![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Organisational structures
Jun. 3rd, 2008 10:45 amOne of the things I have to do for my job is think about organisations and how they work; as David International grows into an industrial behemoth figuring out how to make that work because if I don't do so then I won't become as enormously wealthy as I hope to.
What organisation structuire appears to come down to is how much hierarchy there is (and how rigid that hierarchy is), and how many rules & regulations there are within the organisation (and how strictly they are enforced); a structural chart which may be illustrated thus:
Pretty much any organisation can be plotted onto this chart somewhere and, like most people, I've spent a lot of my working life in organisations which are Coercive Bureaucracies - lots of rules and the boss leaves you in no uncertanty as to who is in charge. Obvoiusly, the ideal is to work for either an Organic organisation or Enabling Bureaucracy, depending on the type of work to be done. However, it's quite clear that the larger an organisation becomes the harder it comes to exist without a large management structure meaning that bigger organisations tend to be hierarchical, and so, if one wants to work for a bigger organisation the choice you're faced with is finding one which is enabling rather than coercive. I've worked for one or two Enabling Bureaucracies and they were nice places; I've worked for more Coercive Bureaucracies which pretended they were Enabling, and that seems to be not unusual.
Right now, I like to think that David International is an Organic organisation. We're still quite small with a very flat structure. As we grow, the difficulty facing me will be avoiding becoming coercive rather than enabling.
So I'm curious - what sort of organisation do you work for?
[Poll #1198498]
Now me, being th epolitically minded sort of chap that I am, started thinking about the above chart in relation to the current government and I immediately think that The Uk Administration is a Coercive Bureaucracy - thousands of rules (over 3,200 new laws since 1997) which are rigidly enforced and a very clear hierarchy. Of course the govt. holds 'consultation exercises' and the like, but when was the last time one of those changed a decision already made? Like I say above: most Coercive Hierarchies like to pretend they're Enabling, and the government is no different in that regard.
Of course, I might be wrong, so what do you think?
[Poll #1198499]
If I'm any judge - and I hope I am - the most popular result in the second poll will be Coercive Bureaucracy, and by a wide margin.
Of course I'm going somewhere with this - I always am, aren't I?
Looking at the structural diagram above, something about it struck me. I'd seen it before. And a lot of you lot have, too. You see, the diagram maps almost exactly onto this:
I've put them side by side so you can compare.
It's a sobering thought, the realisition that the larger an organisation becomes, the more likely it is to become Lawful Evil. This means that my old boss was the same alignment as a Mind Flayer, which would explain a lot. I wonder if she was worth as many XP as well?
Various philosophers have observed that people will, if they can, be good, and it's a truism that organisations only change their behaviour is their customers demand it; for example Nike only started paying it's workers in Vietnam decent wages because of consumer protests, and those protests were based on the perception of the consumers that they were good people and the threat of lost custom if business practices were not changed. As such, we can see that although organisations growing larger leads to them being more likely to become evil, consumer pressure can push them towards being less so.
From there, we can postulate that monopolies, which are less receptive to consumer and employee pressure, are more likely to be evil, which is why governments tend to be Coercive Hierarchies as they have a monopoly on power.
It's nice to realise that the free market and competition is more likely to result in behaviour that we can regard as good.
And people say that the D&D alignment system makes no sense.
What organisation structuire appears to come down to is how much hierarchy there is (and how rigid that hierarchy is), and how many rules & regulations there are within the organisation (and how strictly they are enforced); a structural chart which may be illustrated thus:
Pretty much any organisation can be plotted onto this chart somewhere and, like most people, I've spent a lot of my working life in organisations which are Coercive Bureaucracies - lots of rules and the boss leaves you in no uncertanty as to who is in charge. Obvoiusly, the ideal is to work for either an Organic organisation or Enabling Bureaucracy, depending on the type of work to be done. However, it's quite clear that the larger an organisation becomes the harder it comes to exist without a large management structure meaning that bigger organisations tend to be hierarchical, and so, if one wants to work for a bigger organisation the choice you're faced with is finding one which is enabling rather than coercive. I've worked for one or two Enabling Bureaucracies and they were nice places; I've worked for more Coercive Bureaucracies which pretended they were Enabling, and that seems to be not unusual.
Right now, I like to think that David International is an Organic organisation. We're still quite small with a very flat structure. As we grow, the difficulty facing me will be avoiding becoming coercive rather than enabling.
So I'm curious - what sort of organisation do you work for?
[Poll #1198498]
Now me, being th epolitically minded sort of chap that I am, started thinking about the above chart in relation to the current government and I immediately think that The Uk Administration is a Coercive Bureaucracy - thousands of rules (over 3,200 new laws since 1997) which are rigidly enforced and a very clear hierarchy. Of course the govt. holds 'consultation exercises' and the like, but when was the last time one of those changed a decision already made? Like I say above: most Coercive Hierarchies like to pretend they're Enabling, and the government is no different in that regard.
Of course, I might be wrong, so what do you think?
[Poll #1198499]
If I'm any judge - and I hope I am - the most popular result in the second poll will be Coercive Bureaucracy, and by a wide margin.
Of course I'm going somewhere with this - I always am, aren't I?
Looking at the structural diagram above, something about it struck me. I'd seen it before. And a lot of you lot have, too. You see, the diagram maps almost exactly onto this:
I've put them side by side so you can compare.
It's a sobering thought, the realisition that the larger an organisation becomes, the more likely it is to become Lawful Evil. This means that my old boss was the same alignment as a Mind Flayer, which would explain a lot. I wonder if she was worth as many XP as well?
Various philosophers have observed that people will, if they can, be good, and it's a truism that organisations only change their behaviour is their customers demand it; for example Nike only started paying it's workers in Vietnam decent wages because of consumer protests, and those protests were based on the perception of the consumers that they were good people and the threat of lost custom if business practices were not changed. As such, we can see that although organisations growing larger leads to them being more likely to become evil, consumer pressure can push them towards being less so.
From there, we can postulate that monopolies, which are less receptive to consumer and employee pressure, are more likely to be evil, which is why governments tend to be Coercive Hierarchies as they have a monopoly on power.
It's nice to realise that the free market and competition is more likely to result in behaviour that we can regard as good.
And people say that the D&D alignment system makes no sense.
