This article is part of a series that discusses the management book Humanocracy. The core of Humanocracy is made up of seven principles that are intended to provide orientation when you have to design organizations or act within them. This article deals with the first principle: the principle of experimentation.
The core idea
The principle of experimentation is based on an evolutionary idea: the abundance of ideas arising in organizations can be understood as variations that are similar to mutations in the genetic code. In line with evolutionary logic, the ideas that prove to be particularly robust in their interaction with the environment (e.g. with regard to customer requirements) will prevail.
In this context, experimentation is the attempt to increase the number of ideas in order to increase the probability of the best possible adaptation, e.g. to meet customers’ exact needs. According to Hamel & Zanini, the challenge is to hold on to ideas and refine them instead of immediately discarding them when initial setbacks occur. It is precisely in this patient ongoing development of ideas that the authors see the great strength of humanocracy over bureaucracy. Bureaucracies have an aversion to experimentation and are geared toward producing reliable products.
Deviations from given standards are typically perceived by bureaucracies as disruptions that need to be avoided (200). Besides, bureaucracies lack sufficient ambition and the patience to develop ideas in the face of resistance and setbacks (203). In humanocracy, on the other hand, every employee needs to think and act like an entrepreneur: “In humanocracy, everyone needs to be a maker, roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty, and build something” (208).
Our considerations
With the principle of experimentation, Hamel & Zanini are clearly on the side of exploration in the tense trade-off between exploration and exploitation1 . But as with any tension, the challenge lies precisely in avoiding one-sidedness. Of course, there is a real danger of falling into the competence trap. Because you do what you do, you become better at what you do, and subsequently focus even more on what you have always done and neglect other options.
This may maximize success in the short term, but you risk not being able to respond well to changing circumstances in the longer term. Even if you are convinced of its importance, you will still have to recognize the inherent risks of uninhibited experimentation. If new things are constantly being tried out, there is no chance of developing routines. In this, Hamel & Zanini see the superiority of humanocracy over bureaucracy, but also the function that routines have for organizations.
Without routines, organizations find themselves in a constant state of unrest,2 which comes at the expense of efficiency and possibly of their own identity as well. Who exactly are you when you potentially could be anything? And what’s more, experiments have to be affordable in economic terms. And the economic foundation is likely to be created primarily by doing what you are good at, even without too much extra effort. Exploitation then becomes a prerequisite for even being able to embark on the adventure of exploration.
How it could work
At its core, the question of experimentation is more of a gradual problem. An organization that does not allow itself any experiments at all or whose structures have a demotivating effect on experimentation should certainly look for opportunities to create more space for experiments. But just as scientific experiments require a non-experimental infrastructure with, for example, highly standardized and calibrated microscopes being used, organizational experiments also need a stable structure that creates a suitable framework. In this respect, it is less a question of mystifying experiments and ascribing them an unquestionable intrinsic value, but rather of creating an environment in which experiments, and perhaps even daring ones, are possible as a meaningful addition to existing routines.
The next article in this series:
