Century XXI Business Relationship Rules

So the U.S. is working harder to put out on the table what it thinks are the new rules in dealing with terrorism suspects ("U.S. Spells Out New Definition Curbing Torture," by Neil A. Lewis). Did those new rules come only after abuse came to light? Sure. But frankly, that's how new rules come about in our system all the time. That's why the press is so important, and Congress too, and then there's the courts, and the Ralph Naders of the world—all good stuff. Scandals are never a bad sign. Show me a place with no scandals and I'll show you a dictatorship. Scandals are the mother's milk of new rules.

That's from a recent blog post by Tom Barnett. It got me thinking about the process for re-defining business relationship rules for the 21st century.

Over the past couple of hundred years, we modern humans became enamored with tidy lines of demarcation. National boundaries: "US here, Canada there." Personal identity: "Dads do this, Moms do that." Corporate structures: "HR is the people in these boxes, Marketing the ones in those." Neat. Clean. Organized. Reasonable. Appollonian.

But the earliest indicators of 21st century realities seem to be moving away from the tidiness we've sought since the Enlightenment. From Wikipedia:

The Enlightenment began then, from the belief in a rational, orderly and comprehensible universe - and proceeded, in stages, to demand a rational and orderly organization of knowledge and the state....

The "rational" (read: linear) organization of knowledge and the state propelled Western thinking toward the establishment of more, and more complex, levels of organizational boxes into which things, ideas and people could be placed. Henry Ford created a quintessentially American Apollonian reality when he invented the assembly line: discrete elements sequentially connected with other discrete elements by people performing separate, prescribed, discrete tasks. Damn, that was tidy!

And, all of that seemed to work for a good part of the 20th century. Space, time, people all stayed in their containers and were what they were. But, Einstein, Heisenberg and the rest of those spoilsports changed all that. Next thing you knew, boom, Beatles, "former Soviet Union," Toyota Production Process, Internet. (OK, so that condenses history a bit, but, it's only a blog entry, not a tome.)

But, condenses it to what end?

To the end of demonstrating one of the emerging rules of the 21st century business relationship rule set.

Pre-determined, discretely defined, sequentially organized, separate, fixed-role, tidy relationships have given way to dynamically reorganizing, fluidly defined, interactively organizing, connected, flexible, messy relationships.

Enough to give Apollo a case of the Dionysian bends!

Next, we'll come back to Dr. Barnett's quote and its implications for the new rules.

Thoughts?

Comments

[Jon Husband]

Are you aware of one of Charles handy's earlier and I think lesser-know books, "The Gods of Management", in which he sets out four organizational 'archetypes" if you will .. the typology interwoven with defining structural characteristics.

If my memory serves, he wrote of Apollonian, Dionysian, Zeusian (?) and Athenian - the character of the leader defining the structure she or he operates in most effectively, arranges around him or her, and the ensuing patterns of dynamics.

Mmmm ... it's been a long time since I read that book ... I think it was the one that followed his early opus Understanding Organizations. Anyway, Charles imo has seen a lot of the 21st Century coming, and has been one of my major inspirations.

[Jon Husband]

The Gods Of Management

[Tom Guarriello]

Yes, Jon, I do remember the Handy book...and, amazingly, when writing yesterday's post, it didn't come to mind. Blame that on the vicissitudes of old age! Thanks for the reminder. Handy's one of the organizational thinkers for whom I've always had great regard.