Some concepts continue as an option for a long time, and then, become an absolute necessity. Adhocracy is one such concept whose time has arrived. A diversity of factors is promoting adhocracy in our times. Technological, economical and philosophical in nature, these factors cannot be discussed without the mind of the millennials being discussed too.
Millennials have overturned our notion of permanence, especially where the corporate world is concerned. There is a restlessness about this generation. At the slightest provocation, it wants to move on to greener pastures — often, to what it perceives to be greener pastures. Given this, organisational de-layering is imperative. This young workforce wants to have a part in the decision-making process, demands a reasonable amount of autonomy in day-to-day functioning and wants to be asked, not told, what to do.
Enablers, not managers
“The conventional hierarchy has to be broken down. Though this may sound like a revolutionary thought today, the role of the manager will become redundant in the future. The ‘enabler’ will take the place of the manager, as we know him now. Executives will be seen as enablers, and their authority will be defined by the roles they take up from time to time. A team will look for an enabler to achieve certain goals. For a new set of goals, it may move on to another enabler within the organisation,” says Sashikanth Jayaraman, founder of HR Sangam, an association of HR professionals.
The technology factor
Another factor promoting adhocracy today is the constant strides taken by the world of technology. Companies find themselves in an environment where their adaptive skills are constantly tested.
“Tech companies especially feel the heat and to respond to new challenges, they have to dismantle a structure and create a new one and keep repeating the process. The structure is defined by context. Even non-tech companies are not spared the trouble of going through this process. To be innovative, they have to do this in certain areas. The structure created in this manner is fluid and re-defined by changing contexts” says A. Geethan, organisational development specialist.
Humble enquiry
In the new workplace dynamics, the concept of authority has irrevocably changed. Now, leaders are effective only when they cease to act like leaders.
“Leaders are now expected to lead by making ‘humble enquiry’. Through constant interactions and suggestions, governed by a spirit of respect, they have to inspire their team members to a higher level of performance. Authority and power have to be wielded with caution,” explains Geethan.
The notion of leadership has changed in more ways than one. In a world ruled by adhocracy, the moment makes the leader. It’s common for employees to be allowed to ‘lead without authority’. Within his sphere of influence and specialisation, each employee can take decisions. This system makes for a higher level of responsibility, which, in turn, promotes employee engagement.
‘For big businesses too’
Adhocracy can be easily promoted in start-ups and smaller units, but larger corporations offer an inbuilt resistance to it. For the sake of control, many layers would have been created. Jayaraman, however, believes adhocracy is possible anywhere. “There is always the possibility of breaking a large unit into smaller units and ensuring the right number of employees are found in each of them to ensure that the goals of greater autonomy and minimal supervision are achieved,” he says.
Structure and freedom go together
While open allocation — where employees are empowered to decide how they want to work with just minimal supervision — seems like an attractive option, it can invite chaos if it comes without clearly-defined boundaries.
Explains Geethan, “ Ad hoc culture has to be introduced within a system. An organisation is a social structure and individuals working within it have to align their personal goals with the larger goals for which it was created. To be effective, an ad hoc culture needs the supportive fence of a system. It’s the system that gives meaning to adhocracy and enables it to be enjoyed optimally. An experiment that was conducted with a group of children illustrates this. These children were allowed to enter a huge playground that lacked any clear boundaries and asked to explore it. The students gathered in the centre and were focussed only on exploring this area. Then, a boundary was created within the playground, following which the students fanned out and started exploring the area up to the boundary. Then, the boundary was extended and the children explored the extended area within the newly-defined outer limits. Far from crippling the children, the boundaries encouraged them to explore more than they did before. So it is with organisations. Adhocracy will lose its meaning and be reduced to chaos, if there is no structure. The message is: just extend the boundaries, but don’t do away with them.”
