“Bureaucracy is a global thing. “ ~ Gary Hamel, Professor at London Business School
I had the opportunity to sit in on a Q&A session Day 1 with Gary Hamel, Professor at London Business School at Unleash 2018 in Vegas. Long before this Q&A, he had wooed me with his words and refreshing perspectives on the disease of bureaucracy as it pertains to the workforce.
One of the reasons why I believe I was unable to flourish in Corporate America was because of my disdain for bureaucracy and politics. “Disdain” is a strong word, but completely applicable here. It wasn’t that I was beyond adhering to the structure or constructs that existed in the organizations that I worked for. It was that those constructs and structures always felt constricting and for all intents and purposes they didn’t appear to have a positive impact on the workforce. To this point, Gary shared in our session that he thought “Very few businesses worry about the environmental costs of bureaucracy and CEO’s only recognize the cost of bureaucracy vaguely.”
The reason why businesses can’t bother to care about these environmental costs is that the function of bureaucracy is to control and maintain order. Gary suggests there are likely really great reasons why bureaucracy existed, to begin with, but maintains it isn’t very useful given the world we live in today.
To some, I may have been pre-maturely seen as an anarchist who wanted things her way and had little respect for rules. The reality is as Gary Hamel asserts: “The pressure on the employees in the US is far more impactful than anywhere else in the world. US companies have an even more transactional lens for people at work.” To put it plainly, those who participate in the US workforce are seen as expendable and a means to an end. It is this line of thinking that ensures that our employee engagement numbers never budge or budge ever so slightly year-to-year. US workers are mere cogs in the wheel and we know it. Not only do we know it, we aren’t collectively empowered to stop it, because of course money.
I was and I am currently one of those people who believe that there are alternatives to bureaucracy. In our Q&A, Gary shared: “You have to believe there are alternatives to bureaucracy. It’s hard to imagine what you haven’t seen.” There is a great conflict in the world at large, but most certainly one at work too. It is the battle of old ways of thinking versus new ways of thinking. In the former example, it is hard for older establishments to wrap their minds around any other work arrangement/relationship that isn’t grounded in having to control how people think, work and show-up. They haven’t been privy to the evidence that suggests an alternative, and even if they had seen the promise of another way of managing people; it is likely a very uncomfortable notion to imagine a workforce where people work autonomously and on their own terms without being infantilized at work.
“Why don’t people have the ability to design their own job or choose their own boss, or approve their own expenses? We are so used to people needing parents or infantilization at work. “~Gary Hamel, Professor at London Business School.
Transparency for what?
Another pet peeve I have had with organizations I have been a part of was the lack of transparency. This goes hand-in-hand with the infantilization that goes on in many companies per Gary Hamel’s keynote on “Humanocracy”. Imagine for a second being an adult in every other aspect of your life. This is probably not a hard vision to conjure. You have a family that relies on you, bills, debts, and a healthy dose of responsibility. Yet, daily you report to a job that doesn’t think you worthy of sharing information that may affect your livelihood. Perhaps the business isn’t performing well financially. In most cases, that company you report to would rather cease to exist than to confide in the very people who make it profitable daily. It’s a ludicrous concept and surely antiquated. People should be trusted to show up and work as the adults that they are. Professor Hamel shared with us that: “Transparency needs to be a core principle for how we do business. Let’s be a little more open and have a little more freedom.”
What is the path forward?
“Evolutionary goals and revolutionary steps is the path forward. “
Gary challenges leaders to “employ radical business models while imagining a radically different workplace”. Questioning old hypothesis is a start as well as challenging your own embedded assumptions. Professor Hamel also maintains that we ought to “find a migration path between the past and the future”. “If you are a traditional company it is a much harder transition to moving from bureaucracy”. Aversive strategies to shifting out of bureaucracy do not work. It is about a gradual migration path”.
Some other sentiments shared by Professor Hamel worth further exploration:
- HR is the fastest growing function of the organization but has the least buy-in and respect within the organization. We need to ask ourselves why we struggle to self-actualize when this premise is true.
- The world is changing too quickly to be tied to hierarchical constructs. Why are you holding onto hierarchical constructs? Is it because it truly works for you or is it about control? It is worthy of some further exploration.
- Technology will be used to disempower more than empower.
- Technology is used to aggregate and exert control.
- Employees come first, customers’ second, shareholders last. If your employees aren’t happy, it is safe to say no one will be happy. Nurture your people first and everything else in business will flourish.
Gary is ingenious in the way he sees the world. He had a lot more to say, so as such I am sharing my Growth on my Terms podcast recording of the Gary Hamel Q&A. Have a listen and reflect on where your organization is and how you can begin to reimagine work while envisioning a gradual migration to less bureaucracy and more trusting professional ties and relationships.
I have wondered for decades why the world world is so rigid. Most efficient work can be done in 4 days not 5 and staggered hours of companies could ease the commuter crush. It’s insane. As for “designing one’s job’ I certainly agree that there should be more autonomy and ability to interact and contribute to other parts of one’s entity. It is neither healthy nor wise for productivity to keep people robotically slotted into one area. I hate the words, “not my function.” Unless something is so highly technical beyond one’s training or expertise, we should be able to understand the integral workings of departments under one roof without territorial fears, etc. Alain de Boton in his School of Life videos says that we would like to do multiple jobs:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtKhYhZwTCw. As for making work broader for myself, I strove and was successful at going beyond my scope in the field of employment and career counseling for a government entity and civil service environment that, by its very nature, attempted to keep me down on the farm. People brought a bevy of life problems to the table. I didn’t just help them with assessment, training and job search. I also provided referrals to mental health therapy, no-coast healthcare community organizations for basic life needs and beyond. How fulfilling to be able to say that I directed people in saving their homes from foreclosure and getting life-saving medicines and treatments, toys for their children at Christmas — and more — besides my expected “function” of performing and executing the duties I was assigned. And I have never known any entity to communicate with all the staff. Usually I hear people flying by the seat of their pants with “No one told us they changed (this or that)…” What’s up with that? I also note that companies are big on touting creativity and entertaining new ideas but in reality, there is often no such environment. I’ve written a few original pieces on the problems of corporate mentalities for LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/no-thinking-allowed-enigma-gloria-j-schramm/ and https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/folloy-team-playing-gloria-j-schramm/
Thank you for your comment. Funny enough ( and unfortunately too), I was just speaking with a colleague last night about how creativity and innovation is often a shiny object that looks nice from afar, but when these companies get it; there is often no ecosystem in place to support it. You and I are both fortunate in the latitude we had ( and in some cases gave ourselves) to be more expansive in our respective roles. I believe it has given us a much broader view than others. I appreciate you reading and hope this finds you well.