Redarchy: The Twilight of the Organizational Chart

“Power is becoming easier to obtain, harder to use and easier to lose” Moisés Naím

The organizational chart is the graphical representation of the structure of a hierarchical company. In general terms, it reflects the distribution of hierarchical authority of the latter, establishing the framework of responsibility and contribution of each member, as well as their different roles, links and coordination mechanisms. Put more simply, the organizational chart is the skeleton of the traditional company.

A prominent position in the organizational chart is the greatest source of power within hierarchical structures, so setting rules and enforcing them is the way to achieve influence on subordinates as an organizational bureaucracy. But it is becoming more and more evident that the idea on which the concept of hierarchy is based, which defends the position of the organizational chart as the element that gives power or authority, is becoming less and less solid. Inevitably, in a global, uncertain and complex world, as Moisés Naím argues very well in his essay The End of Power, leaders of any kind face increasingly complex problems with weaker hands, their power is more restricted and their positions are less secure.

When the real power comes from the information, which is becoming more accessible every day, from the value you bring to the organization, from your knowledge and your credibility – your personal power – the authority that until not long ago was guaranteed to you by the organizational chart is increasingly ineffective. In reality, taking on this power – or the notion we have of it – can be more risky than beneficial, since it is associated with responsibilities that you cannot carry out because you lack the necessary influence to do so. Circumstances do not allow you to make the most basic decisions, however necessary they may be, without the consent of the people who will then implement them.

A hierarchical organization is characterized by its tendency towards uniformity and centralization of its structures, and by prioritizing the efficiency and standardization of jobs. Meanwhile, on the Social Web, new collaborative environments and networked organizations, networking, transparency, diversity, and innovation prevail. Therefore, one of the questions we must ask ourselves is: Where is the point of reasonable balance between hierarchy and redarchy?

Naturally, the answer varies depending on the type of organization. Each one, depending on its objectives and strategy, will have to readjust its organizational structure so that it is able to interact and stay competitive in its environment. The alternative to hierarchy, however, has not been at all clear until the new means of social communication have shown us the way to collective intelligence, making it possible to coordinate human effort without sacrificing people’s creativity and initiative.

The Social Web shows us the path towards transformation in our organizations. It is the most adaptable structure that human beings have created up to this point; It continues to grow and spread on the basis of a new order: redarchy as an alternative to hierarchy. Just as the values of hierarchy are control, discipline, efficiency, reliability, and predictability, the values of redarchy are those of the social web: trust, openness, transparency, and community. If there’s one thing that’s half clear about the future of our organizations, it’s that, in the Age of Collaboration, sharing creates value. The network is the organizational chart and the redarchy will be the new order.

As Gary Hamel says so well, “The idea that mobilizing human effort requires a legion of bureaucrats is an anachronism that, like any legacy, refuses to go away.” The more we cling to traditional hierarchies, the further we move away from the enormous possibilities afforded to us by the new Age of Collaboration. Redarchy, as a complementary structure to hierarchy, in no way exclusive, makes possible new frameworks of contribution in organizations, not necessarily linked to occupying positions of power and authority in the organizational chart, but to the credibility and added value of people.