Dear all,
In response to Drucker's quote....
>"Hierarchy," and the unquestioning acceptance of it by everyone in
>the organization, is the only hope in a crisis.
My experience in crisis actually shows this to be both true and false.
Allow me to explain.... While a crisis tends to demand a hierarchal
structure due to the need for speed, HOW it forms is the issue.
One would assume that the traditional "highest ranking member" in an
organization would assume control in a crisis. As a member of a
manufacturing plant's "Emergency Command Center" team, what I have
OBSERVED is a slightly different structure in actual crisis situations.
In an actual crisis, the team does assume a hierarchal structure but it
tends to emerge DEPENDING ON THE PROBLEM AND THE REQUIRED EXPERTISE
NEEDED. For example, if the crisis is a FIRE situation, the "Fire Chief"
assumes the true leader's role while the "Emergency Command structure"
provides support. Although the Plant manager may be doing the
communication to the press, it's the "Fire Chief" who is leading the real
work.
In another crisis situation involving a plant problem due to pending
equipment failure it was the "Engineering Manager" with high technical
skills who assumed the key leadership role. Again the same hierarchal
structure provided the efficient support, but the actual decisions were
being led by the ONE MOST QUALIFIED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
Very often I observed three natural teams form; the "Mitigation" team
(resolve the immediate crisis), the "Escalation" team (be prepared if
things get to worse case) and the "Investigation" team (find out why it
happened). Upon closer introspection, the teams formed within a TIME
framework.. that is NOW (resolve crisis), NEAR FUTURE (if things get
worse) and DISTANT FUTURE (prevent incident from happening again).
This notion of leadership by "most qualified" was also evident in many
Native American cultures. It was not unusual in the Blackfoot culture to
see the best hunter lead the hunting expeditions and the best warrior lead
the charge into battle. What is evident is the need to recognize all the
talents of people on a team if the team indeed wants to increase it's
chance for survival to the highest probability. This will necessitate
some "ego swallowing" that many are not ready to face. I've heard of many
battlefield crisis situations where the privates follow someone more
qualified to lead in the trenches than the "well trained but not seasoned"
official leader. This is done for survival.
Somehow the issues of "emergence" and "creativity" fit in this discussion.
Perhaps someone could continue from here?
Chuck Wallace
ChukAmyJas@aol.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>