For me, it’s frustrating when making/defending a critical point (fundamental for increased understanding), only to realize that I’d been making the point over and over again for a decade (accepting potential problems with the message, I’m not convinced it’s the primary barrier). So I’m sensitive to other people, like Jon Husband, with key messages that are traction-challenged (barring recent attention in KM circles). Indeed, even Jon was lamenting repeating himself over and over again in his comments to an earlier post by colleague, Tom Mandel.

In 1999 Jon coined the term wirearchy to capture a reality where authority isn’t hierarchical, where interconnected listening is fundamental to success:

“a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority, based on knowledge, credibility, trust and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology

Hierarchy has typically meant:
- Size
- Role Clarity
- Functional specialization
- Power

Wirearchy is shaping up to mean:
- Speed
- Flexibility
- Integration
- Innovation”

From my perspective, this definition positions wirearchy as a conditional means to achieve 2.0.

Jon really caught my attention in an exchange of comments to one of my own posts. The topic wasn’t as important as his way of thinking about achieving a 2.0 future state:

“I’d call it redefining knowledge work along the lines of more natural human cognitive processes (they of course existed, but were constrained and handicapped by structure, protocol, policies, reporting lones, exclusion from basic decision-making, and so on).  These processes occur in the hands and with the heads of knowledge workers, and find more effectiveness in interaction and collaboration … constructing purposeful knowledge out of relevant information.  The heavy-duty databases have by and large been built, the social computing tools, services and platforms can be layered over those databases, and information and expertise are now beginning to find ways to find each other and get to work.”

I concurred with the constraints he pointed out:

“Amen. The problem from where I’m sitting is that the list of handicaps are still well-entrenched in most companies and will only be ‘moved’ via the efforts of the collaborative masses. It’s a bit difficult to affect/challenge anything that’s not recognized as being in existence.  

The biggest challenges: denial and apathy.”

Jon added:

“Agree, and might go a tad further. The people in organizations charged with ‘designing’ and managing work use the same tools and methods, by and large, today, as they did ten or twenty years ago, and those are based on assumptions and beliefs that have been around for quite a while.

If you don’t have ways and methods, etc. of organizing (and managing, controlling, measuring, etc.) then maybe what is shaping up in front of you, you can’t ‘see’”

That’s what I mean by ‘redefining’ knowledge work. What does this new territory mean for .. job descriptions, job evaluation, competency analysis and models, performance management schemes, compensation policies and practices, teleworking. and so on, and so on.  Slippery beast … I doubt many organizations will let their workers work as a small startup might (although they could !!). 

Gary Hamel’s new book The Future of Management is basically exactly about this stuff. He is calling for a new Management 2.0 that takes its cure from Web 2.0.”

As I explored Jon’s thinking further I uncovered:

• His insights from reading Gary Hamel’s book [My placeholder for top quote: “Right now, your company has 21st-century Internet-enabled business processes, mid-20th-century management processes, all built atop 19th-century management principles.”]
• Great commentary from others who listened to the podcast of Jon interviewing Dave Snowden. [1]   [2] 
• Jon’s frustration over losing great ideas without a digital voice recorder (I just gave in and ordered one)

Jon has his finger on the pulse and knows how to ask the right questions. He’s a key synthesizer. Not only can he connect the dots, he knows which dots are relevant to the picture. More importantly, he believes there is a picture, while most others don’t even notice the dots, let alone believe that they can or should be connected.