Shifting from Control Management to the Knowledge Driven Organization
by Bob Hill

In most organizations today "politics" refers to the relationships of influence or power that control how an organization is run. Because influence and power have so often been turned to personal advantage, the term has come to mean the

"...one's motivation tends to be summed up by the question, 'What's in it for me?' Any action taken in the interest of one's peers... will be scrutinized for hidden agendas."

unacknowledged maneuvering by people in power, or people seeking power, as they align, marshal and control other people and events for self-serving purposes.

Such a political climate can seriously impede or defeat an organization's efforts to adopt an approach more condusive to the knowledge worker. Most organizations that decide to follow such a management track recognize the need to change these old political behaviors, but do not realize the magnitude of the effort required. Altering the behavior of a few individuals represents only superficial change. Shifting to the knowledge driven organization means overturning an old political order that has become deeply entrenched in the organization's culture, management approach and structure.

Three conceptual principles underlie this powerful control paradigm, comprising its impact on an organization. Each principle in itself poses a strong counter political dynamic to that of empowering employees to use their knowledge, while together the three principles work according to a self-perpetuating logic that makes this political paradigm difficult to change.

First Principle: Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" Theory: Creating a Culture that Justifies Control
This first principle serves as the basis or justification for the politics of control. It has been so universally accepted as a kind of economic law -- some call it the very basis of capitalism -- that challenging it seems tantamount to being

"The organizational culture created by the combination of competitive self-interest and control management can be abusive, humiliating and dehumanizing."

anti-American. But challenge it we must in order to achieve a different political environment from that created by the reigning political order, i.e., control.

To reiterate in brief Smith's "invisible hand" premise, it is that every person has an obligation to work in behalf of one's own self-interest, i.e., survival, and not concern oneself with the welfare of others, or of society in general. The result in the economic world, Smith theorized, if individuals and organizations alike practice "competitive self-interest," will be a society that orders itself according to a kind of "invisible hand" effect that will work to the good of the whole. In the economic realm, a "natural" ordering or sorting will take place through the competitiveness of individual entrepreneurs that will filter out the poor performances of the lazy and the weak, while bringing the best products at the fairest prices to the market. Society will then be well served through the creation of a secure economic base of opportunity for all.

"One's right to be heard, to be taken seriously, to be treated with respect, to have one's ideas valued and recognized -- in short to be treated as a whole human being -- is in direct proportion to where one resides on the pyramid."

How has this worked within the economic organization of the twentieth century? Or a better question might be, what are the expected behaviors where competitive self-interest is the determinant norm? To begin with, one's motivation tends to be summed up by the question, "What's in it for me?" Any action taken in the interest of one's peers (internal customers), especially if it has visibility to "management," will be scrutinized for hidden agendas. On the other hand, political moves that take advantage of another's vulnerability are well within the accepted norm, sometimes even grudgingly admired. Success comes through out-performing one's colleagues, or worse, through advancing because of their poor performance.

Within the organizational culture as a whole, a sense of insecurity is generated that for many translates into a deep seated fear (Deming's eighth point). While a few take this as a challenge, pitting themselves and their wits against a hostile environment, others will refuse to take any risk, or will become adept at playing the political game of influence with those in power. Trust and cooperation are spoken of as rare, while working in behalf of the customer, internal or external, becomes no more than a slogan.

For those who do succeed, competitive self-interest takes on a kind of moral authority that justifies their behavior in behalf of the greater economic good. They often become loyal defenders of the control paradigm as the political order that holds back anarchy and organizational disintegration.

Second Principle: Control Management
Within such an environment, control becomes of paramount importance. An organization that sanctions such a mode of working achieves order and efficiency, that is some semblance of a unified effort, by enforcing on the many the authority of the few.

"Group dynamics, or team behaviors, are held in check by the 'invisible hand' of political control..."

The organizational culture created by the combination of competitive self-interest and control management can be abusive, humiliating and dehumanizing. As an individual worker, one tends to see oneself as no more than a pawn or commodity to be allocated to one task or another at the dictates of "upper management." If one has no political clout, then one's ideas are not valued, nor is one's self-esteem respected. Collective bargaining becomes the logical political response for such a disenfranchised work force. The issue isn't simply wages, or even working conditions, but one's right to be treated as a thinking, feeling, as well as working, human being. Yet even for the manager who has "made it," it is of paramount importance to know one's place, to know how to cultivate the favor of those in power above one. One must understand and behave according to -- at an almost unconscious behavioral level -- the ruling political order. The "politics of control" have become the "invisible hand" that effects order within the greater whole.

As such, leadership is egocentric. The most politically powerful ego holds sway. Power is accumulated and authority is coveted, while the potential of anyone who has not adopted the control paradigm or who has not been assigned a position vested with authority is restricted. At any meeting, whether of managers or non-managers, or a mixture of both, a pecking order must be established in order for the meeting to come to anything. Such behavior becomes second nature. Group dynamics, or team behaviors, are held in check by the "invisible hand" of political control, i.e., the competitive self-interest of those in leadership positions. Problem solving, decision making, or any thinking activity must originate from individuals vested with the political authority of the organization. In short, leadership has definite political overtones that must line up with the hierarchical powers of the organization, otherwise it will be viewed as "out-of-order."

Third Principle: The Pyramid Principle
Inherent in a culture that adopts competitive self-interest is the management pyramid. One's place on this pyramid carries an intrinsic value, which positions one in relation to the other human beings within the organization, and ultimately in relation to society in general. One's right to be heard, to be taken seriously, to be treated with respect, to have one's ideas valued and recognized -- in short to be treated as a whole human being -- is in direct proportion to where one resides on the pyramid. So deeply entrenched has this evaluation become that the individual accepts it at some level as a measure of personal worth.

The mini-society within the organization has been in this way structured into a quasi-class or caste system. The rights of members of a particular class are in direct proportion to where it falls on the pyramid, and how influential it is with those above it. Access to information, participation in decision-making, communication -- all become available or restricted according to that position.

Compensation on the different rungs of the pyramid is also structured according to different systems. As a non-manager (lower rungs) one's time is monitored, measured, and paid for as a commodity. This has two effects, both working to segregate and strengthen the class structure. First, the significance of one's work or contribution is valued or devalued according to whether one is paid by the hour, or by a wage. For the hourly worker, one's contribution is given no more significance than time expended. The effect is to keep the hourly worker's aspirations low, and to restrict one's efforts to a narrow range of duties. This latter is often as much self-imposed as management imposed, out of a sense of resentment. "I will do no more than what I'm paid to do, put in no more hours than my due."

The second effect can be deeply psychological. The two distinct systems reinforce the lines of control and determine the level of trust and responsibility the organization is willing to vest in one. In short, a kind of psychological hierarchy is established that has the hourly employee working like an indentured servant, not for the customer, or even for the organization, but for one's immediate superior. The us/them syndrome is built on a strong foundation of class discrimination. One's validation as a human being with certain organizational rights is proportional to how one is paid, and where one is positioned in the hierarchical pyramid.

The politics of control have in the hierarchical pyramid a class structure that ironically creates a clear justification for control, since the adversarial environment it develops clearly requires control management. Thereby, an intrinsic logic, a kind of Gordian knot, is created that makes breaking away from this powerful paradigm a complex and difficult undertaking.

Bob Hill is the president of Tunnell Consulting.

Back to Performance Excellence Practice