Replying to LO31047 --
I would like to list a few axioms (as I see them - tell me if you
disagree) and then a question
AX 1 I can't believe there is a large organisation in a
service/knowledge economy that doesn't have more than the one
relationship system of hierarchy compounding stuff- ie organisations
now need to be designed around subsystems
AX 2 If you don't explicitly recognise multiple systems and work to
architect their interface, you will get the worst of both/all, at
least over time as the tensions between the systems compound
AX 3 Therefore hierarchy is bad (or putting the organisation at
unnecessary risk) when it fails to recognise it is just one of several
subsystems that need to be designed with win-win interfaces
Assuming there are a lot of cases out there (certainly my experience)
where hierarchy isn't addressing the interaction of subsystems issue,
why is this?
-have various professional disciplines failed to make this point to
leadership with the clarity they could?
-does hierarchy not know the costs and risks it compounds when it is
blind to the dynamics of other subsystems
-does hierarchy not care or otherwise brush away the issue as
longer-term than the immediate firefighting?
London First Intangibles Collaboration City
"chris macrae" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.