Three Gaps Caused by Bureaucratic Thinking

Bureaucratic thinking divides “thinking” and “working”: With increasing rate of changes, the organization needs to be adapted in such a way that it can respond effectively to the dynamic changes and to variety in the environment. That requires a different kind of 'control,' for example, the control on desired outcomes, keep the end in mind. From a managerial point of view, the 'Command & Control' changes from commanding What to do, When, How and by Whom (micromanagement) towards a 'Command & Control' by defining the desired OUTPUTS, but encourage the alternative and better way to do things, without getting stuck with “we always do things like that” mentality. In digital leading organizations, the division between 'working' and 'thinking' is replaced by combining and integrating 'working and thinking' at the operational level, where people do the real work by unifying mind, heart, and hands. Going forward, it’s all about the balance of avoiding any excess in setting the 'rules,' but remain the necessary control, and ultimately, a proper homeostatic system designed seems to protect an organization's immunity and keep the business healthy. Levels and ways of inertia manifestation could be a criterion for measuring the overall organizational health and digital fitness.
Change gaps: Bureaucratic thinking is a reason behind change inertia or vice versa. If analogizing an organization as a human body, it depends on where the resistance is aimed; if it is aimed against remedy, then it’s a pathogen; but if it’s aimed against the disease, it is from the immune system. The immune system protects and shields us against illness, and it also resists and fights against all agents threatening our well-being. More often, change resistance is an attribute of the pathogen, not of the immune system, and the increase of change resistance causes a concomitant loss of immunity. Bureaucracy = Process Inefficiency. No Bureaucracy ≠ No Rules. When you design business processes by state flow instead of activity flow, and by using various categories of rules instead of the usual 'command and control' rules. That's a real good solution for defining a framework for activities, and at the same time keeping the necessary flexibility in place.

Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Published on January 17, 2017 23:27
No comments have been added yet.