excellent article - wonder if you've ever heard of holacracy as an organizational structure, and what you might think of it? https://www.holacracy.org/
My organization tried it for a few years, I really liked it, but the structure didn't last and we reverted back to a more normal manager/employee relationship.
Hi Hendu, I wasn't aware of that; I'll certainly take a look. There are two bodies of literature I'm familiar with that address greater employee involvement. The first is stakeholder theory, which posits that stakeholders are not limited to shareholders but also encompass employees, customers, and local residents. This theory argues for their inclusion in company governance. The second approach is workplace democracy, which centres specifically on employee participation. In the economics of the firm, there's an ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of increased employee involvement. This debate also examines why we don't see more firms adopting this model in open-market economies. Interestingly, the experiences of countries like Germany and Japan, where employees play a more significant role in corporate governance, suggest that the associated organisational costs don't necessarily impede productivity or competitiveness.
I’ve become more fascinated over time with applying the principles of organizational theory not just to the workplace, but to politics as well. In applying stakeholder theory, how much democracy (“power to the people”) is appropriate to conduct a well-functioning society? Too little, and you lose accountability for elected officials. Too much, and you might lose rights or institutional integrity.
Holacracy was initially described to me as centering people around the work, as opposed to centering work around people. The normal work experience has job applicants applying for a job based on the responsibilities outlined in the postings. Usually, after several months on the job, the responsibilities of that person will change, depending on their strengths, weaknesses, or other factors. In this case, the job posting is essentially being used to recruit people into the organization, and then work forms around that person. I imagine this is the experience for most people in a workplace (at least in the States)
Holacracy does the opposite. The job postings are essentially mini-constitutions. If I’m hired to take on a “role,” I cannot simply be assigned different tasks by management unless we go through a formal process of changing the responsibilities for that role, for which I can object to during the process, ….or a new role is created, which I can decline to fulfill. It takes some of the political power away from managers (technically there are no managers, they are called “lead links”). And it really gets the organization to focus sharply on the creation of roles to fulfill the work and the purpose of those roles. The people are almost secondary consideration.
The article covers a very wide ranging subject well. With so many variables and multiple participants likely to cover their tracks, motives and activities statistical analysis of the most important variables is impossible. My experience of working globally, with large and small organizations in both the public and private sectors is that deviant managerial motives are the main issue. Greed, power and sex all feature. Management incentives are often such that they cause behavior contrary to the organizations stated aims and values. Organized labor can also become corrupted.
Thanks Chris. I think there are much more insights that could be gained from applying the PA problem critically to management practices and think of governance solutions. And there is no easy fix.
excellent article - wonder if you've ever heard of holacracy as an organizational structure, and what you might think of it? https://www.holacracy.org/
My organization tried it for a few years, I really liked it, but the structure didn't last and we reverted back to a more normal manager/employee relationship.
Hi Hendu, I wasn't aware of that; I'll certainly take a look. There are two bodies of literature I'm familiar with that address greater employee involvement. The first is stakeholder theory, which posits that stakeholders are not limited to shareholders but also encompass employees, customers, and local residents. This theory argues for their inclusion in company governance. The second approach is workplace democracy, which centres specifically on employee participation. In the economics of the firm, there's an ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of increased employee involvement. This debate also examines why we don't see more firms adopting this model in open-market economies. Interestingly, the experiences of countries like Germany and Japan, where employees play a more significant role in corporate governance, suggest that the associated organisational costs don't necessarily impede productivity or competitiveness.
I’ve become more fascinated over time with applying the principles of organizational theory not just to the workplace, but to politics as well. In applying stakeholder theory, how much democracy (“power to the people”) is appropriate to conduct a well-functioning society? Too little, and you lose accountability for elected officials. Too much, and you might lose rights or institutional integrity.
Holacracy was initially described to me as centering people around the work, as opposed to centering work around people. The normal work experience has job applicants applying for a job based on the responsibilities outlined in the postings. Usually, after several months on the job, the responsibilities of that person will change, depending on their strengths, weaknesses, or other factors. In this case, the job posting is essentially being used to recruit people into the organization, and then work forms around that person. I imagine this is the experience for most people in a workplace (at least in the States)
Holacracy does the opposite. The job postings are essentially mini-constitutions. If I’m hired to take on a “role,” I cannot simply be assigned different tasks by management unless we go through a formal process of changing the responsibilities for that role, for which I can object to during the process, ….or a new role is created, which I can decline to fulfill. It takes some of the political power away from managers (technically there are no managers, they are called “lead links”). And it really gets the organization to focus sharply on the creation of roles to fulfill the work and the purpose of those roles. The people are almost secondary consideration.
The article covers a very wide ranging subject well. With so many variables and multiple participants likely to cover their tracks, motives and activities statistical analysis of the most important variables is impossible. My experience of working globally, with large and small organizations in both the public and private sectors is that deviant managerial motives are the main issue. Greed, power and sex all feature. Management incentives are often such that they cause behavior contrary to the organizations stated aims and values. Organized labor can also become corrupted.
Thanks Chris. I think there are much more insights that could be gained from applying the PA problem critically to management practices and think of governance solutions. And there is no easy fix.