Nobody likes bureaucracy. We all dream of a simple, efficient organization, with clear processes, unambiguous decision-making mechanisms, an organizational chart that’s all we need to know who does what. But it’s not possible, and yes, that’s good news.
Organization is one of the most important inventions of sapiens, our species. At our core, we are social animals who, when faced with a challenge, turn to our fellow creatures and ask, “Who can help me meet this challenge?” It’s through organization that we respond to the challenges we face. In evolution, the most important trait for survival was not intelligence, but sociability. Those who survive are not the most intelligent, but those who manage to be part of a group that nurtures and protects them.
Of course, we’re not the only species that function collectively. Bees, ants, monkeys, wolves, and elephants all form collectives. But bees and ants have a largely automatic existence and are all genetically related. They’ve been doing the same thing for millions of years. Monkeys, wolves, and elephants have more sophisticated social behaviors, but they remain relatively unchanged, and they have relatively simple, unchanging goals: feeding, defense, reproduction. They can only exist in small groups because they need to know each other individually and be in constant contact to live together. A wolf pack is a sophisticated creation, but it can only function through direct leadership. It can’t open a branch in Italy, because wolves can’t manage from a distance.
We’re the only species that can get people who don’t know each other to work together in very large numbers on non-routine tasks. What sets Sapiens apart, then, is our ability to create very large, complex collectives-in other words, organizations.
These collectives are complex because they are designed to solve complex problems. Hunting and gathering can be done efficiently by small groups. Creating an irrigation system, managing a city, cultivating fields, designing and manufacturing an automobile, writing an insurance policy, all require complex organization. These tasks cannot be accomplished by a simple, unchanging structure operating on a routine basis.
As an indispensable complement to complex organization, Sapiens invented management. An anthill doesn’t need management. It operates automatically. Management consists of devising and implementing responses to the challenges the organization faces. Some of these challenges are routine (planting in the fall and harvesting in the spring), but not all. As the challenges change, the response must change. For example, to meet the challenge of economic efficiency, a centralized structure will be a better response than a decentralized one. To meet the challenge of innovation and adaptation, the opposite will be true.
At the heart of the organization: tensions
An organization often has to meet both challenges: economic efficiency and innovation. It cannot choose to be completely centralized or completely decentralized. It has to be a little bit of both. It must maintain a balance, or rather a tension, between the two. There can never be an absolute solution. And this tension can be found on many levels. The strategy must be directive, but it must also leave room for team initiative. We need to have a diversity of profiles, but maintain a common frame of reference. Define processes, but leave room for flexibility. Adapt to customer needs, but control exploding costs. The list goes on. These unresolved tensions create ambiguity and uncertainty: it’s not clear how and by whom decisions are made. Hierarchical lines are unclear. Job profiles are unclear. Responsibilities even less so. But there is a limit beyond which this uncertainty cannot be resolved.
In other words, the belief that it is possible to have an organization where everything is clear and simple is largely illusory. Of course, there are sometimes excesses of complexity (bureaucratization) and organizational pathologies. But we are not ants, and a human organization is not an anthill. It has an intrinsic complexity that can never be reduced, for the simple reason that this complexity is the condition of its functioning. The heart of an organization is a set of tensions. The existence of these tensions is not a sign of bad management. Eliminating them is an illusion. Rather than hoping to make tensions disappear, the challenge is to accept them, because if properly managed, a tension is also a source of energy. A degree of centralization brings efficiency; a degree of decentralization brings responsiveness. Playing with these degrees, depending on the time period, the field, and the country in which we operate, for example, offers a degree of latitude and creativity that is the very essence of management. In short, don’t hope to eliminate tensions in order to simplify: that’s an illusion and would kill the organization. On the contrary, learn to manage them in order to benefit from them!
🇫🇷 French version of this article here.
📬 If you enjoyed this article, don’t hesitate to subscribe to receive future articles via email (“I subscribe” in the upper right corner of the home page).
One thought on “Too bad for the ants: Why an organization can never be simple”