Leadership is broke. The hierarchical system is simply wrong, dated, and full of mistaken assumptions.
See, it was alright to have a leader back in the Middle Ages, or a hundred years ago, when only a few were taught, educated and trained.
In a strictly class system like that, hierarchical organization makes sense, because the resources of the social group have all gone to big monumental works, and wars. Hence, only a few are educated, healthy and knowledgeable.
This has changed: now we have enormous armies of trained professionals, incredibly sophisticated researchers, and easy access to resources, all of which means that people should have a more active role than what they have had up to now.
Nowadays, teams are incredibly competitive, yet they remain expecting something to happen, trapped in a cascade of responsibilities, and completely disconnected from the final result and objective-setting of major enterprises.
The result is inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and lack of agility that has plagued so many corporations. Corporations and enterprises with a rigid hierarchy become liable to changing circumstances and business environments, whereas the flexible ones, even the informally flexible, the ones with strong subversive networks, are more apt at navigating a changing landscape of opportunities.
This post inspired by Brain Dump on the system vs the Command and Control structure:
The managers role itself is a specialist. They should be seen as specialists at getting the best out of their teams. If the manager sees himself as a commander who knows best what decisions should be made then he has not empowered his team. If he is the best at making certain decisions then that decision making domain is his specialism not one of management.
This entry brought to you by work of Valdis Krebs, and the number 7.