官僚体系必死
|
未来几十年，只有那些能够紧紧跟随变化本身，迅速同步做出改变的组织才能生存下去。 今天，似乎没有多少组织能够一下子提前好些年做出改变。要想让适应能力深入组织的骨髓，我们就需要重新设置每一个管理流程，这样它才能够激发（而不是阻挠）突破性思维和无情的试验。创新需要变成一种本能，一种内在冲动。“员工”需要在经济上依附于组织，非常听组织的话，像这样的观念将不得不被抛弃。 目标：让主动性、创造性和激情在工作场所蓬勃迸发，让职业和副业的分割线消失。 要想让这一切成为现实，官僚体系就必须灭亡。为什么呢？因为官僚体系…… • 增加开销 ——官僚体系建立了多层次结构，数以百计的管理人员把时间花在了管理其他管理人员上面。 • 产生摩擦 ——官僚体系迫使新创意不得不接受多层级审查，造成严重滞后。 • 扭曲决策——官僚体系给予高级主管过多的权力，而这些人往往会把资源投资在旧的流程上面。 • 错配权力——官僚体系奖励那些政治手腕高明的人士，而不是最有能力的领导者。 • 打压异议——官僚体系创建了不对称的权力关系，使得下属很难畅所欲言。 • 误导竞争——官僚体系鼓励个人角逐晋升机会和政治优势。 • 阻挠创新——管理体系过于看重经验，歧视超常规思维。 • 束缚主动性——官僚体系给冒险行为设置了重重障碍。 • 抹杀细微差别——官僚体系集中了过多的决策权，并要求所有人遵守统一的规则和程序。 官僚体系通过所有这些方式征收一种“管理税”(management tax)。就像动脉斑块一样，它基本上是无形的，但它的危险性并不会因此而降低一丝一毫。为了避免这种管理税，我们需要设法采用一种“免税”的方式获得控制，协调和一致性。值得庆幸的是，信息技术可以帮助我们做到这一点。 现代官僚体系出现在一个信息主要以纸张承载，传递成本极其高昂的时期。以控制范围狭窄为特征的传统层级结构恰恰就是对这个问题的回应。在这种结构下，10个左右的下属把信息上报给一位管理人员，后者随即汇总这些数据，然后沿着指挥链进一步向上推送。在这种“巩固和升级”的模式下，身居高位者确实知道得更多。 受到挑战时，身居高位的人往往会捍卫自己根据数量更多的知识做出的决策（无论他们的决策是否真的有事实根据）。这些人通常具有长期的工作资历，进而能够声称自己比下属更有经验——这是另一个为自上而下的决策机制辩护的理由。但现如今，拜信息技术所赐，信息可以很容易地存储，共享和定制。通信和信息技术每前进一步，为官僚体系辩护的理由就会减弱一分。 |
The organizations that survive in the coming decades will be those that are capable of change as fast as change itself. Today, few organizations seem to be able to out-run change for more than a few years at a time. To build organizations that are adaptable at their core, we will need to rework every management process so it enables, rather than frustrates, breakthrough thinking and relentless experimentation. Innovation will need to become instinctual and intrinsic. The notion of the economically dependent, easily biddable "employee" will have to be ditched. The goal: a workplace where initiative, creativity, and passion flourish, and where the line separating vocation and avocation disappear. For any of this to happen, bureaucracy must die. Why? Because bureaucracy … • Adds overhead -- by creating multi-tiered structures where hundreds of managers spend their time managing other managers. • Creates friction -- by forcing new ideas to run a multi-level gauntlet of approval that creates significant lag time. • Distorts decisions -- by giving too much power to senior executives who often have an investment in older processes. • Misallocates power -- by rewarding those who are the most politically adept rather than those who are the most capable leaders. • Discourages dissent -- by creating asymmetric power relationships that make it difficult for subordinates to speak up. • Misdirects competition -- by encouraging individuals to compete for promotion and political advantage. • Thwarts innovation -- by over-weighting experience and under-weighting unconventional thinking. • Hobbles initiative -- by throwing up barriers to risk-taking. • Obliterates nuance -- by centralizing too many decisions and demanding compliance with uniform rules and procedures. In all these ways, bureaucracy imposes a "management tax." Like arterial plaque, it is mostly invisible, but no less dangerous because of that. To avoid the management tax, we need to find ways of acquiring control, coordination, and consistency "duty free." Thankfully, information technology can help us do that. Modern bureaucracy emerged at a time when information was mostly paper-based and expensive to move. The traditional hierarchy, with its narrow span of control, was a response to this problem. Ten or so subordinates would channel information up to a manager who would then summarize the data and push it further up the chain of command. In this model of "consolidate and escalate," those at the top really did know more. When challenged, they could defend their decisions on the basis of superior knowledge (whether or not their decisions were really based on facts.) And those at the top typically had long tenures and could claim to be more experienced than their subordinates -- another justification for top-down decision-making. But today, thanks to IT, information can be easily stored, shared, and customized, and with each new advance in communications and information technology, the rationale for bureaucracy dwindles further. |
