Chapter 7 - Nimbleness and Change
In a formal hierarchy, a great deal of effort is required to restructure an organization to make changes necessary to adapt to shifts in the environment that cannot be mitigated. A reorganization is a considerable undertaking, and in addition to shuffling the deck chairs a great deal of process must be revisited. By comparison, a peer network is much more dynamic in that there are no formal controls that have to be redesigned and reapplied - the network can implement changes in real time without a formal change process.
That is not to say that a networked organization is perfectly elastic: connections between nodes can become as ingrained as a hierarchical organization structure, and protocols must be changed when the network adapts to change. It is particularly difficult to do when the nodes on the network (people) have long-standing relationships with those with whom they currently interact and no connection to the others with whom they may need to form new connections after a change.
To accommodate change fluidly, the nodes in a network must have the ability to predict change and a broad network with other nodes, even those with whom they have no present contact. Absent that, the nodes may become separated from the network when their present connections are broken and there is no knowledge of how to reconnect.
P2P and Drivers for Change
Change is constant, and a networked community is not protected from the need to change, but it has greater fluidity than formal organization in the manner and speed in which it can react.
In traditional organizations, the individuals have no ability to adapt and are often prevented from reacting by processes and procedures that require them to behave in certain ways regardless of the circumstances. An authority figure further up the hierarchy (manager or executive) must be aware of the change, must plan the way the change will take place, and must issue new orders to each individual - all of which takes time, and all of which is done from a perspective of an authority who is removed from the daily work flow of the organization according to what he assumes will be effective. Even the most carefully managed changes tend to go horribly wrong.
Changes within an organization are generally characterized by a focus on efficiency - doing the same things in a manner that requires less resources - but when change comes from an external driver, the organization can only respond, and the speed of its response is what minimizes the damage it incurs in terms of not only inefficiency but ineffectiveness. The customers and employees lost while waiting for the change to take effect will not return immediately afterward (if ever). And very often deliberate change requires deliberation, creating a rush-stop-rush-stop cycle within the organization which is damaging to morale and undermines the sense of urgency needed when action has finally been authorized.
In a networked organization the change can be made on the front lines by employees who recognize the need to react immediately to what they perceive in their everyday work flow. They do not need to send the message upstream and wait for direction or authorization to take actions that are obvious to them.
One caveat is that governance cannot altogether be dispensed with: an organization has a purpose and a vision, and some guidance and control is necessary from keeping the network from spinning off in a completely different direction - employees are empowered to find the means to accomplish the goals of the organization, but not to change what those goals are.
(EN: It may be useful to concretize this a bit more, as the activities of employees must not only support the mission of the organization, but be balanced in terms of profit and loss. That's not to say that financial performance is in the driver's seat and controls every activity, but it must be a consideration if the organization is to remain sustainable.)
The Time for Change
In a rigidly structured organization, change runs on a timetable: there is a defined date on which the organization will make changes and a projected date on which the changes will be completed. However, a networked organization has no need of a timetable: individuals can simply make changes as needed without coordination or formal authority. There is no planning for change, it simply occurs.
Networked organizations adapt in the same way to deal with irregular situations that don't fit a predefined pattern - they are flexible enough to do what is unnecessary in unusual situations. And if the unusual situation becomes usual, this constitutes a permanent change and the "old way" is simply no longer practiced when instances in which it is suitable cease to present themselves.
The author then considers a number of change models, which were first discussed in 1995 (Vandeven), from the process of a networked organization:
- Evolutionary Model - By this model, change follows a biological pattern of adaptation to changes in the environment: when one pattern of behavior is no longer effective in accomplishing a necessary task (getting nourishment from a particular plant), organisms in that environment adapt (learn to eat and digest other plants) or die.
- Dialectical Model - This model considers change as a product of discussion and negotiation within an organization in which participants may or may not be aware of changes in the external environment. Each pursues his own agenda and the changes result from agreements among stakeholders.
- Teleological Model - This model suggests that the top leadership of an organization determines the goals, and all employees follow under their direction and influence to transform the organization as needed to achieve the ends dictated by leadership.
- Cultural Model - This model considers behavior in the context of an organizational culture, rather than being directed to specific ends. That is, there are many ways a goal can be accomplished and individuals choose the path most consistent with their values and habits, which are negotiated within the context of an organization.
None of these models of change is impossible in either a networked or traditional organization - the difference lies in where change originates. In a networked organization, each employee participates in recognizing, defining, and executing change whereas a traditional organization reserves these functions to a small number of leaders.