This article is the conclusion of a series discussing the management book Humanocracy.
Published in the series:
Is bureaucracy the right opponent?
In this series of articles we have dealt in detail with the seven principles of humanocracy. We have taken a critical and differentiated look at the ingredients of humanocracy and repeatedly pointed out the implicit problems, contradictions, and possible exaggerations. The authors would probably not disagree with many of our comments; after all, exaggerations are unavoidable when you want to develop a new idea on around 300 pages.
In this concluding article, we want to zoom out again and look at humanocracy in its entirety: What kind of organization do Hamel & Zanini have in mind? Is it worthwhile setting out on the pathway to this organization? And does their book provide enough guidance to successfully complete the journey?
Does an organization with little bureaucracy really become more humane?
All in all, the outcome of Hamel & Zanini’s descriptions is an organizational model with strong individualizing tendencies: a lot of autonomy for small organizational units with their own responsibility for results and the market as the central coordination mechanism. The proximity to neo-liberal ideology is unmistakable and consistently perpetuated in the organization. However, it is doubtful whether the organization described by the authors is a more humane organization – and in fact whether this is even the authors’ main concern.
They themselves do not really specify the problem humanocracy provides an answer to. Sometimes they say: “In a humanocracy, the organization is the instrument – it’s the vehicle human beings use to better their lives and the lives of those they serve” (20); in other places, the focus is more on maximizing organizational innovation and less on improving the conditions for human cooperation, e.g. when the authors emphasize that organizations must be “more innovative, adaptable, and inspiring” (109) because after all, it is about “getting to the future first” (209).
Regardless of which of the goals you set yourself, you have to question whether bureaucracy is the right opponent. It is not individual organizational structures that make life in an organization more bearable or more arduous, but the interplay of these structures in the contexts in which they exist. If an organization’s only problem were to be the first to move into the future, humanocracy would be a good signpost. But it would be difficult to find an organization that can afford to make this its only relevant goal. And where other goals are (or have to be) pursued and additional aspects need to be taken into account, you have to take a closer look and translate the abstract principles of humanocracy into concrete structures.
How do you resolve the contradictions between the principles?
If we stay at the level of principles, many things seem plausible – and even more possible. The principles of humanocracy are formulated in very general terms and are therefore more akin to values that can hardly be contradicted. But precisely because they are formulated in very general terms, the contradictions between the principles tend to be obscured. Some principles of humanocracy tend to favor the development and pursuit of particular interests (such as ownership, market or meritocracy); other principles tend to focus more on organizational interests (especially community or openness).
But these two structural forces are difficult to reconcile. Community spirit and openness reach their limits where there is a fear of competitive disadvantages or where one’s own performance is not sufficiently appreciated. We are confronted with these contradictions at the latest when developing concrete organizational structures for creative organizations. In any case, all proponents of humanocracy can only be advised to sensitize themselves to such contradictions and keep an eye out for them. You can be guided by humanocratic principles and still develop dysfunctional organizational structures – and that will help neither the organization nor its members.
Personnel is the most relevant decision premise
This book understandably has to leave many questions about the specific design of organizational structures unanswered. However, one thing is unmistakable: humanocracy aims to give particular relevance to the decision-making premise of personnel.1 According to Hamel & Zanini, the establishment of communication channels and (conditional) programs is the cause of what they believe is the central problem of organizations: bureaucracy. The authors contrast this with the vision of an organization that is primarily supported by its personnel.
It is true to say that there are organizations that are largely structured by their personnel, e.g. universities and, in some cases, hospitals. In these cases, however, the members find other support contexts such as profession-related nouns that provide orientation. Where there are no orientation frameworks outside an organization, it will be necessary to examine very carefully what you can and want to demand of your own personnel. A maximum degree of autonomy and responsibility may seem like a work paradise to some employees and especially motivate them.
But this is certainly not true of everyone. And even if it is certainly far from unusual for organizations to overburden their members, there is a growing risk that excessive demands on individuals will very quickly turn into organizational problems if those individuals are also the supporting structural pillars of the organization.
The path from the abstract to the concrete remains long
Humanocracy places people at the center and makes them the dominant structural principle of an organization. This is certainly valuable as a thought experiment and an expansion of the thinking space – not least in the design of organizations. But precisely because this outline of humanocracy has quite a high cruising altitude, the development of creative organizational structures needs to be precisely organized – with a view to the concrete needs of the organization in question.
In the end, it may prove more humane (i.e. more people-friendly) to apply humanocratic ideas sparingly.
