The End of Management and the Rise of Organizational Democracy (J-B Warren Bennis Series) [Paperback]

This review is a shorter one I wrote for the journal Personnel Psychology.

I couldn't resist reviewing this book. Its title is beguilingly ambiguous. I had to see what it really meant. Are the authors describing a reality I have yet to discover? Or are they prophesying? Or writing a manifesto? Or wishfully thinking? The authors, both organizational consultants who "have drawn on over thirty years experience with hundreds of organizations," raise and dismiss in the same sentence the fourth interpretation. But can it be so confidently dismissed?

The book was written "as a tool to help build more collaborative, democratic, self-managing organizations." Note the use of multiple qualifiers. Done occasionally would be tolerable, but the authors' habit of frequently tacking three and four onto nouns and of also running trains of verbs and nouns in a single sentence annoyed me a bit (e.g., "---we have separated, disengaged, detached, distinguished, and divided---in order to clarify, categorize, and recommend---.").

Part One is devoted to "making a case for the end of management" through a review and a critique of hierarchies and their management. In tracing the evolution of management, three of the influences posited by the authors had never occurred to me before yet seem quite plausible. They are slavery, then serfdom, and much later on, increasing governmental regulations that the regulated have to increasingly manage. Nor was I aware that the French novelist, Honore de Balzac, and I share the same sentiment, namely, that bureaucracy is "a gigantic power set in motion by dwarfs." I also learned that "hierarchy" stems from the Greek word hieros, which means holy, implying sacred power at the top, and that a contrasting word, "heterarchy," stems from heteros, meaning neighbors.

The authors dust off and briefly examine Taylorism, scientific management, and Theory X rationales. I wish they had gone further in their review to present and debate more recent and starkly opposite arguments, including those that are unabashed paeans to hierarchies and bureaucracies (e.g., du Gay, 2000; Jaques, 1990).

Making their case includes presenting, each in a separate chapter, the familiar arguments that management "reduces communication, morale, and motivation," "constricts quality," and is intransigent, resisting change and innovation. While I think a separate chapter should also have been given to the moral inferiority of hierarchies, it's very clear throughout the book that the authors recognize such organizations foster unethical conduct by their members, and a separate chapter in Part Two is devoted to suggestions on how to "shape a context of values, ethics, and integrity."

The authors argue that hierarchies are the source of bureaucracy, the formal mechanisms that support the organizational structure and provide a "safe haven" where managers can escape accountability and exercise autocratic power. Each of these elements reinforces the other. They also violate, the authors contend, four "value-based propositions" about all people in organizations. One, everyone is a human being, not merely an employee or a human resource. Two, everyone is fully capable of acting responsibly and thriving on challenges. Three, the only natural relationships of any worth aren't hierarchical. And fourth, human beings deserve all of the different dimensions of freedom that should be available to them in an organization, such as the horizontal dimension of cross-functional teams and the "hyperdimension" of community. Regarding this latter observation, the authors' argument most appealing to me affectively is that it's incongruous for people to live in a democracy where they can vote for their country's leaders, yet work in hierarchies where they aren't free to select their organizations' leaders.

Time and again the authors remind us that their case is being made against management as a system rather than against management as a class of people. But the authors often contradict themselves (e.g., "Managers who hold these assumptions---micromanage---restrict----and institute---."), and I wonder if they aren't being a bit disingenuous, for as consultants they do feed off the hands of that class of people. Furthermore, not all management processes or systems are dysfunctional. Performance management, for one, is both inevitable and essential as a process. It couldn't end if you tried, and you wouldn't want to try. It can be done well or poorly, but it will be done. I think all species instinctively manage their own performance.

My assessment of Part One is that the authors make a better case against management on rational than on empirical grounds. What supporting evidence is offered is mostly piecemeal and largely anecdotal. Further, no footnote citations are provided for the few surveys and research studies briefly mentioned, and numerous assertions are made (e.g., "many managers report," "many organizations seek," etc.) with no corroborating evidence given. Even so, the evidence that is provided and all of assertions made do seem relevant and plausible, and I have no reason to doubt the authors "who have been inside enough organizations to know how dysfunctional most of them are."

In Part Two, the authors explain how to use their book as "a practical guide to organizational democracy." It does indeed seem practical, but a caveat is necessary. Almost all of their consulting experiences appear to be with limited interventions in hierarchies, not heterarchies. I found only one instance where the authors' intervention, in this particular case the design of a conflict resolution system, was for a large corporation they say had already been reorganized into self-managing teams. Their guide would thus appear to be untested for making the wholesale, even revolutionary changes they believe are required but apparently have not fully tried anywhere.

I don't mean to be dismissive of the second part, however. To the contrary, I would guess that any business organization that followed the "seven key strategies" the authors describe, each in a separate chapter, would "shift from management to self-management," "hierarchy to heterarchy," and "autocracy to democracy." The authors begin, logically and necessarily I believe, with a strategy for transforming the values of the organization's culture. Then there's a strategy for forming "evolving webs of association" (in contrast, say, to rigid functional departments in a hierarchy), for developing leadership skills throughout the organization, for building self-managing teams, for implementing "streamlined, open, collaborative processes" (e.g., teamwork as opposed to the adversarial processes common to hierarchies), and for creating "complex, self-correcting systems" (i.e. the kind of feedback you won't find in hierarchies). The seventh is having an overall strategy to ensure that all changes are integrated together.

The book ends with a final chapter on "the consequences of organizational democracy." The authors argue that greater organizational democracy is bound to have positive effects not only on members of the organization but also on society and politics.

While I basically agree with the distinguished business professor, Ian I. Mitroff, who endorses the book very favorably as "bristling with wisdom and practical advice," I don't want to conclude without mentioning two more significant faults I find with the book.

Nowhere in the book do I get a sense of whether heterarchies are gaining in number over hierarchies. I don't think the authors know or even tried to know, yet I would have expected them to know or try to know given the book's title and their treatment of the subject. They waffle on the matter, too. They say, for instance, that "---management continues, with few exceptions, to manage autocratically---." Then they turn around and say, "We have reached---the end of management---." Perhaps their waffling simply reflects what may be an accurate observation during a transitional period, for when I read the research literature on organizations, some findings suggest a shift towards heterarchies, (e.g., Purser & Cabana, 1998), some don't (e.g., Koch & Godden, 1996), and some are totally silent on the matter (e.g., Collins, 2001; Collins & Porras, 1994).

Secondly, the authors fail to differentiate sufficiently between business and government organizations. The latter have an endless lifeline to taxpayer pockets and no market incentive whatsoever to undertake the seven strategies toward heterarchies, no matter how strong of a case is made for making the shift. It will be the 12th of Never, I say, when heterarchies prevail in government.

In closing, if you are simply interested in the subject of if you do consulting in the subject area and regardless of whether you already appreciate arguments for heterarchies, I would recommend you read this book. If you are also empirically bent, then this book alone won't totally satisfy you unless you already know what's happening out there.

References

Collins, JC. (2001). Good to great. NY, NY: Harper Business.

Collins, JC. & Porras, JF. (1994). Built to last. NY, NY: Harper Business.

du Gay, P. (2000). In praise of bureaucracy: Weber, Organization, Ethics. London: Sage Publications.

Jaques, E. (1990). In praise of hierarchy. Harvard Business Review, 68, 127-133.

Koch, R. & Godden, I. (1996). Managing without management: A manifesto. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Purser, RE. & Cabana, S. (1998). The self-managing organization: How leading companies are transforming the work of teams for real impact. NY, NY: The Free Press.

Newscasts are filled with reports of democracy's relentless spread across the planet, but less is heard of its expansion through the corporate world. Just as dictators and oligarchs everywhere are being toppled from power, the hierarchical management structures that have governed organizations since before the industrial revolution are falling. Their usurper is self-management - the concept that motivated employees empowered to make their own decisions will work harder, faster and smarter than their rigidly controlled counterparts. Kenneth Cloke and Joan Goldsmith document this organizational coup and instruct executives on how to incite the revolution in their own companies. While acknowledging the scarcity of hard data to prove some of the book's assertions, we from getAbstract highly recommend The End of Management to all executives for its innovative take on modern organizational theory.

This is the best book on the changing face of management that I've read in 10 years. As part of the new Warren Bennis Management series, it provides the framework for the new Organizational Democracy and how it can (and should!) replace the outdated, ineffective heirarchical forms of management most common today. If you manage or lead a team, department or organization and desire to manage less and produce more, this is the book for you. I felt the same excitement in reading this book as I did when I read Drucker's classic many years ago.

The chapter entitled "A Brief History of Management" is worth the price of the book -- and its just 10 pages. In the rest of the book you will be given step-by-step guidance for implementing a new way of managing. Among the many practical applications of this book, you will learn:

How to shape Values
How to create Webs of Association
How to develop Self-managing Teams
How to implement Effective Process
and How to produce Self-correcting Systems.

Management (Drucker) is dead, long live management (Cloke).

Nelson Searcy, Chief Innovation Officer, Smartleadership.com