As one who probably appears to be attacking hierarchy, I want to
acknowledge Rol's statement of what Jack Welsh says and what does -
and Rol's interpretation of that.
It is not hierarchy, in any sense, that is bad. (Especially because
"hierarchy" is just an interpretation from an observer anyway.)
It is single hierarchy. It is rigid hierarchy.
The solution to the rigidities of formal hierarchies is partly to
reduce their power and take steps to allow other pathways. But, I
suggest, the most powerful appraoch will be to create multiple
hierarchies that shift - even compete - and that are flexible for the
circumstances. Many small interacting hierarchies are powerful for
complex adaptive tasks.
--
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com
web:http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe/TIA/TIAmap.html
"I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity
but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>