Chapter 4 - Relational Dynamics
The author defines "dynamic" as being improvisational. There is no plan, and individuals do whatever seems necessary on the spur of the moment, and change what they are doing based on whether their efforts seem to be accomplishing their desired end.
This is the kind of action that is needed when you have to respond to a crisis or have no plan: a hierarchical organization is often paralyzed in such instances because information must be communicated up the hierarchy and decisions passed down, which does not happen in a nimble enough manner.
The author cites the example of grassroots disaster relief efforts, in which individuals simply showed up to do whatever needed doing or sent whatever supplies they thought were needed. Such agencies often respond much faster than the Red Cross, FEMA, and other institutions that have a great deal of resources but require significant time to plan, communicate orders, and mobilize.
(EN: this point is well taken that grassroots efforts are often faster, but they often do very little. Instead, they take action in a hasty, random, and ill-conceived manner that is usually better than nothing - but can sometimes worse in that they can do considerable damage for their lack of intelligence and coordination.)
Relational dynamics pertains to the manner in which people organize and connect to one another - not only does each node of the peer network improvise, but they form connections as needed in the heat of the moment. In this regard, people engage others as needed, or reach outside the network to engage resources that are needed, as the need arises.
(EN: I'm really not on the bandwagon here. It seems to me that quick and decisive action requires some form of organization in advance, and flexibility to deal with unexpected obstacles. In essence, it requires an organization that is prepared in advance. A city's fire department is hierarchical, and is much more prepared to deal with disasters than random groups of people who show up at a fire and do what they think is needed in a frenetic manner - I doubt there are many success stories in that regard. However, the point is well taken that many organizations are caught ill-prepared for disasters and often seem paralyzed - they are having committee meetings while the building burns down, or competitors are taking over the market, or whatever. But I don't sense that moving from the extreme of order to the extreme of disorder is quite the right solution.)
The Value of Relational Dynamics
In the absence of a hierarchy, it is necessary for each node to be able to detect when it is needed, and for the nodes that are needed to define their relationships with one another. There is no leader to coordinate and organize their efforts, which can be paralytic to individuals who are unable to act without someone to tell them what to do - but other individuals can either spring to action independently or coordinate with others who seem to be interested in taking action.
Ideally, there is a period of discussion and negotiation, in which the active nodes coordinate their efforts - figure out what needs to be done, and who will do it, and what support they need, and who will provide it. If participation is not mandatory and each node decides whether it is willing to fulfill the role that has been suggested, then all perspectives should be heard, accounted form, and integrated. (EN: this sounds highly inefficient: the network must have committee meetings each time a crisis arises to decide who does what, and discuss it until everyone is happy with the outcome? Seems to me that a hierarchy with a contingency plan would be more efficient and expedient.)
She asserts that the relational dynamics "inherent in" peer networks connects people and makes information readily available to all nodes. (EN: Which seems a fallacy - particularly with grassroots effort, there is a central control node that gathers and shares information. People go to a web site, or a twitter feed, to learn what needs to be done and what others are doing. They do not email each other directly but depend on this central source. And while the central source has no formal authority to direct effort, it is essential to coordinating it.)
She also mentions that peer networks use knowledge more effectively: in hierarchies, those who are in management positions are seen as leaders whose wisdom and input are perceived as superior to that of lower-ranking individuals, simply by virtue of his rank and title. In truth, those who are "highest" in the organization chart are often more removed from the front lines, and have the least amount of knowledge and experience pertaining to the situation.
(EN: Granted, this may in some instances be a lack of proper delegation of authority - but there are some instances in which action requires the participation of individuals in different departments that do not have a common manager until very high up in the org chart, in which case this problem seems inevitable. The traditional solution is to empower a task force to act outside of the normal hierarchy, but a peer network might be a good alternative - giving people the authority to communicate across silos as a matter of course.)
The peer network is an anarchy in the initial sense of the term - it is an organization without a designated leader. That is not to say that there is no coordination, but that it arises as needed among nodes, none of which have any authority to lead the others, but who assumes a leadership role out of necessity and requires the consent of its followers. (EN: it's also significant that in an anarchic "election" each node indicates its own intent to contribute to an effort - those who are not interested in participating are not compelled to do the will of the majority, but go their own way.)
In traditional organization, certain individuals are given authority and control over resources - they may opt to contribute or refuse, and withdraw their resources at any time. This is even true of human resources, such that the workers have no autonomy over their own activity, but must yield to their masters. Management decides who does what, including which people work together. In peer networks, the nodes make themselves available to other nodes, and each individual determines whether he is able (in terms of skill and ability) and interested in engaging in a cooperative effort.
(EN: I kind of see this as open agency: employees do not have fixed work groups but go where they are needed. However, there is still a need for monitoring in such a system to ensure it works smoothly - that there are enough resources to match the demand, that employees are not refusing to participate in a group so that they can goldbrick, etc.)
Implications for a New Leadership Paradigm
In the author's view, the nature of leadership has changed: it is no longer a person who uses status and authority to command obedience of subordinates, but one who has the persuasive skills to cajole cooperation from peers.
This is not new: leadership has always been a social phenomenon (one cannot be a leader when working alone) and has always depended on a partnership between leader and follower. It is the follower's willingness to follow, more so than the leader's desire to lead, that gives a leader the power to command - or more aptly, that gives the leader the appearance of power when his followers choose to cooperate with him.
Summary
After a brief summary of some of the earlier points, the author offers the perspective that many organizations are presently operating "without foresight" - because it takes time for information to travel up from the bottom of the pyramid to a level at which decisions can be made by those with formal control, those who make decisions are always acting on historical information. And then, they pass orders back down through the ranks that give workers on the front line the authority to do things that were obviously in need of doing, well after then time when they should have been done.
Such organizations are at a distinct disadvantage compared to peer networks, which empower employees close to the action to make decisions and take the appropriate action immediately when the need arises. A peer network will always outmaneuver a stodgy hierarchy, and will win any competition where speed and flexibility are of the essence.
(EN: Again, I have to point out that it should not be taken for granted that speed and flexibility are always "of the essence" and that there is value to deliberation and circumspection, as doing the wrong thing quickly is not good at all. It may take some time and thought to sort out the degree to which speed or intelligence is more important, and it likely varies by the situation.)