William writes,
In my experience, many little hierachies leads to many little stovepipes,
a lot of inefficency, and rare instances of cooperation. More
importantly, have you ever seen a hierarchy go quietly into the night, to
be replaced by a newer, more relevant one? Everyone's participation is
certainly the objective. I'm not convinced that hierarchical structures
engender the necessary environment to encourage such participation.
== end quote ==
Wiliam, you are absolutely right, but I suggest that is not inherent in
the hierarchy, but in how we have implemented them. When our view of
reality -- our mental model -- was that our value was in our functional
role, then working to make the function 'immortal' was inevitable. When
we change the mental model to one of process, in which we receive, add
value, then give, and furthermore, when we create a small hierarchy to
smooth and simplify that process, then I think (hope) the hierarchy may
willingly go away, because the functional role remains. No one loses
anything when a cross-functional hierarchy is created to improve
something, and then deliberately destroyed when it achieves its mission.
In fact, one could argue that the elimination of the hierarchy is the sign
that it has succeeded in its mission.
In any event, we are trying this, and I can tell you in a few months how
it works.
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234,3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>