New ways of working in the company of the future: the Redarquía

“The more power you give a single individual in the face of complexity and uncertainty, the more likely they are to make bad decisions. As a consequence, there are very good reasons today for companies to try to think beyond hierarchy.” James Surowiecki – Wisdom of Crowds

Here we are again, entering the Age of Collaboration, surrounded by an ocean of information that no one is able to handle, creating interrelationships so complex that we can hardly manage, and trying to keep up with a reality that is becoming more transparent, participatory and global every day. This is no longer a world of things, but a world of conversations.

Collaborative organizations: a new way of working

Today, we’re going to reflect on the impact of crowdsourcing on our organizations and, in a very unique way, on the dominant organizational models and structures that humans use to collectively create and do things.

As we have been explaining in previous conversations, the new era presents us with particularly complex challenges; challenges that traditional organizations are unable to solve. And this is so, to a large extent, because the organizations we have built are based on a hierarchical model that ignores both the demands and the current possibilities of collaboration.

We have finally realized that we need to build new organizations that are more open, participatory, and transparent; organizations that allow us to collaborate to provide a collective response – the only possible one – to the new challenges. But we still need to answer some fundamental questions: What kind of structure should these new organizations have?, Will this new structure replace the current hierarchical model?, How do we resolve the clash between the personal needs for freedom and autonomy and the organizational needs of prediction and control?.

To answer these questions, I would like to propose the concept of
networking
,
a new way of working in companies, which defines the new emerging order in collaborative organizations. It is a practically unheard of term, which until now does not appear on Google’s results pages, but which I think reflects very well the organizational structure and the new work models that we can find in collaborative networks, based on the added value of people, authenticity and trust. For example, in free software communities.

Words are important, and obviously we need new words to represent the new reality. That’s why I propose that we use the concept Netarchy to better understand how the Age of Collaboration affects our organizations, and to explain how to manage the new collaborative processes of value creation. This new concept will also help us to better understand the news that we find every day in the media, and that speak of a change of power and authority in our organizations.

In this conversation we will try to explain how this New “Redarchic” structure It aims to fill the gaps in a hierarchical model that, however, will not disappear, but will remain operational to reflect the structure of delegation of authority in organizations, and to preserve responsibility, decision-making capacity and accountability.

Hierarchy as a starting point

We all know the concept of hierarchy, and we are familiar with it. According to Wikipedia, the Hierarchy it is the “order of the elements of a series according to their value” and “can be applied to people, animals or things”. If we enter the context of organizations, we can refine our definition much more: the concept of hierarchy is used to designate the chain of command that begins with senior management managers and continues to non-manager workers, passing, successively, through all levels of the organizational structure.

Therefore, hierarchy is an order based on a chain of command. Through hierarchy, formal authority relations are established between superiors and their subordinates, and the organizational structure of any organism is defined.

If we think about it, to build today’s hierarchical organizations we have taken as a model the already existing structures, most notably the army. This is not surprising, since hierarchies, as we understand them today, arose to solve two key problems of the Industrial Age: efficiency and scalability. Mass production required an orderly army of workers who faithfully carried out the orders of their superiors.

But time does not pass in vain, and the circumstances that surround us have changed completely. Efficiency and scalability – problems that were once key to the emergence of hierarchical organizations – have ceased to be central, and have been replaced by new values such as collaboration, commitment, transparency, creativity and innovation.

However, the main problem we face is that
these hierarchical organizations have ended up becoming authentic organizations of power
. In theory, this power is aligned with the real interests of the organization; that is, power acts for the good of all. But as institutions have become more complex and opaque, that power has ceased to serve the interests of the organization and, on many occasions, has come to obey almost exclusively the personal interests of a ruling caste, as we can see every day through the media.

The need for a new system with horizontal power distribution

I sincerely believe that the mental models that sustain our organizations today are going in the wrong direction. They are not helping us to create value. The more we cling to traditional hierarchies, the further we move away from the enormous possibilities that the new era of collaboration offers us to create agile and flexible organizations, where we can give our best and create economic and social value in a sustainable way.

The fact is that we cannot frame the current reality using traditional hierarchical structures, simply because they are pieces that do not fit together. Nor can we continue to be determined to apply solutions that, although they were timely in their day, arose to solve problems that are no longer central to moving forward into the future. The new spaces of communication – blogs, wikis and social networks – are having an impact on the future. real impact on the work environments, processes and structure of our organisations. The new generations of Digital Natives learn, process information, innovate, collaborate and do things in a substantially different way from previous generations. Their incorporation into our organizations will undoubtedly have profound implications, insofar as it will generate new ways of working and creating value. It is clear, therefore, that we will need a new order to respond to these new challenges. We need organizations with a horizontal distribution of power.

Hierarchy and rearchy

Hierarchy is an imposed (top-down) order that establishes the formal authority and power relations between superiors and subordinates within traditional organizations. Hierarchy, on the other hand, is an emergent order (from the bottom up) that arises as a result of the relationships of participation and the flows of activity generated in collaborative environments.

The redarchy thus establishes an alternative order in organizations. An order not necessarily based on the power and authority of the formal hierarchy, but on the relationships of participation and flows of activity that naturally arise in collaborative networks, based on people’s added value, authenticity and trust.

The mere fact of collaborating and sharing on an equal footing generates interactions, proposals and innovative solutions, and allows the activity to be transferred, in a natural way, to the nodes in which value is really being added to the organization. In other words, the decision does not descend from above, in a cascade, but emerges from below, as a result of collaborative relationships.

Hierarchy has a markedly unidirectional character: relations occur between two agents, but one of them – the superior – asserts its power to impose its vision on the other – the subordinate. In the Netarchy, on the other hand, the relationships are multidirectional, as in a network: agents relate to each other in an open way, and the work is carried out in a distributed way, taking advantage of the connections between the different nodes of value generation, which coexist in a New redarchic system based on a Horizontal distribution of power.

The essential thing is to understand that hierarchy is based on an order of imposed power, and that rearchy is based on an emergent order of collaboration; the first is based on orders and relationships of dependence, in which the superior manages resources, while the second is based on conversations; hierarchy, in short, is based on rewards and punishments, and rearchy is based on the recognition and self-esteem of its members.

The network is the propitious structure to solve the complex problems we face, because it is capable of approaching the problem from a global perspective, in which all the agents involved are part of the problem to the same extent that we are part of the solution.

This model assumes that the solution is not going to come down from the sky, nor from the top of the pyramid in which the all-powerful leader is located. Quite the opposite. It is the collaboration in open networks of all agents that generates new interactions, that brings out all the proposals, and that, ultimately, makes it possible for the solution to emerge naturally, from the bottom up.

Properties of redarchic structures

These are, therefore, the properties that define and characterize the redarchic structures:

– Collaboration. Collaboration is the most powerful way to create value. The new technological platform – web 2.0 – allows us to build collective intelligence. We can all participate voluntarily, on an equal footing, creating and sharing from anywhere, collaboratively and globally, in networks based on trust.

– Self-management. Each agent has autonomy to make their own decisions, and to manage their contribution to the common interest. Coordination is carried out through mutual adaptation, commitment and collaboration. The redarchic model makes it possible for autonomy and control not to be antagonistic terms – as we had assumed – but compatible and complementary concepts, necessary in the evolution of our organizations.

– Transparency. Transparency of information is the fundamental ingredient, the real key to the emergence of the redarchic order. All the elements that are part of the network know the contribution of each of the members. The transparency of added value is the most direct way to achieve the shared objectives.

– Emergency. Solutions are not the result of actions planned from the top of the organization, but emerge naturally, from the bottom up, as a result of the action of local pioneering efforts and interaction in open networks. The exchange of information and collaborative learning in networks produces a multiplier effect: from the apparently irrelevant individual efforts at different points in the network, very significant changes and innovative solutions to the complex challenges facing the organization suddenly emerge.

– Consistency. The transparency of network conversations allows us to maintain coherence and continuity between the vision, mission and values of the organization, always with the commitment put into action. As self-referential systems, network structures adapt to changes in the environment while maintaining their identity and values. This is what we know as
autopoiesis
. – Participation

. In a new system based on the Horizontal distribution of power, leadership and innovation are tasks that must be shared by all. All agents contribute in a network. The creation process is participatory, so we can say that the sense of belonging and commitment to action is greater in redarchic organizations.

– Interdependence. All points in the network are connected. What happens at one point in the network affects all the other points in the network. Hence, the network becomes aware of all the problems – social, economic, environmental – that affect the world as a whole.

– Opening. Unlike hierarchies, networks are open structures capable of self-organizing according to the task to be performed. Precisely one of the fundamental properties of open systems is that they do not seek stability, but interaction with the environment, so they need a certain degree of imbalance in order to change and grow.

– Adaptability. Based on feedback, the redarchic structure is able to Adapt continuously, in real time, to an environment that is constantly changing. In the face of millimetric planning, and the “we’ve always done it this way”, “make it happen”, “less is more”, common sense, and the ability to change quickly to adapt to the new needs and new challenges of society are imposed.

– Freedom. The greater the degree of freedom, the greater the stability of the organization. We create a redarchic order when, instead of hiding the conflicts and contradictions inherent in all human relationships, we stimulate the freedom to express them. In the absence of a central control that prohibits small and constant local changes, the structure of the organization allows for many levels of autonomy, and thus contributes to preserving its overall stability.

– Trust. There is no network without collaboration and there is no collaboration without trust. In the Age of Collaboration, an organization can only be truly competitive when it makes the most of the new ways of doing, and the new models of collaboration that social technologies offer us, and this is only possible within a culture of trust, trust is essential to generate productive interactions between people and between organizations.

– Learning. Collective learning is a fundamental capability of redarchic structures. To take this step, organizations must foster courageous conversations, assuming that these conversations constitute a form of learning in themselves; they must recognize the mental models that reside behind individual positions; and they must facilitate the search and continuous experimentation of new forms, mental models, and tools to address the challenges of the future.

Redarchy vs hierarchy: complementary structures

It is very important to understand that the new emerging order is not going to do away with hierarchies. It is simply going to complete and improve them, making them more transparent and effective, providing them with the necessary tools to make the most of the possibilities of collaboration, and providing them with a system capable of solving complex problems.

It is not, therefore, a question of two exclusive models, but of two complementary structures. In fact, hierarchies are still fundamental in organizations when it comes to establishing the link between alignment, empowerment and accountability. This is because it is not at all clear that decision-making, and the assumption of responsibilities, can always be assumed collectively.

The redarchical order does not intend, therefore, to supplant the power structure or the traditional hierarchical order of organizations. The redarchy is incompatible, on the other hand, with the arbitrary and personalistic use of power, and with the use that many people have made of hierarchy and bureaucracy to obtain their own advantage.

These abuses destroy value in our organizations. They create unjust organizations and demotivate people. In fact, I believe that most of the conflicts between redarchy and hierarchy will arise on the line that separates those who want to preserve the privileges and power of the bureaucratic class from those who aspire to build a world that is less power-oriented, more just, equitable, and sustainable.

This is the true boundary between redarchy and hierarchy. On which side Are you? Need more information? Contact us