The concept of "adaptation"

[marct]

Hi TT,

I concur with this but your observation does raise a couple of questions for me. You do speak of creating space for rituals to emerge from informal networks, which is an interesting idea if for no other reason that this is a way to mitigate ‘service’ and ‘tribal’ boundaries (blockages). But I was wondering how this fits with the question of ‘loyalty’? I guess I am thinking here mainly of the hierarchical structure of military organizations, as I cannot see militaries becoming networked organizations (Info Age) as 'opposed' to hierarchical organizations (Industrial age).

I think we are already seeing a partial shift towards networked militaries. Part of this comes from the perceptions of the recruits, part from changes in communications technologies, part from tactical innovations, etc. Anyway, here's an interesting blindspot in most of the Information Age literature assumptions - that the adoption of networks means a disappearance of hierarchies. It doesn't.

In some cases, we have a situation of network nodes being loci for hierarchies (think about high tech project teams or SF detachments as examples). Even within networks, people are not equal, and no network which assumes they are will survive any type of conflict. What we tend to find developing is "situational leadership" (think "matrix organizations" in the ideal type).

You are right that this conflicts with the Industrial Age model where, at least in the bureaucratic ideal type, the person holding an office is assumed to have the qualifications, skills and abilities to do so. This is one of the problems identified in the Officer Retention thread when people are talking about the automatic promotions currently available, i.e. they are seeing "unqualified" people being promoted. One key change that must take place in the personelle system is a recognition that not all Captains (etc.) are "equal". Some limited type of situational leadership, at least in the field, has to be introduced, and there has to be the possibility of a "negative career enhancement" for failure. These are really minor modifications, but they can be spun as a form of quality control within the hierarchical system - something that has been popular within business for the past 30 years.

in addition, there is the question of how the hierarchy might react to such networks, particularly if they grow concerned that 'loyalty' might be shifting towards such networks? I ask this recognizing that every individual does hold multiple loyalties, but hierarchies do tend to be jealous.

Oh too true! One of the reasons for regularizing the networks or, at least, the ritual spaces for them, is to incorporate the networks into the hierarchical paradigm and use them. The RC church did this with the occupational groups during the middle ages (and there are a number of other examples - much more obscure ).

The trick behind loyalty in this instance is to have the hierarchical organization holding "ultimate" loyalty, while the networks hold "proximate" loyalty. This was the type of system that was broken by the Fordist model, but it is easy enough to return to it - as long as the personal consequences of not supporting such a return are made brutally clear to anyone who would obstruct it <evil grin>.

So, a second order question is whether somewhere in your thinking about this you are contemplating some form of hybrid organization? To speculate, say a hierarchical command structure through which are interwoven formal (and informal?) crosscutting networks? The steady progress to jointness might possibly be seen as a form of developing crosscutting networks (and I suppose jointness could be used to foster such crosscutting networks).

Yes, it would actually have to be something along those lines. Let me think about how such an organization could work and I'll try and post later.

Marc