The Summer Series - Episode 2: The ultimately depressing, or liberating?!, model of organizations

Welcome to the resonate's Summer Series again. Hope you are enjoying your personal time this summer!

This series is meant to be a series of reflections on what we do on daily basis. The reflections taken from an external, disconnected perspective, so that it influences you to improve and evolve. Please enjoy with proper mental distance and hopefully a glass of Chardonnay in your hand.

Episode 2: The ultimately depressing model of organizations

There has been an ongoing dispute which approach to evolution of companies is better: to reform current companies or to start building companies n.0 from scratch and let the current ones die out. 

Personally, I keep both options open :)) The key for me is that the companies as we know them need to evolve (see my other blog posts on why and the wider context). Since both of the above ways can contribute to the evolution I am supporting both of them in parallel. There is no need to choose a specific ways at that point on time. That would be premature optimization.

Anyway, if you are serious about organizational design and future of work than you definitely have your views on the topic and hence you are a part of this discussion. And since you are a part of this discussion you need to know and respect all of the existing points of view. It is easy to accept the constructive models that bring meaning to your work. It comes much harder, at least for me, to accept destructive models. Yet I have learnt the humility to familiarize with and accept all possible perspectives: it is fair in the first place and also helps me in limiting biases of my mind and thus develop personally. This blog post is a great example of such a case.

Today I want you to reflect on three inter-related concepts: The Gervais Principle and The MacLeod's Organization Lifecycle. These were introduced in the Ribbonfarm blog back in 2009 by Venkatesh Rao in his blogpost The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to "The Office".

Read on carefully - these might be depressing models, you have been warned :)

The Gervais Principle is for me the ultimately destructive successor of the already depressing Peter's Principle:

Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves.

The MacLeod's organization lifecycle is for me the ultimately destructive model of an organization lifecycle:

A Sociopath with an idea recruits just enough Losers to kick off the cycle. As it grows it requires a Clueless layer to turn it into a controlled reaction rather than a runaway explosion. Eventually, as value hits diminishing returns, both the Sociopaths and Losers make their exits, and the Clueless start to dominate. Finally, the hollow brittle shell collapses on itself and anything of value is recycled by the sociopaths according to meta-firm logic.

The Whyte school of management is for me the ultimately destructive school of management:

Organizations don’t suffer pathologies; they are intrinsically pathological constructs. Idealized organizations are not perfect. They are perfectly pathological. So while most most management literature is about striving relentlessly towards an ideal by executing organization theories completely, this school, which I’ll call the Whyte school, would recommend that you do the bare minimum organizing to prevent chaos, and then stop. Let a natural, if declawed, individualist Darwinism operate beyond that point. The result is the MacLeod hierarchy.

Personal journey

[I expect you to spend some meaningful amount of time on the above quotes]

Now a bit of my personal reflection and my personal journey so far. For most of my career I would qualify myself to the Clueless cast, and for the rest - to the Losers cast. And honestly for a long time I did not not know what to do about these concepts. I mean: How to take my efforts at work seriously? Where to seek for fulfillment?, etc. My mind was just clueless... :) I had been trying to ignore those, as my best way of dealing with the concepts, for most of the time, but they were coming back... 

I find the concepts deeply logical - the concepts are precisely formulated, elegant, models are coherent and based on purest logic. For most of the time I found them ultimately destructive. This summer I have found those concepts ultimately liberating too... 

They are liberating from meaning, from hope of contribution, from burden of the an expected outcome, from any long term responsibility towards any organization, etc. And in the first place the concepts are liberating from the mental frame of ability to contribute and expectation of fulfillment. The mental model was at the core of my feeling of being torn apart, yet I took a desperate attempt to stuck to it - I have always treated meaning and responsibility as the original reasons to engage with organizations. 

Now, being ultimately liberated by these concepts, I feel empowered to do what I trust is most appropriate and valuable for an organization at any particular time disregarding of what I am asked to do. And most importantly I feel empowered to stick to my skills, interests and values as the source of a fulfilled life. 

It feels like I came a long way from my initial understanding of my role in organizations (the Losers cast and the Clueless cast) through the shock of discovering alternative perspective, through negation of the "destructive" models, to rebuilding myself into a new mental model that actually leads me to personal liberation, empowerment and productivity. 

Now I belong to the Losers cast, and I feel good about it as I made my own sense of the concepts and re-calibrated my expectations, and so I am not torn apart anymore. Looks like a bit more self-aware Loser! :)