Chapter 3 - Organizational Equipotency
The notion of "equipotency" means that each node in a peer-to-peer network is on equal footing with the others nodes in terms of its responsibilities within the network. That is, each node expects a response to its requests for service from other notes and in turn is expected to respond to requests from other nodes. There is no sense of being "authorized" nor any form of centralized control.
The Power of Equipotency in Organizations
In the context of an organization, equipotency occurs when everyone works together toward a common goal - there are no formal roles (people assume roles as needed) nor a sense of rank and authority (people are equals).
(EN: The author goes on about this for a bit - but it's really not that unfamiliar as it is exactly the way in which volunteer organizations tend to work: they are random collections of people without specific skills and who have no formal authority over one another. Or maybe that's not the best example because, while they get things done, it's seldom very efficient and the quality of the output is barely sufficient.)
The author speaks of her experience working in a "psychiatric emergency room" in which there was a staff of psychiatrists who had various specializations and areas of expertise. In the heat of triage there was little time to sort out authority or follow formal protocols: each practitioner took on patients as available and could call on colleagues for assistance if their specialized skills were needed on a given case.
In order for a peer network to operate efficiently, there must be clear and open communication so that each node is aware of the resources available from other nodes, as well as the capacity of other nodes. Constant real-time dialogue improves the efficiency of the system.
The Value of Equipotency in Organizations
The author lists some benefits to equipotency:
- It serves as an enabler - Formal rules and protocols often prevent people from doing their best work by defining the scope of what they are permitted to do, which may procedurally or psychologically preventing them from doing things that are in their ability but are not addressed or permitted.
- It drives commitment - People are more engaged when they have autonomy and are able to act on their own initiative rather than merely obey the orders handed down to them from above.
- It creates positive intent - People who are governed by rules seek to comply to the rules, not to accomplish a positive outcome, and will cling to rules even when they obstruct of prevent efficiency and effectiveness
- It decreases internal competition - Where everyone is equal, there is no rank of privilege to occupying any position on the team, which eliminates petty rivalries, sabotage, and other dysfunctional behavior
- It improves morale - In general, people are happier when they are in control of their own work as opposed to being managed closely, and feel a sense of pride in accomplishment that does not arise from compliance or obedience
Implications for Organization Design
The hierarchical organization is designed for command-and-control leadership, and not collaboration. It is well suited to organizations that are led in a top-down manner in which those at lower ranks have decreasing authority for decision-making, and who are increasingly subject to the orders and directives from above.
While this seems old-fashioned, this form of leadership is deeply ingrained in the culture of some organizations, and some workers have become accustomed to this arrangement, to the point where they take comfort in having routine duties that do not change, do not require much thought, and do not require them to take risks or show initiative.
This is very effective at doing the same thing, repeatedly, in an environment in which change is rare and relatively slow. Such organizations cannot be competitive with organizations that move quickly and can adapt to change more rapidly - which is the reason that large institutional organizations are often toppled by smaller and more informal ones.
(EN: This is a rather broad generalization based on many assumptions - but more importantly, the ability to adapt and change rapidly is not a universal value and some firms can sustain themselves quite a long time by merely being efficient. If the market is mature and the product is commoditized, then rapid innovation is of little value.)
Implications for a New Leadership Paradigm
In traditional models, the task of the "leader" is merely to oversee his followers to ensure their effort is being applied in the right way: they are working hard enough, following procedures, and producing standard output at an acceptable pace with few defects. The author gets a bit colorful, referring to putting employees into "uniforms" and "strait jackets" - in essence, being treated as machine parts rather than people and held to mechanical measurements of performance.
In the peer-to-peer network, such leadership is entirely unnecessary: the behavior of the nodes is less important than their collective output, which is believed to be greatest when each person does what they do best. There is no standard output, merely a solution that achieves results. Her sense is that this is a better way to work, and will become our everyday reality.
Summary
Within a peer network of equipotent nodes, there is no permanent role of leader or follower, but individuals lead or follow as is necessary to accomplish the present objectives. This makes the best use of human resources, and decreases the inefficiencies of a system that has many slow-moving parts whose sole job is to control communication and buffer the spread of information.