Jack raises interesting points. So interesting that I am drawn to support
hierarchy in contrast to my earlier severe challenges to it. (I'm not
really challenging hierarchies but, as someone commented for me, its our
relationship to them, our seeing them as the only approach and our
insistance that there be only one.)
He says:
> Of course, in an emergent organization, "leadership" results
> from the transfer of power TO a leader FROM the membership.
This is not the way that I use the term emergent. Its not "the
membership" that transfers power because the membership has no power
either - nor do the individual members. There may not even be any "power"
in an emergent organisation. At any rate, just as "organisation" is an
emergent phenomenon, so is leadership. And its not written (in the
emergent book) that leadership will occur as an individual phenomenon nor
be lodged in a particular individual. Leadership will emerge as the
various factors (circumstantial, structural, cultural, individual, etc)
interact in ways that "call it forth". If it arises in any other way, it
is unlikely that the organisation is emergent.
IMHO Jefferson's comment is a statement describing the state of affairs as
it exists, not necessarily as it arose. It is a powerful statement about
moving forward from a point in time. It may be powerfully said before its
time (as a dialogue and teaching function) but will not be able to be
defended.
> embodied in Jefferson's language regarding truths that we hold to be
> self-evident, namely that "governments derive their just powers from the
> consent of the governed."
He goes on to point out the condition of many "change agents"
> Those of us who have tried to practice change
> strategies in organizations are frequently frustrated by the resistance to
> change embodied in those who hold power, and their ability - often
> unconscious - to stymie changes that even they would like to see occur.
I find the focus too much on the "leadership" as individuals or a formal
group. That is, when "empowerment" initiatives are started, it is often
the membership, the unions, the middle managers who offer the resistance,
not the formal leadership. I have many times led workshops large and
small for "workers" and middle managers who object to being told that they
are being empowered and insist that it is the leader's job to know what to
do and to point the way. And they will not move any faster than those
suppossedly resisting leaders. (A study of a major ICI initiative decades
ago showed that the leadership expected the unions to be the stop to their
empowerment plans but it turned out that the major obstacle was middle
management.)
" 'Society' and 'individuals' do not denote separate phenomena but are
simply collective and distributive aspects of the same thing." Charles
Horton Cooley. I think the same applies to leaders, managers, workers,
organisations - and consultants.
I suggest that we are all responding to the inherited structures of
hierarchy, power, safety and non-responsibility that they have given us as
our birthright. As Jack points out next, it may be that the information
and communication technologies sweeping the world will handle much of the
"problem" for us just as took down the Soviet Union - and will take down
Communist China. He then goes on to say that we are being asked for
> help in developing practices
I think this idea of practices is profound. I borrow from the Eastern
disciplines and their use of practices. That is, I don't think we need
new _behaviour_. I don't think we're ready for new action or have much
understanding of what that action looks like. Yes, dialogue and inquiry
and listening are fine things and, as human beings, we could use much more
of them. But there's a lot more to the story. And even with these, until
we get better educated, further develop, engage in practice and practices,
the very behaviors and actions we recommend get assessed as weak,
uncertain and inadequate to a leader much of the time. Many who have been
used to "old ways" disempower themselves without actually empowering
anybody.
I look to the idea of practices as establishing the regular actions that
educate and develop oneself and that are designed to have implications
beyond themselves (ie. to communicate a change is occurring) as well as
beginning to develop what will be needed in the new structures and ways of
operating. This is not a small task. This is a task also that calls for
great artistry. Doing the "right" thing in some ideal sense is often a
very bad practice. Doing the "right" thing can be harmful, especially if
it is not going to be consistent - which is likely at the beginning.
And remember, everyone around is interpreting the new behaviour, actions
and practices from the perspective of power, heirarchy and old fashioned
leadership.
And now for my defense of heirarchy.
> When they take the necessary steps to "lead" the
> transformation of their organizations however, they need to exercise the
> hierarchical power of the existing organization to effect change. This
> paradox is not lost on those "below" who need to regain their own power,
> and it will almost surely function as an obstacle to the desired outcome.
> Can this be avoided? If not, what practices will minimize the impact of
> the paradox?
>
There is nothing wrong with hierarchy. Especially when that's what is.
To quote Nietze "The overthrow of beliefs is not immediately followed by
the overthrow of institutions (or behaviours!); rather, the new beliefs
live for a long time in the now desolate and eerie house of their
predecessors, which they themselves preserve, because of the housing
shortage."
Neither the existence of hierarchy nor its use is "bad". Yes, it is
likely to be interpreted as inconsistent by those who are listening to
make the leaders wrong, who are watching for their slightest slip, who are
skeptical observers rather than allies of the transformation of their own
organisations, their own communities. (We shouldn't therefor think badly
of them. Not, at least if our point of view is one of learning and
development.) But that just points us to more of the condition that we
have chosen to address.
Heirarchy does not mean power. It merely means that there is a particular
kind of structure that functions in a particular way for particular
purposes. And it is either appropriate and useful or inappropriate and
dysfunctional. A bee hive can be seen to be a hierarchy where the queen
makes the decisions. But it turns out that the decisions are made from a
much more distributed process. A human being can be seen as a hierarchy
with the brain/mind controlling. But it turns out that the brain controls
very little, depends on the rest and is a system that for certain purposes
and in certain conditions functions more or less hierarchically but only
some times in some circumstances.
Practises and structural design changes - along with education and
development - can go a long way towards handling the apparent
contradiction. I continually find that even in "learning organisation
initiatives" the practitioners and preachers are still wanting to get the
transformation done without the requisite learning. I don't get it.
I think that we need to challenge our own thinking, our own language use,
our own stereotypes, etc - and I suggest deconstruction and other
postmodern techniques to help us - so that we can get beyond the
either/or worlds that we too live in. Rejecting hierarchy, leadership,
power, experts and almost anything else will merely limit the full
possibility of human organisation and will lead to limiting the full range
of individual expression and effectiveness as well.
"Emergent" doesn't mean "without". I frequently hear people say
that if its emergent then there wasn't power, leadership, structure,
hierarchy, experts, etc. present. Emergent suggests neither the absence
nor presence of anything in particular.
Rather than fight hierarchies, I suggest that we invent practices,
structures and forms of organisation (initially) within the hierarchies
that exist and experiment and learn to have them work before we get so
interested in throwing them out.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Postmodern society is the society of computers, information, scientific
knowledge, advanced technology, and rapid change due to new advances in
science and technology." Postmodern Theory, Best & Kellner