Cogs and corpuscles

March 5, 2010


HR operations for organizations make a fine art out of developing job descriptions, roles and responsibilities, duties, and key performance indicators.

They’ve led to management layers and mechanical thinking, and sometimes to zombie businesses that work to the script but can miss essential opportunities.

In effect, they’ve developed cogs for factory structures. This ‘division of labour’ model, whilst not necessary entirely obsolete, can have the effect of doing business today a lot of harm.

The problem with cogs is that a cog out of alignment can halt a whole machine. Cogs are geared to work in a pre-prescribed fashion, they’re passive processors, part of ‘the system’.

Many a corporate structure today is based on a structure comprised of cogs.

One of the principles of Visceral Business is that ‘affinity is stronger than structure’; we help organizations adapt to become socially calibrated so they’re more strategically connected and dynamic.

As we become more networked in general, as the lines between inside and outside the co-created business become blurred, I have a hunch that we may look at mechanical business models one day and see this way of organising as having as much sophistication as a set of meccano.

By comparison, corpuscles are rapidly adaptive receptors that respond to mechanical pressure or distortion. They balance introvert and extrovert stimuli within the corporate body as a whole, based on a combination of shared imperative and free will.

And because they’re adaptive, they can coagulate.

In business management today, there are strong arguments emerging to think of people as corpuscles not cogs, as vital, dynamic and highly differentiated elements of ability, and to work with them in this way.

Evidence is emerging to suggest incorporating (quite literally), the biological nature of human networks into business strategy, that strong organizations are ‘super-organisms’ as Nicholas Christakis, talking about the power of social networks at the RSA, described them last week.

Matthew Taylor, writing in the RSA blog yesterday, expanded on this by referencing the RSA’s Connected Communities project, and saying ‘it should be a key plank of strategies to build community resilience that we identify who these people are and that we give them resources (for example, access to social media) so they can apply their skills. These are the people public authorities should engage when they are designing some or other policy intervention.’

Coagulation, at a very primal level, breeds creativity. It happens when corpuscles cluster together through shared purpose and affinity and, today coagulation doesn’t just breed creativity, it breeds profit.

Have a look at this video of a talk Robert Scoble gave recently at Stanford. Making some leeway for the slightly amusing subtitles, it hints at the way social business is going and makes the point compellingly that how we need to be thinking and organising today, how people work and how ideas spread now, is a biological business.

Businesses can gain ground today by re-imagining their business frameworks to be less about structures and more about genetics, by thinking about making a move from managing cogs to cultivating corpuscles.

Organizational structures are highly interconnected, and as we move away from the mechanical concepts of organization they’re becoming more permeable; as such, I think they’re going to be more capable of spreading ideas through affinity, by receptive people as a process of osmosis and by working with the talent connected to their brand, both inside and outside the walls of the organization.

What are your thoughts?

  • This sparks a handful of perhaps disparate thoughts: you can't be efficient with people; efficient is for machines. With people, you have to be effective. You can dial in a machine to make it operate efficiently. With people, every one is different, and you can't dial them in like that. People need to find their own best practice.

    And that's another reason that networks of people aren't the same as networks of machines, or a series of cogs. Cogs turn at a certain speed and can be adjusted and fine-tuned, but they don't adapt. People will adapt to external pressure differently at different times or for different reasons, and then make real-time judgments about how to pass that pressure internally: to whom? how hard or gently? how fast? broadcast or narrowband?

    Using people as cogs wastes the single greatest benefit they bring to an organisation: free will.

    Oh; and I fully intend to explore how to use doubling pennies . . .
  • I was hoping you would bring this post back to where you started, and talk about the role of HR in organisations. It's good to remind ourselves that job descriptions and KPIs and the like all exist because they were designed, and have purpose. And though we can talk about them using the language of mechanics, or cell biology, we're still talking about people, who are empowered, and held accountable, and resources (given to the people) that are designed to be useful, and reusable, and make the people effective.

    It's more than sixty years since von Mises pointed out that Communist bureaucracies were failing, in relative terms, because the instructions given to managers in capitalist firms weren't rules to obey, they were goals that gave the managers autonomy: "do what you think is best for the firm, given these resources and constraints".

    Work has always been about what happens when the boss isn't looking. Autonomy, plus accountability. But one really important change that happens with work 2.0 is that all the informal stuff becomes visible, and subject to scrutiny. In the eighties, a two hour meeting would produce two pages of minutes, and it was accepted that they were the official account of the meeting (the accountability), and everything else that happened got deleted (autonomy, aka "what happens in the room stays in the room").

    So the corpuscles were always there, to use your metaphor, but our blood vessels were inside our bodies. Now, social tools give us transparent veins, and everything can be inspected. What happens in the room doesn't stay in the room anymore. Everyone's naked and everything's blatant, and people get a little uncomfortable.

    This poses two questions for me. First, when everything can be looked at, we have to make conscious choices about what we do and don't look at. Second, we have to think afresh about how we balance autonomy and accountability. Not enough autonomy, and you have a burger bar, with no innovation, no learning, so a trainee can be up to speed in a day, and nobody gets smarter after their first month. Not enough accountability, and you get a company like AIG, bankrupted by one small department.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: