Acronym

Scott,
This is an interesting post, I like it! I think accountability is the basic foundation; if there is no accountability, then it doesn't matter if you are flat or fat in hierachy, things just won't get done. Accountability is challenging, because most people associate the word with almost a negative connotation (viewed as 'you will do this or else)...to me its just a management tool, that incorporates 1) What is the goal 2) Who is going to do it (and lead it) 3) What are they going to do? 4) When are they going to report back on progress?

... your proposed 1 staff/1 volunteer champion idea is really cool, and could fit such an accountability model easily as the teams could report back to each other on progress/challenges, and even brainstorm and adjust during these reports...

I suppose the goal of less hierarchy is to increase innovation and freedom? That is a great goal, but there needs to be some control in place, which I think is inherent in things like budgets and strategic plans...however, from a staff development side, I think there would need to be some strong mentoring and engagement, as some staff/volunteers may desire more structure or be afraid of such freedom...I think the best way would be to work in teams, as discussed, and established things that any project/team CAN'T do up front, which is much easier and less time consuming than some type of manager telling them what they can do, does that make sense?

Accountability can be framed in many ways, some better than others:
-Threats, like you'll be fired
-Lower pay, llike you don't get your bonus
-Increased stature/status (new job title for a new project)
-Respect from your peers and colleagues (this works really well with volunteers)

Just my random thoughts, I think its an interesting idea to entertain!

I don't know, Scott. A good individual leader can trump a power structure? The systems thinker in me tends to doubt that. And I have a hard time thinking of examples of good individual leaders that did amazing innovative things within a rigid hierarchy, which also makes me think the system/structure is going to be stronger than you're implying.

And ultimately I would disagree most with this statement: "But take out the hierarchy, and you spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out who has the power to set norms for the group and make decisions."

Yes, hierarchy makes those decisions for you, and in that sense simplifies things in a way that was designed to make us more efficient. But in doing so it became too rigid, at least for how things are today. So if your organization spends an "inordinate amount of time" figuring out organizational relationships, norms, and processes (without a rigid hierarchy to command them), then I think your organization needs to seriously build its capacity in that area. Leadership today demands it.

Jamie, I think you make some really interesting points--I'd love to hear more. Would you have any advice for an organization that wants to transition from a more hierarchical model to a new way of building relationships, norms, and processes that's both efficient and non-hierarchical?

(For starters, I'd imagine that the staff involved would have to communicate very honestly throughout the transition process. I'm sure people used to hierarchy would find themselves stepping on each other's toes during a transition to a non-hierarchical decision making system. They would need to speak honestly with one another to resolve those conflicts quickly as they arose.)

You know, Jamie, I agree with you that my statement "But take out the hierarchy, and you spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out who has the power to set norms for the group and make decisions," isn't quite right. But, in my opinion, I softened it too much.

I think a group that does not have at the very start a clear, designated way to make decisions is an outrageous waste of time and is a grossly negligent way to try to operate. Hierarchy is one way to make this clear from the start. Sure, there's other ways, but I think they are even messier than hierarchy.

In your comment, you started using the term "rigid hierarchy," and I agree that hierarchy can be a bad thing, and I talked about that in the post. If it's a "rigid hierarchy" or a "bad hierarchy," then, yeah, the org will be dysfunctional. But if the person at the hierarchical head of any group isn't rigid, isn't bad, and is a good facilitator of people, then I think it's a good way to operate.

Finally, I guess I'd say that I think hierarchy exists in just about every human system. Those most able and most dominant and most clever will lead the system. The organizational hierarchy is no different--those most able, most dominant, and most clever are the ones that are supposed to rise in the organizational hierarchy. No doubt it's imperfect, but I'd guess that on balance it works itself out more often than not. And, as Jeff Hurt said in his comments to last Fridays' post and I say in this one: If you find yourself in a position where it clearly has worked itself out wrong, then leave it (or suffer through it, if it's still worth it to you).

Hierarchy is simply a prioritization system. We tend to talk about it in terms of rank or positional power. But we can also have a hierarchy of decision-making processes, values, priorities, etc.

When organizations replace or augment positional or rank hierarchies with hierarchies of decision criteria, values, or priorities, it can enable individuals (regardless of their rank or position) to act. People "above them" in the power structure hierarchy, but so long as their actions are consistent with other approved and accepted hierarchies, it matters not.

I personally think success happens in an organization when its people are given freedom within boundaries. Some people chafe at the notion of any boundary; I believe most people like knowing what the boundaries are. The problem arises in hierarchies either when the boundaries are too close together (thus limiting or eliminating freedom), or else the boundaries continually shift and people get mixed signals about what freedoms they have (or don't), so that they stop doing anything without further direction. I believe this is true of all levels of an organization, from CEO on down, and each level is responsible for (and held accountable for) maintaining the right balance for the level below. It is not an easy balance to consistently maintain.

I tend to favor networked systems and hetroarchies over traditional hierarchy structures. I think the "social" aspect of social media and social networking have moved us from one-way, top-down controlled environments to horizontal, many-to-many, peer-to-peer collaborative type structures. We moved into a world driven by social enterprise 2.0 structures where the power and wisdom of the crowd is often more than the insight of the Executive Director.

In networked and hetroarchies, different people or groups of people rise to the top to lead projects based on their skills set. The whole group, not the CEO or Executive Director at the top, determines who leads each project. And, if you think hierarchies are the traditional models at large companies--think again. We're seeing new models today in many large companies that associations should consider adopting as well.

For example, the WSJ and Harvard Business Review recently wrote about how Cisco Systems is now run by nearly 60 committees. The articles describe how Cisco has moved from a traditional top-down hierarchical structure to a more amorphous structure built around those 60 committees. At the top of the organization sits an "Operating Committee" of 16 top executives, including Chief Executive Officer John Chambers. Twelve "Councils" with an average of 14 senior leaders report to that committee. Close to 50 "Boards" with an average of 14 less senior leaders report to the Councils (except for four Boards that report directly to the Operating Committee).

The more amorphous structure allows Cisco to bring together leaders from across its business to tackle critical problems. Why the change? Decentralization and making the company more nimble, able to turn on a dime are some of the catalysts. Cisco has learned how to leverage committees for speed, unlike the traditional association committee structure that seems to move at snail’s pace. Often association leaders see committees as structures that impede progress. Not at Cisco though.

Thank you all for the additional comments -- really helps frame the issue for folks.

Jeff H. - I want to push back a little on the Cisco example, though. Haven't seen the WSJ or HBR articles, but as you describe, it still sounds pretty hierarchical to me -- you have 50 boards reporting to 12 councils reporting to an operating committee. I would guess -- and it's only a guess -- that designated people lead each one of these groups. So, for example, if one of the 12 councils was assigned customer service initiatives, then somebody with a title similar to Sr. VP of Customer Service leads the council, deciding at least in part who serves on it and what the agenda is and is responsible for reporting out.

To me, that in no way diminishes it as an example worthy of study. I think it does sound different than a traditional organizing structure. It does sound like it tries to address the concern the original question seemed to have, which is how do we broaden input so that everyone can contribute and the organization can make smarter decisions. But I contend how well Cisco or any company does with an approach such as this will relate directly to how well the designated leaders are able to facilitate the groups they lead.