[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | The Digital way of working |
|
| Moderator: | QUARK::LIONEL ON |
|
| Created: | Fri Feb 14 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 5321 |
| Total number of notes: | 139771 |
1916.0. "Bringing the Tribe" by ZPOVC::HWCHOY (Mostly on FIRE!) Thu May 28 1992 16:40
From: NAME: DEBORAH GAGNON @BXC
FUNC: Information Management
TEL: 229-7802 <GAGNON.DEBORAH AT A1 AT ISLNDS AT BXC>
Date: 04-Dec-1991
Posted-date: 04-Dec-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: Article: Bringing the Tribe
To: See Below
CC: See Below
During a recent trip to Albuquerque, I met with one of our Native American
vendors, Laguna Industries, Inc. (LII) Ron Solimon, president of LII,
handed me a copy of the attached article, Bringing the Tribe. I have
replicated it electronically since it may be of interest to all.
Regards,
Deb Gagnon
Bringing the Tribe
by Ron Caciope
Modern organizations can learn a lot by studying
the structures and interrelationships of early societies.
[Reprinted without permission, Training & Development Journal,
December 1989]
Managers continually try to find better ways to operate. They introduce
new methods, systems, and technologies at a rapid rate to improve
efficiency and effectiveness. There is a growing concern, however, that
they are neglecting the human side of their organizations - and indeed,
that we must reconsider the very basis upon which organizations are
structured.
Anthony Jay, the well known writer of the "Yes, Prime Minister" British
television series, worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation as a
journalist for several years. During that period (as he recounts in his
1975 book, Corporation Man), he questioned why the BBC seemed to stifle the
enthusiasm and creativity of its writers, camerapeople, and journalists -
the people who were vital to the success of the BBC. Jay wondered whether
the bureaucracy and conservatism of the BBC management was common to most
modern organizations, and whether organizations could function in other
ways that might avoid the inefficiency and poor morale he saw around him.
Jay decided to study early socio-organizational structures for clues and
soon discovered that some of the earliest organizations were drastically
different from our modern ones. He found that while behavior in our modern
organizations somewhat reflects that of early ones, today's workplace faces
problems that have arisen as a result of our losing some of the
characteristics of those early organizations.
That might be hisheartening news to management and
organizational-development specialists: Have we progressed so far and
implemented so many strategies and techniques, only to hear that we have to
go back to basics? Perhaps, but it may help to look at the differences and
similarities in regard to where we've been and where we are.
The Basic Community
The first organizations people formed beyond the family unit were tribes.
Evidence suggests that people have existed in tribes for more than three
million years. Agricultural societies began about 10,000 years ago; the
industrial revolution began about 200 years ago and with it many of the
bureaucratic organizational structures that are common today.
What we consider the modern era takes up a very small amount of space on a
timeline. Throughout almost all of human history, in fact, tribes have
been the main organizational form. The hierarchical box-diagram that
represents most modern organization structures is very recent and in many
ways quite different from the natural tribes people existed in for so long.
An explanation of the basic important "jobs" follow:
1. The Hunter
This was one of the most important jobs. The hunter's job was to catch
and kill food for the members of the tribe. Hunters may have had to
defend or fight against other tribes. They also developed, built, and
maintained weapons. Their role was seen as critical to the survival of
the tribe.
Where in the modern organization are the hunter's equivalent? The
contemporary hunters are the people who act at the juncture of the
environment and the organization - they perform those tasks that are
vital to the survival, success and/or growth of the organization. Our
modern-day hunters, untimately, are the salespeople, teachers, nurses,
paramedical people, customer-service people, and inventors, who perform
the essential functions of their organizations. They, in Spillane's
words (from a Psychology of Success in the Organization), "are the
people who ensure the survival of the tribe."
The hunter needs to have certain abilities to perform the job: speed,
intelligence, risk-taking tendencies, accurate assessment of the
environment; aggressiveness, innovation, strength, stamina and fitness.
In the tribal structure, the hunter usually received high rewards for
his or her bravery and for taking risks for the tribe. He or she may
have received a larger or better share of the food. He or she also
received status or prestige - such as a tooth or the skin of an animal
that was killed. A particularly good hunter might have been allowed the
choice of the best horse or living quarters ("fringe benefits", in
modern terms). In short, a good hunter was paid well and obtained a
place of importance and influence in the tribe. The very goal of the
job was high achievement and immediate feedback.
2. The Gatherer or Nurturer
The second distinct group in the tribe was made up of those who gathered
food (as opposed to hunting it) and who looked after stock, cooked, and
attended to the domestic matters of the tribe. This group also looked
after the young, the old, and the sick. A major role was to provide
services and material that supported the hunters and the tribe overall.
This role often fell to people who were no longer able to hunt.
Gatherers needed to have patience and thoroughness, and had to be good
at detailed work. They had to be willing to accept direction from
others. The rewards the gatherers received were usually security,
safety, and a guaranteed portion of the food. They may also have
received satisfaction in nurturing the young and looking after the sick.
The modern-day gatherers are represented in administrators, clerical and
accounting staff, financial managers, and staff in charge of information
processing. Personnel staff and others who fulfill the function of
training developing new staff, could be viewed as nurturers of the
young; you could also consider them as modern-day gatherers.
3. The Chief
The chief in a tribe was the acknowledged leader, the person directly
responsible for the survival and growth of the tribe - a hunter par
excellence. In many tribes, the chief was selected because he or she
was the oldest progeny of the previous chief, though he or she also went
through initiations and training exercises to ensure the qualities
important for tribal leadership. Furthermore, that person, once
recognized as chief, received the respect and obedience of the tribe and
had the authority to carry out that role completely.
Of course, the managing director of a corporation represents the chief
of the tribe. The important difference in modern organizations is the
chief often comes from the gathering group, not the hunters. It is also
common to hire a chief from another "tribe" - a person who hasn't been
through the tribal initiations or tests to prove that he or she is a
worthy leader of the tribe.
4. The Council
The tribal council usually consisted of key influential members of the
tribe - the leaders of hunting parties, the doctor (see below) and
important gatherers who were knowledgeable about the day-to-day running
of the tribe. To be part of the council, you had to have proven
yourself a respected and worthy leader. The council was often involved
in resolving disputes, allocating materials to certain groups, and
passing important information and counsel to the chief.
In modern-day management terms, these are the heads of departments.
5. The Elder
Elders played a critical role in a tribe. They made critical and
long-term strategic decisions and were a final source of authority for
the tribe. The key attribute elders needed was wisdom. They also had
the important function of passing on the tribal traditions and culture
to maintain a strong identity and purpose in the tribe's members. They
did that through stories, myths, legends and rituals.
A corporation's board of directors is the contemporary equivalent. In
private organizations, the shareholders choose the board of directors;
in the public sector, the government or the upper echelon of the public
service often choose the board. In both public and private
organizations, however, members of the board seldom come from the
"tribe" - they are usually influential businesspeople, prestigious
public figures, or high-ranking academics. Furthermore, the board of
directors usually know few of the "tribe" and are not involved in
passing on stories, myths, or legends (which are the equivalent of the
modern-day organizations purpose or corporate strategy).
6. The Doctor (Shaman)
The shaman was responsible for the physical and spiritual health and
well-being of the tribe. He or she had to know the unknowable and
explain the unexplainable, had the special skill of magic, and could see
into the future. He or she could cast out evil spirits and explain why,
for example, game animals were no longer abundant.
The magic of the tribe was important because it gave the tribe special
power. It provided a direct link to the gods and either guaranteed the
community's survival or warned it of danger. It provided a way to
understand a changing and confusing environment.
The identification of the modern shaman may not be so easy. Who is
responsible for the spiritual and physical healing of the organization?
Does that person have direct access to the gods (the higher powers in
the board of directors or government)? Sometimes the shaman may be the
financial dierctor, the head of the computer department, the management
consultant, or the human-resource manager. In many organizations today,
a shaman may not exist, and the organization may experience problems
from the lack of concern for the overall welfare of the tribal members.
Organization Designs - Organic and Mechanistic
In terms of modern-day organizations, tribal organizations are the
equivalent of what is referred to as organic organizations. They are
flexible and democratic; they are good at functioning in complex, rapidly
changing environments. When highly innovative technological products are
needed, organic organizations are most suitable. Marketing departments,
consulting firms, and academic organizations are often more organic than
not.
The bureaucratic organization is often described as mechanistic. A
mechanistic organization is very hierarchical and has defined lines of
authority and specialized tasks and functions. Bureaucracies operate best
in stable environments, where they can provide simple products or services
in standard, routine manners. Taxation offices, mass-production
manufacturing, and police organizations are often mechanistic.
Each structure is appropriate depending on how rapidly changing the
environment is and the type of technology used to produce the goods or
services.
Here are some useful guidelines in the design of organic and mechanistic
organizations, from Huse and Cumming's book Organizations Development and
Change.
o When the strategic plans of an organization result in it operating in a
highly dynamic, changing, and uncertain environment, the organization
should be more organic. Its structures, measurement systems, and
human-resource systems should be informal. The culture and technology
should be flexible, and the organization should support innovative and
risk-taking behavior.
o When it has to operate in a static environment, the organization should
be more mechanistic. It should have formal structures, measurement
systems, and human-resource systems, and more specific jobs and
regulations.
o Group designs should be similar to organization designs (for example,
organic groups in organic organization structures) or else there will be
conflict between group and organizational norms.
o When knowledge is uncertain and a great deal of information is needed
quickly, groups should be encouraged to be self-regulating and organic.
If knowledge is certain and decisions simple, then groups can be more
formal and centrally controlled.
o When knowledge and jobs require a great deal of interdependence, the
organizations should strive for group cohesion. If knowledge and tasks
are highly independent, then it should encourage independent incentives.
Current Problems
Although the comparison of a tribe and a corporate bureaucracy can appear
simplistic, it also points out several problems that occur in modern
organizations. Here is a summary of them.
o Whether the hunters or gatherers run the organization. Modern
organizations tend to give greater power and reward to the gatherers of
the organization - including accountants, financial controllers, and
administrators. The hunters - marketers, teachers, nurses, and so forth
- have less status and autonomy, and are not rewarded well. As Spillane
writes, the number of gatherers has expanded greatly in modern times and
"many camp followers believe that their task is to control the
free-spending, irreverent hunters."
An additional problem that faces the modern organization is that the
male "hunter" has difficulty adjusting to a woman in the hunting party.
After three million years of having a generally higher status and
generally being in the important role of hunter in many cultures, males
often resist having women in important jobs in the organization. It is
hard for them to accept that women can perform all of the modern hunting
jobs.
o The chief is apointed from outside the tribe or from the gatherers. The
non-native "chief" is often unfamiliar with the organizational culture
and norms. More important, the chief has not gone through the
initiation ceremonies and proven him- or herself by passing the tribal
test of leadership, as a hunter would have done. Modern chiefs often
complain that the tribe is not really behind them. They feel that the
members of the tribe are not really committed to the community's welfare
and are more interested in taking it easy or pursuing their own
interests.
o Finding out who has the magic. Many organizations today don't have
anyone who looks after the spiritual and physical well being of the
tribe, or who helps lift the spirit of the organization. In some
organizations, a financial controller, computer-systems specialist, or
consultant may have the special position of faith-healer, but such
people don't have the natural magic or respect that a tribal shaman
might have. In recent times, human-resource managers are beginning to
take on the role of shaman, but many do not have access to the board of
directors or the CEO. Many are just personnel officers with longer
titles.
o Votes and ROI instead of tribal wisdom. The elders in an organization
are no longer wise tribal members with special interest in the tribe.
The board of directors, seldom made up of tribal members, has little
real knowledge of what the tribe does or needs. Furthermore, in private
organizations, the elders are concerned primarily about returning money
to the shareholders. In public organizations, government, the voter, or
the public may be the major concern of the board, and its main focus is
often to minimize costs. Even more important, the board is not required
to help instill the vision of the tribe and the key core values needed
to maintain it.
o No vision or tribal identity. Many modern organizations do not have a
central vision or core values that provide the means to develop a tribal
identity. While consensus of values and a corporate purpose are vital
in providing a sense of cohesion and direction in organizations, many
only give lip service to developing a real identity.
Many organizations develop corporate plans, but those are often written
by only a few of the senior managers and seldom capture the enthusiasm
or involvement of all the organization members. The plans often become
just other management reports that sit in a drawer while the tribe goes
about its daily affairs in the same old way.
o Straitjackets and straight structures. Many organizations are finding
themselves in an environment that is rapidly changing and becoming much
more dynamic. The customers and clients require better and more varied
service, and some mechanistic organizations have difficulty adjusting
their structures to be more organic and flexible. Manufacturing firms,
large government organizations, and hospitals, for example, are faced
with demands and requirements that require responsive, organic networks.
Many find it difficult to break the standard patterns of specific
responsibilities and procedures to develop new and flexible ways to
function.
o The need in public service for more hunters. Many government
organizations have a gathering role - taxation, registration, and so
forth - and have become so dominated by administrative thinking that the
ability to introduce new initiatives, encourage exceptional performance,
and be highly sensitive to the external environment is lost. The
managers behave like gatherers, and the jobs become repetitive, routine
and secure.
New initiatives in organization structures, effective performance
appraisal systems, greater responsiveness to customers, and greater
recognition for good performance need to occur to keep government tribes
alive. In short, government organizations need to encourage more people
to become hunters.
Re-inventing the Tribe
All of those problems suggest that modern organizations have lost some
important elements of tribal cultures.
In recent years, several writers have focused on the need to reexamine
organizations in the light of the evolution of the post-industrial society.
Fred Hilmer, in his book When the Luck Runs Out, suggests that to survive,
large organizations will need to develop networks of internal teams - sets
of smaller hunting groups that are flexible and dynamic. John Naisbitt, in
Reinventing the Corporation, describes many U.S. organizations in which new
types of ownership models and financial incentives are being developed so
that workers feel a greater kinship with their organizations. That's like
giving the hunting grounds back to the tribe instead of letting them be
owned by the shareholders or the government - you could call it cooperative
free enterprise. Organizations such as Weirton Steel, Linnton Plywood, and
Publix Super Markets have had considerable success in the United States
with worker cooperatives. Dynavac and NVC in Australia are other examples.
Establishing a vision and purpose that all the tribal members can believe
in and are committed to is most important. Excellent tribal organizations
not only have clear visions but also develop in each of their people a
strong sense of core values that are integral to the work and bring the
vision to reality.
In addition, leaders who can inspire people and who have integrity and
credibility are also vital to creating tribal success. Such practices as
making work groups more autonomous, decentralizing decision making,
creating quality circles, developing organic structures, and providing
employee-ownership plans are intiatives that may bring some of the benefits
of the tribal organization back into the workplace.
[Cacioppe is a professor in the School of Management at Curtin University
of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6001, Western Australia]
The Bureaucracy and the Tribe
===========================================================================
X
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |
X X X X
| | | |
--------------- --------------- ------------- --------------
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Modern organizational chart
==========================================================================
5. ELDERS
|
| SHAMAN
3. CHIEF
|
|
1. HUNTER 4. COUNCIL 1. HUNTER
\ | /
\ | /
\ | /
\___2. GATHERERS______/
AND
NURTURERS
_____|_____
/ \
/ \
1. HUNTER__/ \__1. HUNTER
To Distribution List:
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines
|
|---|