work

Flexible, reconfigurable networks at work

Jon Husband, interviewed by Stowe Boyd, on his concept of “wirearchy”:

I have been involved in a long and intense process of study of the sociology of work, organizations and institutions for 40 years now. Today I believe that a major transition towards what some futurists call a “knowledge-based society” is underway. In that context what I call wirearchy represents an evolution of traditional hierarchy. I don’t think most humans can tolerate a lack of some hierarchical structure, primarily for the purposes of decision-making. The working definition I developed (and which has been ‘tested’ by a range of colleagues and friends interested in the issue(s) recognizes that the necessary adaptations to new conditions will likely involve temporary, transient but more intelligent hierarchy.

From his website, here’s Husband’s definition of wirearchy:

Wirearchy – a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology.

If I understand it right, wirearchy is more of a network that is much more fluid and flexible than an organizational hierarchy. It involves more knowledge exchange and development than a traditional org hierarchy would. This idea makes sense of a bunch of things I’ve been experiencing and thinking about lately.

Self-organized, self-managing challenge teams

At work we recently ran an innovation challenge with self-organized, self-managing teams made up mostly of individual contributors from the technology organization. I was skeptical whether it would work but the output from the three teams was amazingly well-done and innovative. Each team had a coach from outside technology, someone who knew the problem domain well. So they had a link to business reality.

The teams presented their solutions to the first challenge this Friday. The output was incredibly impressive — they came up with thoughtful, detailed, innovative approaches grounded in the reality of what our system needs to support. They did this without the usual management hierarchy and decision-making processes in place.

Someone deeply committed to a Dilbertian world would say “why of course they did a great job! They had no pointy-haired bosses involved!” That could be the case. I don’t think it argues for eliminating the hierarchy though but rather making the hierarchy more flexible and optional while encouraging intelligent ad hoc networks to develop. Those networks may or may not be hierarchical in structure.

Attachment to hierarchical position causes inefficiency

At the Colorado Technology Association’s Apex conference in November, Peter Sheahan of Changelabs proposed that attachment to ego causes inefficiency. When we get caught up in thinking that because of our position or reputation that we can’t do a particular thing or act a particular way, we get in the way of progress. We introduce friction.

This hit home to me, because as a vice president of my company (one of very many!) I sometimes think I shouldn’t have to write R code myself or develop a SQL query to get the data I need or spend the many days it often takes to figure out exact details of what the data my team and I are analyzing means. But that’s BS. I should and will do whatever I need to do to achieve the IQN Labs mission. If that means firing up Sublime Text with our latest R code, I’ll do it.

Rigid hierarchies encourage people to think of themselves as operating in a narrow capacity for an organization. Recently when a colleague moved on to a new company he told me one of the reasons he was moving was that people expected him to do things that were not his job to do. He was operating only in hierarchical mode. With wirearchy added to hierarchy, perhaps the work in the interstitial spaces of the organizational hierarchy is more likely to get done.

How do you encourage people to think outside their particular position and job description?

Sometimes you need hierarchy – The example of school group work

I hated when I had to do group projects for my PhD. The professors would often claim that these group projects were just like the real world – where you have to collaborate with other people.

True, but in the real world there are hierarchies so you have some sense who’s in charge. It’s absolutely not true that managers are generally the most talented and effective people but in some cases the promotion process works, and you end up with reasonably effective, knowledgeable people in leadership positions. They often have extra information about the business context you are working in and can guide work. This sort of recognized hierarchy is almost always absent in a group project aimed at completing a homework assignment. Often what happens is the person with the most knowledge and context does all the work, having no historical or official sway over the others.

Which makes me wonder about those challenge teams… how were decisions made and work allocated? This is something I’d love to investigate. I am wondering if having knowledge already of other people’s strengths and potential areas for contribution meant that unofficial hierarchies could develop. Or did work get organized and completed in more flat fashion?

I worked for Oracle in the late nineties in application development. At the time it was an incredibly hierarchically-aware place. I imagine it still is. The hierarchy mattered. It also mostly worked, at least where I was in the organization. That’s because above me I had a very effective manager who kept involved in the technological and business details of what we were doing while playing politics well both laterally and vertically upwards into the organization. Having the hierarchy in place made me more effective.

Matrix management

My team has grown by 320% this past year, from just myself to myself plus two full-time data scientists plus an intern who comes in one day a week. Both data scientists transferred from other parts of the organization, bringing with them plenty of institutional knowledge that will help the IQN Labs team succeed. One of them also brought with her ongoing responsibilities that don’t fall within the scope of IQN Labs. The manager she came from still has those responsibilities. I haven’t figured out exactly how we’ll work this situation but it seems to me the concept of “wirearchy” may help light a way through.

Connected intelligence

I’m thinking that wirearchies can be more intelligent than hierarchies because they potentially connect across longer distances. This makes me think of my own collaboration with product marketing at IQN. I probably spend as much time talking to the two people in that organization as I do talking to people within Technology. My conversations with product marketing produce guidance and insight, far more than my meetings within Technology, which are usually more operational in focus.

Just like in academic research, sometimes the long-distance interdisciplinary connections add the most value.

This is exciting because it follows along to many ideas that existed only in toddler form in my book Connect! I am looking forward to exploring more and testing it all out at work in 2015.

that's random

Desultory musing* about mashed-up selves

Trying to find yourself is a staple of the self-help literature, along with the striving for authenticity and building up your self-esteem. I probably wrote about authenticity and how you needed to practice it in my book** because way back in 2007, I thought it was a good thing, a necessary thing.

Now I’m convinced that’s all wrong. The self that matters isn’t some tightly defined, self-loving, individuated thing in the world. The self that matters is the mashed-up self, the networked self — the self made up of relationships and experiences and interactions and ideas. It’s way bigger and more powerful than the un-networked you.

These are some ideas I want to explore: combinatorial creativity, connectivist learning, the third person perspective in the creative process, and self-transcendence. What all these have in common is they all overturn the idea that the individuated self is primary.

Writer and artist Austin Kleon on how we are mashups:

We can pick our teachers and we can pick our friends and we can pick the books we read and the music we listen to and the movies we see, etcetera. You are a mashup of what you let into your life. [via Maria Popova]

Maria Popova on networked knowledge and combinatorial creativity:

Which is interesting, recognizing not only the absolute value of content but also its relational value, the value not just of information itself but also of information architecture, not just of content but also of content curation….

The idea that in order for us to truly create and contribute to the world, we have to be able to connect countless dots, to cross-pollinate ideas from a wealth of disciplines, to combine and recombine these pieces and build new castles.

This relates to how we conceive of ourselves. Are we distinct individuals with hard boundaries? Or are we somehow only ourselves when you consider how we fit into a network of experiences, people, and knowledge?

Robert Fritz, author of The Path of Least Resistance, is someone who might be called a creativity guru but instead of that I would call him a creation guru. He doesn’t write so much about being creative as about actually creating. In his view, the self that we want so much to develop and pin down should be set aside:

Don’t try to define yourself, instead, suspend the question. That gives you a better lens by which to create anything you want to be.

Here’s what Fritz discovered when he tried to help people become more creative by improving their self-image:

Questions of identity got in the way of the creative process, even when people thought well about themselves.  It took years to come to understand this.  Everything pointed to a fairly simple and, yet, revolutionary pair of insights.  The first was that what people thought about themselves, good, bad, or indifferent, wasn’t going to change.  All notions of self-esteem training are predicated on the idea that people can change how they see themselves.  This is one reason they don’t work.

The other insight was just as major.  It is that your view of yourself has no place in the creative process.  Simply put, the moment you make your success or failure about you, that’s the moment you can’t learn what you need to learn, experience what comes with the creative territory, and keep your focus where it needs to be, on the outcome you are working to create, and where you currently are in the creative process.

In his books, Fritz suggests that creators need to use a third-person perspective that takes themselves out of the equation rather than the first-person which makes creation all about the self, the I, the creator herself. Creation doesn’t grow out of some authentic, independent self. It launches from a networked self which is almost like no self at all.

Maybe the reason that thinking too much about our identities as distinct individuals stops us from creating is because creation comes through mashing up, through navigating networks of people and knowledge and ideas, not from the perspective of one isolated node in the network. The node alone is useless.

So we need to stop thinking so much about our individual selves — we need to transcend ourselves. Interesting that  some of the most satisfied people combine a love of the new with persistence and self-transcendence. These seem like exactly the traits you’d need to succeed in a networked world. Neophilia (novelty-seeking, love of the new) draws you to new ideas, new people, and new experiences, giving you more material for the mashup that is you and the mashups you create. Persistence keeps you from being merely a dilettante, flitting from one new thing to another. And self-transcendence stops you from thinking that it’s all about you.

It’s really freeing to realize your self alone is this puny, incompetent thing whose self-love or self-loathing matters not a bit. It’s your networked mashup self that matters, that’s capable of doing and creating great things.


* With credit to JP Rangaswami for his “musing lazily about” series. I like to be able to wander around a topic without reaching any conclusions or forcing it into some structure that might obscure the evolving ideas.

** Which shall remain unnamed and unlinked because I’m so beyond what I wrote then even though I feel like there were some really great ideas that I’d like to expand upon and refine. E.g., busy vs. bursty.