Once Upon a Bureaucratical Mess…

We knew that our superiors of the higher tier had full knowledge of all the working parts in the machine they were operating, and that when things malfunctioned they would simply switch out the gears and all operations would continue unscathed. We were aware of the high accountability aspect, and this ensured that our coworkers would work just as hard as we did. When we had a question, we would ask our immediate supervisor, who would ask their supervisor, who would ask their supervisor, who would ask their supervisor….

It takes only one small disaster where you wait for the answer to trickle down through the chain of command to make you realize that the system has its faults as well as its strengths.

The strengths:
1. High accountability to get rid of the drones that produce next to nothing and consume your share of work hours.
2. Specialized job roles to give individuals the opportunity to hone the skills they find most needed.

The faults:
1. Terrible response time. While you wait for an answer, your clients are leaving you for relationships that are a little more “decisive.”
2. Frequent miscommunication. It’s like the telephone game where someone tells you that “the pigeons have flown the nest” and the last guy to get the message thinks you said that “the chowder is New England-styled and ready for salting.”

So what are our alternatives?
We call the opposite of this structure the network model. In a network model, expansion of business entities continue laterally, operating freely within the realm of their expertise to contribute to the overall whole. The idea is that you have a lot more workers than bosses, and the role of bosses is strictly limited to guiding the team forward. Network models lack the authority and accountability that bureaucracies have, but work much faster in response to emergencies and disasters.

Now, let’s put them together.

In the event of a major catastrophe, a bureaucratical model generally has the power needed to bring long-term relief to a region. This is the most common infrastructure used by organizations, so it’s fairly understandable. Unfortunately, catastrophes usually signify a severe level of damage that only radiates as time elapses and bureaucratical models are completely ill-equipped to deal with this sort of pressure. Help is definitely on the way; we’re instructed to sit tight until then.

Network models deal with catastrophes almost instantaneously as each branch has the flexibility to analyze the situation and adapt as needed. Relief is fast and damage is minimized. But alas, network models lack the infrastructure needed to deal with long-term relief.

Merging these models would provide for a new, innovative method for dealing with emergencies and disasters. There would be intricate networks of businesses and organizations working together to provide immediate relief and control the scope of devastation while we wait for promised, long-term relief.

Adaptive management: taking the resources that you already have and adapting them to the situation at hand.