Networks and The Myth of Flattening Organizations

I was excited to hear from a few social media/Enterprise 2.0 advocates after my post last week asking When will social business become social change business? Special thanks to Jon Husband of Wirearchy, who not only confirmed that he has a revolutionary agenda behind his networked models of organizing but who also sent me some of his own work on the subject. I am excited to be finding more colleagues who share the vision of real social change in organizations behind these relationship technology innovations.

As I geared up over the weekend to start blogging about social change and social media, I was preparing to write more about my concern that what proponents of Enterprise 2.0/Social Business are suggesting is not transformational enough. However, we need also to consider that not only are these tools and structures not as revolutionary as they could be — some of these changes aren’t even as revolutionary as we already assume they are.

So I’m backing up a little to look at a different set of assumptions, the assumptions about why internal social media & networks might be revolutionary in the first place.

Take, for example, two very popular myths about the effect of more networked social/production/creation structure social networking inside organizations.

People assume that:

1. Networked work flow, the kind of workflow enhanced by social media within workplaces (e.g., wikis, google wave) will lead to flatter organizations.

2. Flatter organization are better, because flatter organizations reduce power differences between employees. They create more democracy, more autonomy and more decision-making power for employees.

Neither of these assumptions is true.

In this post, I’ll (start to) tackle the myth that networked structures reduce hierarchical levels. The myth that ‘flatter organizations are better’ is the subject of the post following this one.

First, what does it mean to be ‘flatter’?

Simply, to call an organization flatter is to say that it has fewer levels of decision-making authority, power, and control wrapped around the work.

Here’s an example: Instead of having a brand assistant, assistant brand manager, brand supervisor, brand director, category manager, division manager (you see where this is going) we have instead the brand “team”, the brand supervisor, and the category director. That’s going from 6 hierarchical levels to 3.

The idea is that within the team or network there are not only fewer steps to get anything decided or approved, but also that  in your own particular role you have more autonomy over a larger part of the production/creation process. This is a ‘good’ thing, because (most) people like to have some control over what they do.

The big change happens in the arrangements within the ‘team’. These days, these arrangements are made possible by communication technology that allows people to share information more directly, without it being mediated by their boss or someone else’s boss. They also get to contribute information (have input, as it were) without having it be passed up and then down some organizational ladder. So far, so good.

However, the network structure doesn’t permeate the whole organization.

The secret is outside the network.

When organizations adopt networked or team structures, they tuck these networks into existing managerial hierarchies. The basic hierarchical model and mindset remain in overall control.

And, sometimes these networks themselves have what are called ‘worker hierarchies’ (Dean, 2007). These hierarchies can be more fluid than those outside the network, since people within the network/team often change leadership roles with each project. (This also dilutes the feeling of being controlled, since you’re in charge on project A and she is in charge on project B).

It’s like the difference between a regular M&M (hierarchy) and a peanut butter M&M. Even if one section of the candy is peanut butter, the structure that matters most is created by the chocolate & candy coating. The center may be softer, but it’s still an M&M.

Now let me follow the candy example with something a little less sweet:

“Hierarchy is a property of a network’s structure, not something that a network replaces”
(Barley & Kunda, 2001, p 78).

Ultimately, embedding networks or teams in to an organization can flatten the organization slightly, but not in a way that transforms the organizations or the employees’ overall influence within them.

That’s not so bad if what you ultimately wanted was an M&M, and not a Hershey’s kiss.

But what if you were hoping for a more significant change?

See Also:
M. Ezzamel, and H. Willmott, “Accounting for Team Work: A Critical Study of Group-Based Systems of Organizational Control”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, 1998, pp. 358-396.
S. Barley, and G. Kunda, Bringing Work Back In”, Organization Science,Vol. 12, No. 1, January-February 2001, pp. 76-95.

When Will “Social Business” Become Social Change Business?
Can an organization not be ‘ready’ for Enterprise 2.0? (fastforwardblog.com)

Just a note: 5 of the 6 flavors of M&M candy are represented by male characters. The peanut butter one is represented by a female character. What’s that about?

Tagged as: Administrative Science Quarterly, Decision making, Enterprise 2.0, flat organizations, G. Kunda, H. Willmott, Hierarchy, M. Ezzamel, Management, networked organizations, Organization, Organizational Design, S. Barley, Social Business, Social change