Adhocracy is a temporary structure for running a project. But, some organizations are trying to make this flexible approach a new norm. A kind of permanent impermanence. Thank you for watching - please do like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell.
Thanks for putting this summary together! I'm curious to know how adhocratic organizations build equitable and sustainable compensations models so employees working in an adhocracy don't feel exploited , especially if there are fewer (or non-existent) layers of management directing work. To me, the motivation to shape and reshape organizations and projects diminishes if there is a fixed salary determining the value of employees' contributions. I think there is something to Valve Corporation's peer-ranking method of "right-sizing" compensation in their adhocracy. Just haven't been able to find other examples or methods used out there. Do you know specific examples of companies using adhocracy today?
It's a good question, but you are making a number of assumptions. The biggest is that everyone gets paid the same and that people can't get paid more for contributing more or to a higher standard. Ad hocracy is just about the flexibility to change the team structures. But more valuable individuals can get paid more - and can take more responsibilities in the ad hoc teams.
The great thing about Adhocracy is that we have a new concept we could use to free us from harbouring negative mindsets about bureaucracies that have a tendency to create impersonalised and violent societies. There are many other frameworks and real life success stories that support this new, more positive and evolutionary way of thinking: Geoffrey Moore's Zones, Amoeba Management, The Vanguard Method, Open Book Management, Corporate Rebels, Unboss, POOGI in the Theory of Constraints, Cynefin, Evolutionary Project Management, Cooperatives etc. Permanent should not be understood to mean static, or worse, dogmatic. My last thought about Bureaucracy vs Adhocracy is that we often misunderstand the meanings of competitive and combative. Competitive is an inner drive to grow and excel influenced by a social context that leads to Competence. Combative is a need for superiority and is a dead/wrong end for Competitive.
If you have watched a lot of my videos, you'll know I try to create illustrative diagrams wherever I possibly can. But the nature of adhocracy is a unique structure for a specific purpose. So, there is no universal representation. However, I guess the best I could do is represent the whole organization as an amorphous blob. Inside it would be a number of other structures - some square, some oval, some amorphous, and so on. And I'd probably add some arrows to try to portray evolution and change within the structures.
Adhocracy is a temporary structure for running a project. But, some organizations are trying to make this flexible approach a new norm. A kind of permanent impermanence. Thank you for watching - please do like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell.
⧉
Thanks for putting this summary together! I'm curious to know how adhocratic organizations build equitable and sustainable compensations models so employees working in an adhocracy don't feel exploited , especially if there are fewer (or non-existent) layers of management directing work. To me, the motivation to shape and reshape organizations and projects diminishes if there is a fixed salary determining the value of employees' contributions. I think there is something to Valve Corporation's peer-ranking method of "right-sizing" compensation in their adhocracy. Just haven't been able to find other examples or methods used out there. Do you know specific examples of companies using adhocracy today?
It's a good question, but you are making a number of assumptions. The biggest is that everyone gets paid the same and that people can't get paid more for contributing more or to a higher standard. Ad hocracy is just about the flexibility to change the team structures. But more valuable individuals can get paid more - and can take more responsibilities in the ad hoc teams.
The great thing about Adhocracy is that we have a new concept we could use to free us from harbouring negative mindsets about bureaucracies that have a tendency to create impersonalised and violent societies.
There are many other frameworks and real life success stories that support this new, more positive and evolutionary way of thinking:
Geoffrey Moore's Zones, Amoeba Management, The Vanguard Method, Open Book Management, Corporate Rebels, Unboss, POOGI in the Theory of Constraints, Cynefin, Evolutionary Project Management, Cooperatives etc. Permanent should not be understood to mean static, or worse, dogmatic.
My last thought about Bureaucracy vs Adhocracy is that we often misunderstand the meanings of competitive and combative. Competitive is an inner drive to grow and excel influenced by a social context that leads to Competence. Combative is a need for superiority and is a dead/wrong end for Competitive.
Thank you for some interesting thoughts and examples- some of which are new to me.
This is the second presentation of yours I have watched. Very precise and informative. Thank you.
Awesome, thank you!
Thankyou sir
You’re welcome
G'day Sir! what a wonderful presentation. Thanks you tons. just a question though, how would you draw that structure on paper?
If you have watched a lot of my videos, you'll know I try to create illustrative diagrams wherever I possibly can. But the nature of adhocracy is a unique structure for a specific purpose. So, there is no universal representation. However, I guess the best I could do is represent the whole organization as an amorphous blob. Inside it would be a number of other structures - some square, some oval, some amorphous, and so on. And I'd probably add some arrows to try to portray evolution and change within the structures.
@@ManagementCourses . My thesis is due in less than two weeks. Thanks again for taking the time to reply. cheers