trying to specify the activities in the processes in great detail.., specify what they want to come out of the process, providing more space for individual participants to experiment, improvise and innovate.”

It’s not hierarchy and it’s not anarchy. It gets the best of all worlds. It has the decisiveness of a hierarchy but without its inflexibility, its rigidity and its tendency to demotivate workers and frustrate customers. It creates an environment that is radically more productive for the organization, more congenial to innovation, and more satisfying both for those doing the work and those for whom the work is done.

It’s been implemented for over fifteen years in organizations large and small with great success. It’s discussed in detail in chapters 6 and 7 of The Leader's Guide to Radical Management: Reinventing the Workplace for the 21st Century, along with the specific practices needed to make it operational.

Worth a try.

Comments

[Sui Fai John Mak]

Hi Steve,
Well said. I share your thoughts that "It’s not hierarchy and it’s not anarchy." How would that be done, as I have experienced it myself, the best strategies relate back to the JIT and agility that are most relevant in a customer focussed business world. I also found that adaptation and alignment with customers will help in creating great relationship with customers, that often goes beyond the hierachy and anarchy. Without customers's support, what is the purpose of a hierachy? Thanks for your great insights.
John

[Bhavin Parekh]

I would be interested to know your views on the work of Elliott Jaques who developed the concept of Requisite Organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Jaques

Also look at http://www.holacracy.org/ who has something very interesting concepts.

[Steve Denning]

Hi Bhavin

Thanks for your post. I've always found Elliot Jacques a tough read, but your email prompts me to think that I should check it out one more time. Maybe the light will dawn for me!

Holacracy, as far as I understand it, has something in common with dynamic linkage. However it seems to be missing some of the other four basic shifts in management that I refer to, and so may have questionable sustainability. It also lacks the fifteen year track record of implementation in a large number of organizations around the world that dynamic linkage enjoys. It may however offer some useful insights. I'll check it out further.

Steve

[RalfLippold]

Steve - Thanks a lot for your thoughts. Reminds me of Peter Block and the concept of Stewardship, http://bit.ly/hUuscF.

[Rich Reader]

Is there an Agile approach to Business Requirements Development or Functional Specifications Articulation that doesn't strangle the creative development process underneath an endlessly growing mountain of scope creep?

[Steve Denning]

Hi Rich Reader,

You ask: is there an Agile approach to Business Requirements Development that doesn't strangle the creative development process underneath an endlessly growing mountain of scope creep?

I try to spell out such an approach in chapter 6-7 of my new book, which I have labeled here "dynamic linking".

Of course, it does depend on execution. The nightmare that you imply can--and does--arise if the manager (or what Scrum calls "the product owner") doesn't do his or her job.

It helps if you have the other four shifts firmly in place -- focus on client delight, truly autonomous teams, genuine values and communication through conversation. In many (all?) of the cases where things went wrong, those other shifts weren't firmly in place.

Steve

[Dave Duggal]

"It’s not hierarchy and it’s not anarchy. It gets the best of all worlds."

Completely agree. The poles have failed, neither is appropriate for all things. Agility requires the ability to be as flexible as possible and as structured as necessary, on a case by case basis. Dynamic Linking promotes these emergent qualities of self-organization.

One challenge is that the enterprise infrastructure is not up to the task. Most automation software, including modern Business Process software, is still rooted in theories that emerged from the industrial revolution.

Dynamic Linking can be complimented by what we call 'Dynamic Cohesion' - the ability to match business rules and governance policies to work on-demand. In this way, the business and enterprise can define rules of play without dictating the play itself.

[ParadigmLeaps]

Steve-
My interest in Systems Thinking led me to discover the Triarchy Press. One of the books I found there is The Three Ways of Getting Things Done Hierarchy, Heterarchy and Responsible Autonomy in Organizations by Gerard Fairtlough. http://www.triarchypress.com/pages/book4.htm

A second book of interest is Agile Coaching, http://www.isbn.nu/9781934356432

[Steve Denning]

Dear ParadigmLeaps,

Thanks for these references. I'll check out Fairtlough's book--sounds very interesting.

"Agile" is one of the chief sources of the approach that I am calling "dynamic linking".

Steve

[Steve Denning]

Dave,

Thanks for these points. Where can I find out more about "dynamic cohesion"?

Steve

[Mike Wittenstein]

Steve,
I'd love to have a chat with you (when you have time ;-) about some of the existing tools I know about that fit squarely between anarchy and hierarchy which are getting good results. Several of these tools blend strategy/operations in a unified design (avoiding misinterpretation and shortening the time from thinking about something to doing something about it). Your take on them would be quite valuable. I'll gladly introduce you to their creators. Perhaps some of your followers would find them useful.
Mike

[Jon Husband]

Re: Jaques' work ...

Much of Jaques' Requisite Organization presumed a certain stability (I believe) in the evolution of things to supprt the time=span of decision-making at the various levels of the organization. I do not think this logic foresaw the dynamics of hyperlinked information flows, and the results of those dynamcs, very well.

I think that in these new conditions the time-span of decision-making is (or needs to be) very much cognizant of the shorter cycle times of activities, which you cite as part of your argument.

[Devremülk]

i like to read your posts. thanks for this one.

[pool contruction arizona]

You shed light to this matter in which it gave me a clear understanding.

[wholesale fashion jewelry]

Thanks for the blog loaded with so many information. Stopping by your blog helped me to get what I was looking for.

[Coach Outlet]

My take is that the problem is not so much that Agile and Scrum don't t scale. We now have many examples of large-scale implementations of Agile.

[painter]

They provide an outline tattoo that you transfer to your body part, either with water or alcohol, and then you paint the color in with special body paints.